PoliticsSioux Nation

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: SiouxPal who wrote (223658)4/30/2012 2:38:15 AM
From: orthorodentialistica
   of 308046
All right, more than I ever expected to see.

Now that we know what a freaky little piece of shit he is, I say we pass him around until there's nothing left, otherwise he might adapt and get a little too comfortable in the Peruvian slammer. He is alleged to have been involved in some kind of pimping in Thailand, who knows what he did there and elsewhere.

Let's give this guy a life of pain that he cannot escape, after due process of course.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 5:04:22 AM
1 Recommendation   of 308046
Housing Declared Bottoming in U.S. After Six-Year Slump
By John Gittelsohn and Prashant Gopal - Apr 25, 2012

The U.S. housing market is showing more signs of stabilization as price declines ease and home demand improves, spurring several economists to call a bottom to the worst real estate collapse since the 1930s.

“The crash is over,” Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “Home sales -- both new and existing -- and housing starts are now off the bottom.”

full article at

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 8:03:29 AM
   of 308046
30 April 2012
Share this page Email Print

Share Facebook Twitter

Australia lists the koala as 'vulnerable' species
The koala population in parts of Australia has been dwindling over the years
Australia has listed the koala as a threatened species in parts of the country due to its dwindling population, officials say.

Environment Minister Tony Burke said koalas in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are now considered "vulnerable".

Habitat loss, urban expansion, vehicle strikes, dog attacks and disease have contributed to their dwindling numbers.

But conservationists say the declaration should have been national.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Ron4/30/2012 10:29:29 AM
2 Recommendations   of 308046
This Modern World

Click on it to enlarge.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 11:28:18 AM
2 Recommendations   of 308046
Krugman on Paul Ryan.

April 30, 2012,

Putting Even More Con in Conservative

Jonathan Chait has an excellent piece on Paul Ryan, which shows not just that he’s a fake deficit hawk now, but that he always was — he was an enthusiastic supporter of all of Bush’s budget-busters, spending as well as taxes.

Yet, as Chait also says, Ryan is still — still — beloved by “centrists”, who get very annoyed when someone (i.e., me) points out the fraudulence. How can this be?

Chait’s main answer is that reporters don’t know policy, so they’re easily taken in by image. But I don’t buy that. For one thing, they do generally love the “gotcha” style of journalism — you say A, but you used to say B — and as Chait has just demonstrated, you can have a field day doing that on Ryan.

Also, what about the Very Serious deficit-hawk groups that gave Ryan an award for fiscal responsibility? They can crunch numbers; they can surely see as clearly as I can that Ryan’s plans are fake, that when you strip out the implausible and unspecified they amount to a deficit-increasing plan to take from the poor and give to the rich.

The real story here isn’t so much about Ryan as it is about the fundamental unseriousness of the Very Serious, who are in their own way just as much about striking a pose unrelated to their real actions as Ryan himself.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (223663)4/30/2012 11:31:06 AM
From: T L Comiskey
   of 308046
Paul Ryan, the big, big spender.
Political Animal Blog
April 30, 2012

Paul Ryan’s Crowning Achievement
By Ed Kilgore

There are lots of reasons to read Jonathan Chait’s thorough demolition of “The Legendary Paul Ryan” at New York. It offers a good, bracing reminder that Ryan is far-and-away the most important GOP politician at the moment, a man to whom Mitt Romney has largely deferred in crafting an agenda for his own administration, if he has one. It explores Ryan’s media celebrity, and particularly his appeal to Very Serious “centrist” deficit hawks. It mocks his Super-Wonk image, and his pose as a brave enemy of wasteful spending wherever it can be found.

