Monday, June 11, 2012

This 'n' That

Random musings. Some more detailed than others. Depends on my level of concern. Or my level of anger. However you want to see it.


So, FOX is launching 'MUNDOFOX,' a Spanish speaking network. What will their tagline be? "MUNDOFOX: We love Spic - er, wetba... um, illegal - no, wait - anchorba - ah, eh, heh heh. We're not racist anymore! And balanced." 

“¡Nosotros no somos racistas más! Y equilibrada.”

I can't wait for BETFOX next. I can see it now...

We don’t hate n- shut yo mouth!

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

"The Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more and the poor will work harder if we give them less."
- E.J. Dionne

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
- President Harry S. Truman

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Republicans filibustered the Paycheck Fairness Act. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the Senate voted against it. But no, they aren't waging a war against women.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Mitt Romney held a $50,000 per person fundraiser at Texas Conservative billionaire Harlan Crow's mansion. Nothing wrong with that. Harlan Crow has an admirably extensive collection of professionally curated historical artifacts. Nothing wrong with that, either. In Harlan Crow's collection: two original Adolf Hitler paintings and an original edition personally signed copy of Adolf Hitler's book, Mein Kampf. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, as evidenced by the virtual lack of reporting on the subject.

Now, imagine President Barack Obama holding a fundraiser one day at a home containing Hitler memorabilia.

Then imagine FOX "News" the day after.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

California wants to raise cigarette tax. It is around 60 cents lower than the average cigarette tax in the rest of the states. The money is to go directly toward cancer research, not to the government. In a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California taken in March of this year, just over two months ago, Californians were FOR a cigarette tax hike by 67%. Those against were at 30%. Immediately after that poll, the tobacco industry pumped $47 million into an ad campaign. On Tuesday, June 5, 49% voted YES on the tax, 51% voted NO.

Did people suddenly think the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, California Medical Association, Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids, Stand Up To Cancer, University of California, California Hospital Association, American Association For Cancer Research, Leukemia And Lymphoma Society, Susan G. Komen For The Cure, American Academy Of Pediatrics, American Diabetes Association, California Primary Care Association, California Thoracic Association, Californian Society Of Addiction Medicine and the Children's Hospital & Research Center are all wrong and the tobacco industry is right?

Either people discovered a sudden fondness for cancer or we need to get big corporate money out of politics and return the power back to the people.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Mitt Romney protested IN FAVOR of the Vietnam war. And protested IN FAVOR of the draft.  But at the same time sought and received FOUR deferments to PREVENT himself from personally being drafted into the Vietnam war. He never served. He thinks only unprivileged people should fight in war.

In 1994, when he was running for the US Senate, he told the Boston Herald, "I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft."

He personally sought and received FOUR deferments that removed him from the draft, but didn't take any actions to remove himself from the draft? 'What the fuck,' as the kids say.

When Mitt Romney was running for President in 2007, he told The Boston Globe, "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Let's fucking recap, shall we: Mittens was IN FAVOR of the Vietnam war, but asked FOUR TIMES for an excuse NOT to serve, and he was FOR the draft, just asked FOUR TIMES to NOT be drafted himself, and he NEVER removed himself from the draft EXCEPT for the FOUR TIMES he did and wishes he COULD have been there “representing our country” EXCEPT when it was “not [his] desire to go off and serve in Vietnam” as evidenced by the FOUR TIMES he asked NOT to go there.

 Mitt Romney 'Rewrites' Himself on Vietnam Draft-Dodging

Politicians bend the truth. That's expected. Mitt Romney is an unapologetic, sociopathic LIAR. About EVERYTHING. ALL the time. He has NEVER told the truth. EVER. About ANYTHING. He ONLY tells people what he thinks they want to hear. He ONLY says what he thinks will further his goals.

And the scariest thing about Romney’s lying all the time is that he does not care when he’s caught. He will often double down on the lie or just deny he said it. Whether it’s on tape or not. Never does he ever correct the lie or attempt to explain it. That is sociopathic behavior, not caring if you’re caught lying.

