Posts tagged liberal
Posts tagged liberal
occupy wall street
If your blog posts anything like the above, please reblog this so I can follow you! I really want to build up a big network of progressive bloggers to help inspire my own vision and get more involved in activism in general.
Please and thank you, comrades!
Oh hi mostly my entire blog.
Well, except cat pictures. I post those often.
October 19, 2012, Washington, DC – Citing survey data showing former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has in fact achieved the narrow criteria required for inclusion in the Monday debate, earning more than 40 percent of the vote in “head-to-head” polls against President Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party nominee’s campaign today filed a complaint in Federal Court in the District of Columbia maintaining that Johnson has, in fact, met the Commission on Presidential Debates’ criteria for inclusion. The complaint asks the Court to compel the CPD to include Johnson.
Why not let him and Jill Stein debate? God forbid we hear more than two people.
Bob Beckel screams “You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!” at a panelist while live on Hannity, and becomes my hero for the day. His reaction to not realizing they’re on-air, and Hannity’s squirming, is absolutely hilarious. The rest of the conversation is disgusting, complete with Tea Partier Neal Boortz calling poverty “a mental disease.”
I’d say the same thing too, Bob.
Well, Beckel wasn’t fired. On tonight’s edition of The Five, he pulled out a massive swear jar and began emptying his pockets into it.
New bucket list item: Scream ‘FUCK’ in any context on Hannity’s show.
This literally made me sick.
The right to… not be grossed out by gay people? What right was stripped away? Seriously, somebody explain to me how a law that allows people to get married “strips away” rights from others.
Oh, hello there Rick Santorum. Did you read the decision? You might be interested:
Proposition 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them, while leaving in place all of their other rights and responsibilities as partners—rights and responsibilities that are identical to those of married spouses and form an integral part of the marriage relationship…
By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground. We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry, nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts. For now, it suffices to conclude that the People of California may not, consistent with the Federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the State and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgment of the district court is
Sounds like some people got their rights stripped, and it wasn’t the people who voted for Prop(H)8. But I can see how you’d get confused, Rick. With your head so far up your own ass, I bet your view of the world around you is rather limited.
Ann Coulter, defending Herman Cain, and claiming “their blacks” - meaning black American conservatives - are better than blacks who are liberal. First, who’s being divisive again? Second, is anyone else quite disturbed by her saying “our blacks” like it’s some kind of ownership?
It’s a little awkward to see professional race-baiters, who are white, using the phrase “our blacks” and questioning the authenticity of President Obama’s experience as a biracial man in America.
This reminds me of a conversation I overheard on campus. A member of the Campus Republicans said he supported Cain winning the nomination simply because “he’s blacker than Obama,” and if he were to win, “the Democrat party gets its race card cut up, and the GOP can’t be told they’re racist.” I asked him if he thought Herman Cain was essentially their cause célèbre. And he called me a racist.
No. Claiming Cain as “your black” is racist. Period. End of story. Fin. Here’s the video:
I’m posting this in full, because I am literally stunned this was posted on Fox News. Emphasis mine:
Critics of the growing Occupy Street movement complain that the protesters don’t have a policy agenda and, therefore, don’t stand for anything. They’re wrong. The key isn’t what protesters are for but rather what they’re against — the gaping inequality that has poisoned our economy, our politics and our nation.
In America today, 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. That’s not because 150 million Americans are pathetically lazy or even unlucky. In fact, Americans have been working harder than ever - productivity has risen in the last several decades. Big business profits and CEO bonuses have also gone up. Worker salaries, however, have declined.Most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters aren’t opposed to free market capitalism. In fact, what they want is an end to the crony capitalist system now in place, that makes it easier for the rich and powerful to get even more rich and powerful while making it increasingly hard for the rest of us to get by.
The protesters are not anti-American radicals. They are the defenders of the American Dream, the decision from the birth of our nation that success should be determined by hard work, not royal bloodlines.
Sure, bank executives may work a lot harder than you and me or a mother of three doing checkout at a grocery store. Maybe the bankers work ten times harder. Maybe even a hundred times harder. But they’re compensated a thousand times more.
The question is not how Occupy Wall Street protesters can find that gross discrepancy immoral. The question is why every one of us isn’t protesting with them.
According to polls, most Americans support the 99% movement, even if they’re not taking to the streets. In fact, support for the Occupy Wall Street protests is not only higher than for either political party in Washington but greater than support for the Tea Party. And unlike the Tea Party which was fueled by national conservative donors and institutions, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is spreading organically from Idaho to Indiana. Institutions on the left, including unions, have been relatively late to the game.
