Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
"sin" is a concept invented by christians for christians!! as an atheist I have no notion of sin. sin just sounds very silly to me
Christ DIDN'T die for my sins, My mistakes are my own & 100% nothing to do with God or Jesus. STOP!! laying your Christian guilt trip on me. Keep your guilt trip to yourself & deal with it.
when you understand why you dismiss other possible gods you'll understand why i dismiss yours
Christ DIDN'T die for my sins, My mistakes are my own & 100% nothing to do with God or Jesus. STOP!! laying your Christian guilt trip on me. Keep your guilt trip to yourself & deal with it.
when you understand why you dismiss other possible gods you'll understand why i dismiss yours
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Israeli PM Netanyahu's unguarded talk on video: How I destroyed the Oslo Accords, and how easily Americans are manipulated
One of the most important videos you've never seen is this one, in which Benjamin Netanyahu
, 9 years ago -- thinking there is no record -- explains his actually strategy to inflict pain on the Palestinians. He also describes how easy it is to manipulate the US, and how he made sure that the Oslo Accords would mean nothing.
First he says that the plan for the Palestinians is to:
What is clear from this is that Netanyahu at least, and probably the majority of Israel's leadership (since they followed the strategy he outlines), never sincerely intended to fulfill the Oslo Accords. Their strategy for dealing with the Palestinians was to inflict maximum pain, in an attempt to break the Palestinians so they would accept any possible terms.
And finally, it's remarkable that Netanyahu thinks there is nothing Israel could do which would ever really make America turn on it: nothing which would ever make America not support it. The idea that America would stop Israel from smashing the Palestinians is laughable to him.
The question, nine years later, is whether this is still true. Certainly it is true that when Israel attacked ships in international waters the US protected Israel. And it is also apparently the case that the Israeli military were to overfly Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. air command is not to shoot them down.
I suggest watching the entire video, and drawing your own conclusions. For myself, I suggest that it is in neither Israel's best interests nor America's for America to be so unwilling to stand up to Israel, and for Israel's Prime Minister to have so little respect -- indeed, such open contempt -- for the nation which is Israel's primary ally.
, 9 years ago -- thinking there is no record -- explains his actually strategy to inflict pain on the Palestinians. He also describes how easy it is to manipulate the US, and how he made sure that the Oslo Accords would mean nothing.First he says that the plan for the Palestinians is to:
hit them hard. Not just one hit... but many painful [hits], so that the price will be unbearable. The price is not unbearable, now. A total assault on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to a state of panic that everything is collapsing ... fear that everything will collapse... this is what we'll bring them to...The woman Natanyahu is speaking to wonders if the world won't object to what Israel is doing to the occupied Palestinians (she uses the word occupiers herself. He says the world will say nothing, just that Israel is defending itself. As for the US...
“I know what America is. America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction... Let's suppose that they [the Americans] will say something [i.e. to us Israelis] ... so they say it...” [i.e. so what?]He then moves on to deal with the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, Israel was to give back land in three phases. However, there was a loophole: if there were settlements or military bases, that land didn't have to be given back. So the question is, who defines what is a settlement or military site?
I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time ... which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: "I'm not signing." Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.The woman talking to Netanyahu also states that Oslo meant Israel's suicide—Israel's destruction. And Netanyahu seems to agree.
What is clear from this is that Netanyahu at least, and probably the majority of Israel's leadership (since they followed the strategy he outlines), never sincerely intended to fulfill the Oslo Accords. Their strategy for dealing with the Palestinians was to inflict maximum pain, in an attempt to break the Palestinians so they would accept any possible terms.
And finally, it's remarkable that Netanyahu thinks there is nothing Israel could do which would ever really make America turn on it: nothing which would ever make America not support it. The idea that America would stop Israel from smashing the Palestinians is laughable to him.
The question, nine years later, is whether this is still true. Certainly it is true that when Israel attacked ships in international waters the US protected Israel. And it is also apparently the case that the Israeli military were to overfly Iraq to attack Iran, U.S. air command is not to shoot them down.