But for my money, the most important service Chait provides in this article is to document Ryan’s roots in the sub-wing of the conservative movement famous for not giving a damn about federal budget deficits, the original supply-siders led by Ryan’s own idol Jack Kemp. These were people who were horrified by what they called the “root canal” spending cuts endlessly promoted by traditional conservatives obsessed with “green-eyeshade” budget-balancing. Ryan was prominent among those who carried this tradition into a new millenium:
Ryan has, retroactively, depicted himself as a dissenter from the fiscal profligacy of the Bush administration, and reporters have mostly accepted his account at face value. (“Ryan watched his party’s leadership inflate the deficit by cutting tax rates like Kemp conservatives while spending like Kardashians,” wrote Time last year.) In reality, Ryan was a staunch ally in Bush’s profligacy, dissenting only to urge Bush to jack up the deficit even more.
“We noticed that the green-eyeshade, austerity wing of the party was afraid of class warfare,” Ryan said during Bush’s first term. “They fear increases in the debt, and they were overlooking issues of growth, opportunity, and free markets.” For those uninitiated in the tribal lingo of Beltway conservatives, this may sound like gibberish. But those inside the conservative subculture invest these buzzwords with deep meaning. “Green eyeshade” is a term of abuse appropriated by the supply-siders to describe Republicans who still cared more about deficit control than cutting taxes. “Growth” and “opportunity” mean tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, and “class warfare” means any criticism thereof. Ryan’s centrist admirers hear his frequent confessions that both parties have failed as an ideological concession. What he means is that Republicans were insufficiently fanatical in their devotion to cutting taxes for the rich….
In 2001, Ryan led a coterie of conservatives who complained that George W. Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut was too small, and too focused on the middle class. In 2003, he lobbied Republicans to pass Bush’s deficit-­financed prescription-drug benefit, which bestowed huge profits on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In 2005, when Bush campaigned to introduce private accounts into Social Security, Ryan fervently crusaded for the concept. He was the sponsor in the House of a bill to create new private accounts funded entirely by borrowing, with no benefit cuts. Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.”
The important thing to grasp here is that for all the talk about Paul Ryan being the “adult in the room” who understands the “tough choices” needed to confront the “debt crisis,” everything we know about him suggests that fiscal probity is at best a third-order motive for his proposals to decimate the social safety net. More important to him is that the spending cuts he supports are necessary to finance still more regressive tax cuts, and furthermore, are positive social measures in and of themselves. Like the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold, a character in Ryan’s favorite book Atlas Shrugged, who sinks aid ships as a moral gesture aimed at the “looting” of the successful, Ryan would object to safety net programs even if the federal budget was in surplus:
“It is not enough to say that President Obama’s taxes are too big or the health-care plan doesn’t work for this or that policy reason,” Ryan said in 2009. “It is the morality of what is occurring right now, and how it offends the morality of individuals working toward their own free will to produce, to achieve, to succeed, that is under attack, and it is that what I think Ayn Rand would be commenting on.” Ryan’s philosophical opposition to a government that forces the “makers” to subsidize the “takers”—terms he still employs—is foundational; the policy details are secondary.
This is the sort of talk that gets Ryan regularly in trouble (most notably with the Bishops of his own Catholic Church), which is an indication of how strongly he must believe in it. Yet he manages to maintain his fiscal-hawk street cred and his reputation for gravitas despite all the indications that he’d triple the deficit if necessary to cut taxes for the wealthy and remains in the grip of a philosophy that treats Medicaid beneficiaries as thieves who are morally debasing themselves. It’s quite a crowning achievement.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 11:43:16 AM
1 Recommendation   of 308046
Obama video...


(nicely done.....)

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 12:17:31 PM
   of 308046
Stephen King: Tax Me, for F@%&’s Sake!

Apr 30, 2012

The iconic writer scolds the super rich (including himself—and Mitt Romney) for not giving back,
and warns of a Kingsian apocalyptic scenario if inequality is not addressed in America.

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain’t Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey’s governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm. In February, while discussing New Jersey’s newly amended income-tax law, which allows the rich to pay less (proportionally) than the middle class, Christie was asked about Warren Buffett’s observation that he paid less federal income taxes than his personal secretary, and that wasn’t fair. “ He should just write a check and shut up,” Christie responded, with his typical verve. “I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check—go ahead and write it.”

Heard it all before. At a rally in Florida (to support collective bargaining and to express the socialist view that firing teachers with experience was sort of a bad idea), I pointed out that I was paying taxes of roughly 28 percent on my income. My question was, “How come I’m not paying 50?” The governor of New Jersey did not respond to this radical idea, possibly being too busy at the all-you-can-eat cheese buffet at Applebee’s in Jersey City, but plenty of other people of the Christie persuasion did.

Cut a check and shut up, they said.

If you want to pay more, pay more, they said.

Tired of hearing about it, they said.

Tough shit for you guys, because I’m not tired of talking about it. I’ve known rich people, and why not, since I’m one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing “Disco Inferno” than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar. It’s true that some rich folks put at least some of their tax savings into charitable contributions. My wife and I give away roughly $4 million a year to libraries, local fire departments that need updated lifesaving equipment (jaws of life are always a popular request), schools, and a scattering of organizations that underwrite the arts. Warren Buffett does the same; so does Bill Gates; so does Steven Spielberg; so do the Koch brothers; so did the late Steve Jobs. All fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough.

What charitable 1-percenters can’t do is assume responsibility—America’s national responsibilities: the care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny. That kind of salvation does not come from Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Ballmer saying, “Okay, I’ll write a $2 million bonus check to the IRS.” That annoying responsibility stuff comes from three words that are anathema to the Tea Partiers: United American citizenry.