Rachel Maddow Highlights Mitt Romney Lying About His Lies

He believes he’s above something so trivial as the truth. That may be a good business tactic – especially when convincing the government to lend you taxpayer money to purchase a company before you siphon off its every last penny and sell it at no risk to your own company, but that is dangerous when trying to run a country.

Sorry this is a little long, but it’s a good explanation about Mr. Sociopath…

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Mittington R. Money, as well as the rest of the Republican Party have continued to push the idea that businessmen make the best Presidents. Mittington recently agreed with the suggestion of a moronic fan of his that a new requirement for becoming President should be three years of business experience. Aside from the researchable historical fact that all the Presidents of the modern era that were businessmen first (regardless of success) always leave the country in a shambles, running a business for profit is the opposite ideology of running a country for prosperity. Let's take a look at some 20th century Presidents.

Theodore Roosevelt, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Woodrow Wilson, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Warren G. Harding, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a very successful businessman.

Calvin Coolidge, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Herbert Hoover, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a successful businessman.

Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

Harry Truman, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Owned a successful haberdashery for two years until it went bankrupt when the recession of 1921 hit.

Jimmy Carter, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the worst Presidents. Was a successful peanut businessman.

Bill Clinton, Democrat: Ranked by scholars to be one of the best Presidents. Was not a businessman.

George H.W. Bush, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be a mediocre President. Not one of the worst, but not very good, either. Was a successful businessman.

George W. Bush, Republican: Ranked by scholars to be pretty much the fucking worst President ever. Was not at all a successful businessman. In fact, he failed at every single business his father handed him. And he’s our only President who has an MBA (from Harvard – just like Mitt does). But I digress.

This is not to say non-business people always make good Presidents. It just clearly points out that a person with a business background is in no way a qualification to be a good President. Especially since they have a historically researchable 0% success rate at presidenting. They are two completely separate skill sets.

And when Harvard MBA venture capitalist, Mittington R. Money was Governor of Massachusetts, he was, for a fact, 47th out of 50 in job creation. I wonder if that’s something to take into consideration. No, I don’t. It is.

Pay close attention to what this article says after the individual President descriptions.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Mittsy-bitsy Moneyballs claims he has a record of creating jobs. That sounds great. I will grant him he was a VERY successful big business venture capitalist. However, creating jobs was not EVER on his list of priorities. Capitalism is NOT about creating jobs. Especially in big business. The whole entire purpose of a corporation is to make profit and NOT create jobs. The less workers a corporation pays per unit of sale, the higher their profit. The less they pay them, the higher their profit. The less benefits they pay the workers, the higher their profit. The higher their profit, the happier their stockholders. Running a business is about taking care of a small amount of rich people. Running a country is about taking care of 311,000,000 people. Wall Street does not create jobs. However, small businesses that are still growing DO create jobs. Of course, the growth of a small business is only enabled by the consumer demand of their product as well. Do you fucking understand this?

Nick Hanauer brilliantly explains…

And Robert Reich Explains Exactly How Mitt Romney Did Get So Obscenely Rich...

What actually creates jobs? And energizes the economy? And makes big businesses a profit in the process?

High working wages.

Paying employees well enables them to buy more stuff. In turn, more stuff needs to be made. In turn, more employees need to be hired to put out more product. In turn, businesses make more profit. In turn, the economy does well. In turn, everyone does well.

Henry Ford new this 100 years ago. The economic system I just basically described is called Fordism.

Add to this, government investment in infrastructure and a reduction in interest rates, and I just extremely simplistically described Keynesian Economics.

An alternative economic system would be to cut workers, cut salaries, cut benefits and pensions. Cut corporate taxes. Raise CEO salaries. Cut government infrastructure spending. Raise middle class taxes to pay for everything. This system is not sustainable, as well as not good for the middle class in the short and long term. This is what we are doing now. This is why we can’t get out of this depression we’re in. This is exactly what Republicans want and demand. They fight for the rich at the expense of the poor. This is called Trickle-Down Economics. This is called Voo-doo economics. This is called Reaganomics.

Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman explains this and more:

And by the way, whenever a recession hit during a Republican presidency, more government jobs were added. Yeah. A historical fact you can actually research. And that always greatly helped pull us out of the recession we were in. Why are Republicans demanding we cut government jobs now? Hypocritical shitbags.

>UPDATE: Three hours after I posted this blog, Ezra Klein gave this detailed report about Republicans always adding jobs in a recession to boost the economy...
This Time, It's Personnel

And to add some icing on this tasty cake, average CEO pay has risen 725% since 1978. Are you wondering how much the average worker pay has risen during the same period? 5.7% That is not a typo. Five point seven percent. FIVE. Not fifty. Not five hundred. FIVE AND SEVEN TENTHS PERCENT. The rate of CEO pay increased 127 times faster than worker pay. Why? Are CEO’s working 127 times harder? No. Actually, workers are working more hours for less pay, less benefits, less pension, less time off. CEO’s work less for more pay, more benefits, more pension, more time off. And less accountability.

Oh, before I forget – adjusted for inflation, the average worker makes less than they did in 1967. And adjusted for inflation – everything they buy is a lot more expensive, so that’s a double-whammy to the old wallet. Earn less & pay more. And they wonder why personal debt just keeps increasing. And they think the Occupy movement was invigorated by lazy freeloaders. Well, that’s the corporate spin on fair pay, anyway.

Income disparity in America is greater now than it was in ancient Rome.

But just keep on fighting for those poor rich folk, you stupid-ass motherfuckin’ Republican Teabag pieces of shit. That’s what Republican politicians and Wall Street and the banks want: Uneducated people fighting against their own best interests.


***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Is Mitt Romney a sociopath?

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Yet another example of sociopathic behavior by Mitt Romney:

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

I seem to have a mad-on for Mitt Romney. It’s only because I think Mitt Romney is a Threat to America.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   *** 

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

fair (fer) adj. [OE. fæger] just and honest - as long as it supports your own point of view, otherwise, it's completely unjust and dishonest

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

There’s a website called and it seemingly points out how stupid the things are that Liberals believe. Here’s the problem. Liberals don’t believe any of what this Conservative website claims they believe. Actually, it’s how Conservatives understand what Liberals believe, which is not what Liberals actually believe, therefore the website compounds the ignorance of Conservatives. That is, when LiberalLogic101 isn’t intentionally lying about what Liberals believe in order to deliberately make Liberals look stupid when it’s not what Liberals believe, which is also stupid on behalf of the Conservative website. So, double compound stupid on them. Nyah!

Take, for example, this bit of Shakespearean poetry:

Let’s ignore that none of that even makes any coherent sense. Not only does it display Conservative ignorance which tries to equate the choice to enjoy your culture’s food (ignoring the fact that you can still like chicken chow mein and hamburgers even if you’re Mexican) with sexual orientation, which is not a choice, but it uses a picture of Kal Penn, an American of Indian descent as a Conservative Mexican (Is there even such a person?). And Kal Penn is a Liberal, having worked for President Obama as Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement. And as of now, he serves as co-chair for the campaign to re-elect President Obama.


If a Mexican was raised in China, they would only know Chinese food, therefore they would most likely enjoy it. But no matter where a gay person is born, they’re still gay. They just might be attracted to a gay Chinese person.

Keep trying, Conservatives. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

You may have noticed I post a good amount of reference videos and articles from the so-called “liberal media.” You may believe this makes me biased toward the left. That is not completely untrue – however, it just so happens to go that the truth is told more frequently on the left than it is on the right. I form my own opinions. I seek videos and articles that help succinctly explain my theories and opinions. For example, I wrote the entire piece on Mitt Romney’s Vietnam deferment, then searched for something that explained it clearly. Everything Lawrence O’Donnell says about Romney in the video is a verified fact. Nothing is twisted or manipulated. He even admits his own cowardice regarding fighting in a war. 