I suggest watching the entire video, and drawing your own conclusions. For myself, I suggest that it is in neither Israel's best interests nor America's for America to be so unwilling to stand up to Israel, and for Israel's Prime Minister to have so little respect -- indeed, such open contempt -- for the nation which is Israel's primary ally.
Burn The Confederate Flag Day
Burn The Confederate Flag Day
http://sites.google.com/site/burnrebelflagday/
Burn the Confederate Flag Day is a protest against the right's exploitation of racial prejudice for political gain. We urge you to burn the Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred, on Sept 12, the date when the racially-divisive Tea Party holds its annual hate fest.
Ways to get involved:
* Host a flag-burning party on Sept. 12.
o Tell us where and when you're holding it, and we'll publish a list of events.
o Send us photos of the event. We'll post them here.
o Upload a video of the event onto YouTube. We'll embed it or link to it.
* Let them know we're watching. Dress up like a clown and take a partially burned flag to a local tea party event (Don't burn a flag at the event unless local laws allow it.)
* Spread the word via Facebook (here's our Facebook group), Twitter, and other social media.
* Submit your own ideas, below in the comments. We'll use them to update this list.
* Place a banner on your blog, website, or social media profile. Here are a couple of examples you can use:
http://sites.google.com/site/burnrebelflagday/Burn the Confederate Flag Day is a protest against the right's exploitation of racial prejudice for political gain. We urge you to burn the Confederate flag, a long-time symbol of racial hatred, on Sept 12, the date when the racially-divisive Tea Party holds its annual hate fest.
Ways to get involved:
* Host a flag-burning party on Sept. 12.
o Tell us where and when you're holding it, and we'll publish a list of events.
o Send us photos of the event. We'll post them here.
o Upload a video of the event onto YouTube. We'll embed it or link to it.
* Let them know we're watching. Dress up like a clown and take a partially burned flag to a local tea party event (Don't burn a flag at the event unless local laws allow it.)
* Spread the word via Facebook (here's our Facebook group), Twitter, and other social media.
* Submit your own ideas, below in the comments. We'll use them to update this list.
* Place a banner on your blog, website, or social media profile. Here are a couple of examples you can use:
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Conservative Bloggers Select The 25 Worst Figures In American History
There they go again...
The blog Right Wing News asked "more than a hundred bloggers" who they thought were the worst people in American history. The results may shock you! Or maybe not. [..]
This question was put out to over 100 crazies with internet connections:
Out of all the gangsters, serial killers, mass murderers, incompetent & crooked politicians, spies, traitors, and ultra left-wing kooks in all of American history — have you ever wondered who the worst of the worst was?"
101 Dead Armadillos, Argghhhh!, Basil's Blog, Cold Fury, Conservative Compendium, The Dana Show, DANEgerus Weblog, Dodgeblogium, Cara Ellison, Exurban League, Fausta's Blog, Freeman Hunt, GraniteGrok, House of Eratosthenes, Infidels Are Cool, IMAO, Jordan Woodward, Moe Lane, Mean Ol' Meany, The Liberal Heretics, Midnight Blue, Pirate's Cove, Nice Deb, Pundit Boy, Professor Bainbridge, Pursuing Holiness.com, Liz Mair, Moonbattery, mountaineer musings, No Oil For Pacifists, No Runny Eggs, Right View from the Left Coast, Russ. Just Russ, Say Anything, Don Singleton, The TrogloPundit, The Underground Conservative, This Ain't Hell, The Virtuous Republic, Vox Popoli, WILLisms, Wintery knight, YidwithLid
All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this is a fairly conservative group of bloggers and their selections reflected that. Also, I made a decision to combine the votes given to the Rosenbergs and Julius Rosenberg into one group since most people associate the two of them together. Some people may disagree with that decision, but I thought it was the best way to go.
Well, that's enough about the rules -- without further ado, the worst figures in American history are as follows (with the number of votes following each selection)...