Photos: Rich People for Higher Taxes

And hey, why don’t we get real about this? Most rich folks paying 28 percent taxes do not give out another 28 percent of their income to charity. Most rich folks like to keep their dough. They don’t strip their bank accounts and investment portfolios, they keep them and then pass them on to their children, their children’s children. And what they do give away is—like the monies my wife and I donate—totallyat their own discretion. That’s the rich-guy philosophy in a nutshell: Don’t tell us how to use our money; we’ll tell you.

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipshit oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. F--k em if they can’t take a joke.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: T L Comiskey4/30/2012 12:38:10 PM
1 Recommendation   of 308046
Ice.......on the run...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: SiouxPal4/30/2012 1:45:04 PM
1 Recommendation   of 308046
Ed Gillespie Has a Very Short Memory About Bush Ads:

Is Ed Gillespie serious? No, really, is he serious? Because what he said yesterday on Meet the Press with David Gregory's Bowl Cut Hair was just hilarious. Gillespie, who is an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign failure, criticized remarks by Vice President Biden questioning whether or not a President Romney would have even had a chance to get Osama bin Laden, as well as an ad put out by President Obama's campaign that features President Clinton saying that the decision to kill bin Laden rested with one man, the President, and that he did the right thing.

Gillespie, who, back in the day, was forced to watch a sweaty, screaming Karl Rove get blown by a weeping Ken Mehlman on numerous occasions, was appalled. He actually said, "You know, David, this is one of the reasons President Obama has become one of the most divisive presidents in American history. He took something that was a unifying event for all of Americans, an event that Governor Romney congratulated him and the military and the intelligence analysts in our government for completing the mission in terms of killing Osama bin Laden and he's managed to turn it into a divisive, partisan, political attack that former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci for President Reagan called sad, John McCain called shameful. I think most Americans will see it as a sign of a desperate campaign."

That's...darling. Now, Ed Gillespie, who looks like a nutria rat, may not want you to remember this, but he was the chair of the RNC when George W. Bush was running for re-election. Which Bush 2004 ad do you wanna go with to prove Gillespie is a lying sack of cocks? " Weapons"?

MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: As our troops defend America in the War on Terror...

MALE NARRATOR: ...they must have what it takes to win.

[TEXT: John Kerry Opposed Weapons Vital to the ar on Terror]

MALE NARRATOR: Yet John Kerry has repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror.

[TEXT: Kerry Opposed: Apache Helicopters, C-130 Hercules, F-16 Fighter Jets, BUILT IN FLORIDA]

MALE NARRATOR: Apache helicopters, C-130 Hercules, and F-16 fighter jets, components of which are all built here in Florida.

[TEXT: Kerry Voted Against Body Armor For Our Troops]

MALE NARRATOR: Kerry even voted against body armor for our troops on the front line of the War on Terror.

MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: John Kerry's record on National Security: Troubling.

Or howzabout " Whatever It Takes," which uses grieving widows and wounded soldiers as props?

"BUSH: These four years have brought moments I could not foresee and will not forget. I’ve learned first hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right. I have returned the salute of wounded soldiers who say they were just doing their job.

"I have held the children of the fallen who are told their dad or mom is a hero but would rather just have their mom or dad. I’ve met with the parents and wives and husbands who have received a folded flag. And in those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation. Because of your service and sacrifice, we are defeating the terrorists where they live and plan and you’re making America safer. I will never relent in defending America, whatever it takes."

You could also go with " Troops," or, for big-time larfs, how about " Finishing It," with its images of bin Laden and injured kids (yes, bleeding children)?

MALE NARRATOR: These people want to kill us. They killed hundreds of innocent children in Russia, two hundred innocent commuters in Spain, and three thousand innocent Americans. John Kerry has a thirty year record of supporting cuts in defense and intelligence...

[TEXT: 30 Year Record; Cuts in Defense and Intelligence]

MALE NARRATOR: ...and endlessly changing positions on Iraq.

[TEXT: Endlessly Changing Positions on Iraq]

MALE NARRATOR : Would you trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers?

[TEXT: Would You Trust Kerry?]

MALE NARRATOR: President Bush didn't start this war, but he will finish it.

Ed Gillespie and anyone who supported George W. Bush's 2004 campaign talking about what's divisive is like a professional wrestler teaching subtlety.

Interestingly, when Gregory did bring up Bush ads to Gillespie, the chinless fuck said, "So the difference here is you don't see, you know, you see in the--in the Bush ad saying, you know, he's a strong leader. You don't see him saying and that guy, you know, would've done something different."

No, of course. The line "Would you trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers?" doesn't say that at all.

Hypocrisy is like air to these assholes. And they exist at a level of denial of the eight years before Obama came into office that would be sad if it wasn't transformed, on a daily basis, into a vicious hatred for anyone who might remind them of it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.