Of course, you didn't think I'd find a Republican pointing out Romney is a pathological liar, did you? At least not AFTER the Republican debates. Here's a Ron Paul ad...

Do yourself a favor, DON'T Google "Gingrich calls Romney a liar."

Posting edited, right-wing biased misinformation from FOX “News” would defeat my goal of presenting the truth. You have no idea how many times I find evidence to the contrary of my theories and I scrap the topic. Or how many times I find evidence that confirms and other evidence that contradicts a theory of mine, which then forces me to research the evidence. This hobby is sometimes exhaustive. But if I’m going to say something, I don’t want to intentionally talk out of my ass to put forward a biased shit opinion. Like FOX. I want to learn. Unlike FOX viewers.

OK, so, I made the theory that FOX “News” edits their videos in favor of the right-wing because I was thinking of all the times I’ve seen it actually happen for a fact. I put “fox news edits video” in Google to see if anything would come up. Did any evidence appear on the Google machine that proves FOX edits their videos to portray news inaccurately to support Roger Ailes’ conservatively biased mandate? Well, let’s just say that the results are quite endless. Here’s just one YouTube channel with 30 videos presenting exactly what I theorized based on all the evidence I’ve previously seen. Yes, it’s called LiberalViewer (You wouldn’t hardly expect it to be called ConservativeViewer, would you now?). But take a look at just the first video. That’s all I ask. Just the first one. It’s 3 minutes long. Is LiberalViewer biased or is the edited FOX segment biased? YOU decide!

I’ve made this theory before: There is a main difference between “liberal” and “conservative” news. Liberal media sometimes leaves out the things that shed a negative light on Democrats. Not always, though. They often do report negative things about Democrats (Conservatives don’t know this because they never watch liberal news, they only know what conservative news lies to them about.). Whereas conservative media always leaves out the things that shed a negative light on Republicans – and they blatantly lie that Democrats are always and only doing bad things and blatantly lie that Republicans are always and only doing good things. Not to mention the constancy of fear and hate mongering. All of which renders right-wing biased “news” virtually useless as a legitimate news source. How am I able to make this theory? I watch both.

LiberalViewer also has another page with 184 FOX “News” biased videos. These aren’t evidence of edited FOX videos, FOX is just simply lying in these. YOU decide!

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

A rising tide lifts all boats" is a great phrase. When describing boats in the water.  But it’s completely shitty and inaccurate to use as an analogy (oh, Republicans DO love their fucking analogies) when trying to defend tax cuts for the wealthy.

Why? Because for a researchable historical fact, trickle-down economics has never fucking ever worked.


Not even by accident.

***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***

Oddities Department:

Conservative Republican hedge-fund manager billionaire, Paul E. Singer is spending millions of dollars in support of marriage equality. Yes, I said SUPPORT. And he is getting other Conservatives to join him in this cause. His money has been influential in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire. He started a Super PAC to help any other Republicans who want to fight for same-sex marriage equality against the inevitable outrage by Teabag Republican fascists.

Finally, a modern Conservative actually practicing a bit of true conservatism.

Of course, having a gay son may have a little something to do with his Conservative heart growing one size. Regardless, kudos.

However, he was a major contributor to Li’l Bush, contributed heavily to character-assassination groups like the Swift Boat Veterans and recently donated $1 million to Restore Our Future, Mitt Romney’s Super PAC – sorry, I mean the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney but does NOT have ANY connection or coordination with him at all whatsoever.

However, however, in 2006 he made a speech called “Complexity Made Simple,” which advised against CDO’s,* anticipating the housing market crash by a year. And he and Jim Chanos, a buddy hedge fund manager warned in 2007 that a systemic financial collapse was on the horizon due to major banks creating radioactive securitizations like subprime mortgages.

All-in-all, a decent guy whose ideals I mostly do not agree with, but seems to have a mind of his own, which I duly respect.

I’m torn.

Good day.

*CDO - Collateralized Debt Obligation. Sort of a legal version of a Ponzi scheme combined with a pyramid scheme.

No comments:

Post a Comment