[..]Here are the results, from 43 bloggers who responded:
23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)
I love the framing of the question: murderers, terrorists and "left-wing kooks". And what did these mental giants come up with? is Osama Bin Laden on the list? No. But FDR is. And he's WORSE than assassin John Wilkes Booth and domestic terrorist Tim McVeigh and traitors Aldrich Ames, Benedict Arnold and the Rosenbergs. And of course, the worst person in the history of the country is Jimmy Carter. Sorry Obama, you just missed the top spot.
Sweet Jesus, do these people have anything but bumper sticker slogans in their heads? The list is replete with such nonsense and brainless smearing (really, Jane Fonda and George Soros? Quick, someone on the right name for us how they have influenced the country. No fair cribbing notes from Glenn Beck).
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The 5 best things about the JetBlue flight attendant’s freakout
1. Before he exited, he grabbed a beer from the beverage cart.
2. After sliding down the emergency chute, he got on the Air Train, removed his company tie and threw it to the ground.
3. NBC New York: “When authorities found Slater he seemed to be in the midst of having sexual relations.”
4. When the cops came to get him, a neighbor working on a nearby roof said he “had a smile on his face when the cops brought him out, like, ‘Yeah, big deal.’ ”
5. He got to do what so many people wish they could do — tell off a rude customer, then quit, triumphantly. Which makes him, for today at least, an Internet folk hero.
Welfare Myths: Fact or Fiction?
Welfare Myths: Fact or Fiction?
Exploring the Truth about Welfare (Published 1996)
MYTH: Families stay on welfare for a long time and don't make any effort to get off.
FACT: Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time.
MYTH: People become dependent on welfare because welfare is available to them.
FACT: Leading researchers agree there is no evidence substantiating the "welfare trap" theory.
MYTH: Welfare benefits for families provide them with enough to meet all their basic needs.
FACT: AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years.
MYTH: Even if AFDC benefits and Food Stamps don't provide enough to meet daily living needs, the shortfall is made up for by all the other benefits these families receive.
FACT: Most of the other major benefits available to poor families are available to only limited numbers of families and they do not add enough to family income to enable families to meet all their basic nonmedical needs.
MYTH: The differences in AFDC benefit levels around the country are due to cost of living differences and/or differences in wage rates.
FACT: Numerous studies have concluded that the range in benefit levels is far greater than any differences in cost of living around the country and wage variation is less than half as much as the benefit variation.
MYTH: Women receiving AFDC have lots of kids and go on having kids after they begin receiving aid, and that's why they need aid.
FACT: The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population.
MYTH: The reason people need welfare is because they won't work.
FACT: The only adults receiving AFDC are those who are caring for children and over two-thirds of them have recent work experience from employment while receiving aid or before they applied for aid.
MYTH: Families wouldn't need assistance if they would just go to work.
FACT: Many families who are in the workplace cannot make it on their earnings alone and need assistance in addition in order to have any decent standard of living.
MYTH: Poor people move from one state to another to get higher AFDC benefits.
FACT: The evidence contradicts the "welfare magnet" theory and also shows that poor people move less than others and, when they do move, move in the same direction as the rest of the population.
MYTH: Almost all of the families receiving AFDC are Black or Hispanic.
FACT: Many more White families than Black families or Hispanic families are helped by the AFDC program.
MYTH: Nonmarital births have exploded, and welfare is the reason.
FACT: The nonmarital birthrate is less than 5% and there is no reliable evidence that welfare is a primary reason for the growth in nonmarital birthrates.
MYTH: Child support reform can eliminate most child poverty and most of the need for AFDC.
FACT: Even if there were no deadbeat parents, most poor children would still be poor, and most children who need AFDC would still need it.
MYTH: Large numbers of families are receiving AFDC benefits they are not entitled to and the government isn't doing anything about it.