Ironically, the original Boston Tea Party activists would likely support Occupy Wall Street more as well. Note that the original Tea Party didn’t protest taxes, merely the idea of taxation without representation - and they were actually protesting the crown-backed monopoly of the East India Company, the main big business of the day.
Americans today also support taxes. In fact, two-thirds of voters - including a majority of Republicans - support increasing taxes on the rich, something the Occupy Wall Street protests implicitly support. That’s not just anarchist lefty kids. Soccer moms and construction workers and, yes, even some bankers want to see our economy work for the 99%, not just the 1%, and are flocking to Occupy protests in droves.
I’ve even met a number of Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives at these protests. So the critics are right, the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street is much, much broader.
Maybe it’s hard to see your best interests reflected in a sometimes rag-tag, inarticulate, imperfect group of protesters. But make no mistake about it: While horrendous inequality is not an American tradition, protest is. And if you’re part of the 99% of underpaid or unemployed Americans crushed in the current economy, the Occupy Wall Street protests are your best chance at fixing the broken economy that is breaking your back.
This is one of the most articulate defenses of Occupy Wall Street I’ve seen, and let me repeat - this is on Fox News. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go pick my jaw up off the floor.
Taken just a few moments ago at 8:10 PM (MST). That would be 68% of the vote in favor of “Yes. These folks are right about corporate greed and what’s happening to the little guy.”
I know this poll was on Tumblr and progressive twitter feeds last night, but folks, this can’t be all us on Fox News… can it? Regardless, keep voting!
After a video of [Elizabeth] Warren talking about the deficit and the social contract went viral last week (see above), Rush Limbaugh, the Fiscal Times and Rich Lowrey all spent time attacking her. Now, Lowrey has decided to spend another column going after her, and places like the Daily Caller and Reason have piled on. There is also this gem from right-wing blog Wizbang:
Picture text: When I hear the word “contract” I
reach for my revolverthink of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.
I have been half-joking on my radio show for months that, with the way political discourse has degenerated, Mission of Burma’s song “That’s When I Reach For My Revolver” will one day be the Tea Party anthem. Here’s Moby’s version:
Check out the lyrics here. This shit isn’t funny. We just had Andrew Breitbart, sweaty and pacing, fire up a Tea Party crowd by fantasizing about killing liberals. Breitbart said, “They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns. I’m not kidding.” Read the rest of Michael Laprarie’s entry here.
And now, Elizabeth Warren dares to run for U.S. Senate and challenges Scott Brown (someone they don’t even like) and the Wall Street status quo. I’m not going to sit here and pretend that liberal are always civil and conservatives uncivil. Can we simply stop with the veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to killing people? It’s getting really old.
Here’s my guess for the definition of failor: A sailor sets off on a sailboat, so a failor sets off on the failboat.
I’ll use it in a sentence: “This failor set forth on the failboat as soon as he picked up a marker.”
Am I close?
Hunter S. Thompson
(There’s quite a few legislating all across the country…)
Both sides are, in fact, not ”just as bad,” when it comes to institutionally sanctioned violent and eliminationist rhetoric.
An anonymous commenter at Daily Kos and the last Republican vice presidential nominee are not equivalent, no matter how many ridiculously irresponsible members of the media would have us believe otherwise.
There is, demonstrably, no leftist equivalent to Sarah Palin, former veep candidate and presumed future presidential candidate, who uses gun imagery (rifle sights) and language (“Don’t Retreat, RELOAD”) to exhort her followers to action.
There is no leftist equivalent to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a group which was created from the mailing list of the old white supremacist White Citizens Councils and has been noted as becoming increasingly “radical and racist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which classifies the CCC as a hate group—and is nonetheless considered an acceptable association by prominent members of the Republican Party, including a a former senator and the last Republican presidential nominee.
I believe both sides are guilty, but there’s one faction of one side that’s a little more guilty than the other…
The Colbert Report - Jesus Is A Liberal Democrat: Jesus was always flapping his gums about the poor, but not once did he call for tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Romans
“I will pick up that label and wear it as a Badge of Honor.”
~ [Jimmy Smits as] Matt Santos, The West Wing
I am proud to be a liberal!!!
Funfact: Progressive was the vernacular in the early 1900s as “liberal”
I miss this show. So brilliant.
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
September 14, 1960
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’" - John F. Kennedy
Ah yes. How to speak Republican….