FACT: The evidence indicates that only a small percentage of recipients are overpaid and that most of these errors are due to honest mistakes, and there are rigorous programs in place to limit all overpayments and weed out fraud.
MYTH: Spending on welfare programs to aid needy families is a major part of the federal budget.
FACT: Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget.
These facts were found at:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/mythtoc.html
Exploring the Truth about Welfare (Published 1996)
MYTH: Families stay on welfare for a long time and don't make any effort to get off.
FACT: Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time.
MYTH: People become dependent on welfare because welfare is available to them.
FACT: Leading researchers agree there is no evidence substantiating the "welfare trap" theory.
MYTH: Welfare benefits for families provide them with enough to meet all their basic needs.
FACT: AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years.
MYTH: Even if AFDC benefits and Food Stamps don't provide enough to meet daily living needs, the shortfall is made up for by all the other benefits these families receive.
FACT: Most of the other major benefits available to poor families are available to only limited numbers of families and they do not add enough to family income to enable families to meet all their basic nonmedical needs.
MYTH: The differences in AFDC benefit levels around the country are due to cost of living differences and/or differences in wage rates.
FACT: Numerous studies have concluded that the range in benefit levels is far greater than any differences in cost of living around the country and wage variation is less than half as much as the benefit variation.
MYTH: Women receiving AFDC have lots of kids and go on having kids after they begin receiving aid, and that's why they need aid.
FACT: The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population.
MYTH: The reason people need welfare is because they won't work.
FACT: The only adults receiving AFDC are those who are caring for children and over two-thirds of them have recent work experience from employment while receiving aid or before they applied for aid.
MYTH: Families wouldn't need assistance if they would just go to work.
FACT: Many families who are in the workplace cannot make it on their earnings alone and need assistance in addition in order to have any decent standard of living.
MYTH: Poor people move from one state to another to get higher AFDC benefits.
FACT: The evidence contradicts the "welfare magnet" theory and also shows that poor people move less than others and, when they do move, move in the same direction as the rest of the population.
MYTH: Almost all of the families receiving AFDC are Black or Hispanic.
FACT: Many more White families than Black families or Hispanic families are helped by the AFDC program.
MYTH: Nonmarital births have exploded, and welfare is the reason.
FACT: The nonmarital birthrate is less than 5% and there is no reliable evidence that welfare is a primary reason for the growth in nonmarital birthrates.
MYTH: Child support reform can eliminate most child poverty and most of the need for AFDC.
FACT: Even if there were no deadbeat parents, most poor children would still be poor, and most children who need AFDC would still need it.
MYTH: Large numbers of families are receiving AFDC benefits they are not entitled to and the government isn't doing anything about it.
FACT: The evidence indicates that only a small percentage of recipients are overpaid and that most of these errors are due to honest mistakes, and there are rigorous programs in place to limit all overpayments and weed out fraud.
MYTH: Spending on welfare programs to aid needy families is a major part of the federal budget.
FACT: Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget.
These facts were found at:
http://www.welfarelaw.org/mythtoc.html
Monday, August 9, 2010
Greg Gutfeld: raising money to build a Muslim gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque
Greg Gutfeld: I’m raising money to build a Muslim gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Censoring the Church, Seg. 1
i have a hard time believing this guys motivation was compassion...its just odd that a man would approach another man that way...
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Stephen Colbert fears the "arma-gay-ddon" after Prop 8 Ruling
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| How to Ruin Same-Sex Marriages | ||||
| ||||
Last night, Stephen Colbert said that he fears the "arma-gay-ddon" that will follow the decision to overturn Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. "Who knows what tastefully arranged destruction awaits," he added.
"And surprise, surprise," Colbert continued. "Everybody guess what we've just learned about Judge Walker?" That's he's gay, Colbert said, noting that his "big gay bias is all over this decision. He even signed it gay: 'It is soooo ordered.'"
Jon Scott Looks At Prop 8 Coverage Through Right Wing Homophobic Glasses?
The recent California Court decision, declaring that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, has the clean, heterosexual panties of the right wing in a very tight bunch. Almost immediately after the decision, right wing homophobes did a full court press on smearing the judge in the case by claiming that Judge Vaughn Walker was unable to render a fair decision because he is gay. Not surprisingly, the Fox show that’s supposed to be a “fair & balanced” critique of the news, “Fox News Watch,” had a segment on this. It began with Jon Scott’s partisan introduction which seemed to spin in a “right” direction. In addition to Muslims, undocumented immigrants (read Hispanic), the LGBT community is not exactly beloved by the right wing. Thus, it’s not exactly shocking that Fox “News,” as the mouthpiece for the right wing, would give them a shout out as part of the “fair & balanced” programming. Oh, and during the Prop 8 segment, Jim Pinkerton said something that was really inane – but what else is new on “Fox News Watch?!”
During his initial report on the Prop 8 decision, Scott referenced how the judge was openly gay. He didn’t mention that he was appointed by President GW Bush to the Federal bench. (Why does the judge’s sexual orientation have anything to do with this? Should straight judges not hear cases related to heterosexuals? Should black judges not hear cases involving whites and vice-versa?) Scott said “there were cheers everywhere including on the front pages.” As evidence of this “bias,” he showed fact based headlines like “Ban on Gay Marriage Overturned” (uh, Jon, that’s what happened!); US Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban” (uh, Jon, that’s what happened); and “Marriage Milestone” (uh, Jon, that’s what it is). So, nice agitprop there. Scott takes the right wing meme and produces what he thinks is “evidence.” Cute.
Jim Pinkerton said that because the NY Times ran a “puffy” article about Judge Walker, that was proof that “he gave them what they wanted.” (So, Jim, do Karl Rove articles in the Wall Street Journal prove some sort of collusion?) The chyron was odd: “Prop 8 and the Press, Who Defines Marriage?” Jon asked “does his sexual orientation deserve media attention?” (Badda Boom, right wing talking point delivered one minute into the show.) Kirsten Powers said no and mentioned how the gays had problems with him in the past. Ellis Hennican mentioned, because Scott didn’t, that the judge was appointed by a Republican president. Pinkerton asked if the judge would have had the article in the NY Times if the decision had been different. Conservative SE Cupp said that one doesn’t need to look at the judge's sexual orientation because his decision was full of bias about marriage and sexuality. Powers said that when the media doesn’t like something, there’s a “character assassination” which seems to be happening in this case. Pinkerton reference how Anita Bryant was “crucified.” (Right, she made homophobic comments for which she deserved everything she got!) Hennican said that while we sometimes need to know personal details about public figures, it should be done in a balanced way. Scott then asked about the “language”thing because Prop 8 “defined marriage as between a man and a woman” (Right wing belief alert, right wing belief alert) “and the headlines are all about how this is a ban on gay marriage.” He asked if this “was an important distinction, and if so, should the media make it clear.” (Talk about “distinction without a difference” – Prop 8, in defining what “marriage” is about banned same sex marriage – So WTF are you talking about?! Should the headlines have been “Judge Rules That Marriage Is No Longer Between A Man And A Woman” cuz that’s not really the substance of the decision which was about “equal protection” and that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because it doesn’t afford what that pesky “anchor baby” amendment provides)
The issue of the definition of marriage was slightly off topic for the discussion of Prop 8's press coverage; but Scott’s question afforded the heterosexually married Jim Pinkerton to quote Peter Ferrara of the American Civil Rights Union who, according to Pinkerton, said “by this logic where do you go on marrying animals, polygamy.” Peter Ferrera's group's idea of "Civil Rights" was to file an amicus brief in support of a California doctor who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian. And he’s no stranger to the Murdoch empire. Only the other day, his article “What’s Next, Bigamy” appeared on the Fox News website. (ah, that old “slippery slope” – the same arguments used against interracial marriage). Pinkerton's homophobic and idiotic comment was met with laughter from the rest of the panel. Powers asserted that this was a civil rights issue.
Comment: While the panel was fair & balanced and, with the exception of Jim Pinkerton, lucid, Scott’s spin was obvious. Eric Burns, we miss you! The question is who is more bizarrely right wing - Jim Pinkerton or Cal Thomas?
Fox News' ratings got the Stephen Colbert treatment
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| P.K. Winsome - Black Viewer Ratings | ||||
| ||||
Fox News' ratings got the Stephen Colbert treatment last night. "They tout their ratings so much, I'm surprised they don't slap a blonde wig on them and give them their own show," he said, but only before launching into a full segment about the network's African-American viewership.
It seems that recent tweet by the NYTimes' Brian Stelter pointing at the network's black audience has now directly inspired a "Colbert Report" segment: "Anatomy lesson: I tweet that Fox News has 29k black viewers; HuffPo picks it up; Colbert researcher calls to fact-check; he uses it on-air," Stelter wrote last night.
Bill O'Reilly Explains Why He Thinks Black People Want White People's Money
Bill O'Reilly Explains Why He Thinks Black People Want White People's Money
Reported by Ellen
between blacks and whites. I believe O'Reilly was making what he thought was a fair and balanced explanation about the differences in blacks' and whites' attitudes toward government. But just like when O'Reilly gushed over the surprisingly pleasant behavior of the patrons at a Harlem restaurant, his comments were a Freudian slip that amounted to, as Rachel Maddow later put it, a conclusion that "black people want white people's money." Actually, it was worse than that. (H/T reader John M.)O'Reilly began with his take on white America:
"According to the polls, most white Americans don't like the huge expansion of the federal government. They also oppose the big spending increases that the president has imposed. It's simple. White Americans fear government control. They don't want the feds telling them what to do and they don't want a bankrupt nation."
O'Reilly went on to "explain" the black perspective: "Black America has a totally different view. For decades, African Americans have supported a bigger federal government... so it can impose social justice. The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts and to provide better education and healthcare at government (read: white) expense. So the African American voter generally loves what President Obama is doing."
O'Reilly later noted that the "social justice" component also exists among Hispanic voters.
"There are now two Americas," O'Reilly continued, "The minority community continues to believe that society is not completely fair to them and they want a huge government apparatus to change that. And while the white community may sympathize with the minority situation, they apparently believe that more harm than good is being done to the country with the cost of social justice programs."
O'Reilly's statements, highlighted above, are very telling don't you think? By saying "The vast majority of blacks want money spent to level the playing field, to redistribute income from the white establishment to their precincts," O'Reilly is not just saying African Americans want white people's money but he's suggesting that whites are the only source of money - or at least the only source of money blacks are interested in - and that all black supporters of Obama are poor. I'd wager that poor black people who support higher taxes for the wealthy believe that wealthy African Americans should pay just as much as wealthy white people and that federal assistance should go to poor whites as much as poor blacks.
In any event, my analysis is at least as valid as O'Reilly's. He offered absolutely no evidence for his conclusions and yet he presented them as though he had some unique insight into each group.
Oh, and one other thing O'Reilly implicitly suggested: That Obama shares or at least caters to that "take it from whitey" mentality that, in O'Reilly's world, is universally held by African Americans.
Rachel Maddow Escalates Feud With Bill O’Reilly, Calls His Defense Of Fox News ‘Bullpucky’
Remember when the cable news cycle was dominated by the ongoing early-aughts feud between Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann
? Well, with Olbermann working on a host of other targets, Rachel Maddow is stepping up to the plate and creating a history of her own with the longtime Factor host since he attacked her for her criticism of Fox News– and this time, the feud includes all sorts of formal logic terms in Latin! No, “bullpucky” isn’t one of them. Maddow began her segment on the Fox News anchor last night by pointing out one of her own errors– his attacks on her based on his enormous ratings aren’t ad hominem, they’re argumentum ad populum– the fancy name for the “bandwagon technique.” Thanks, viewer with a Ph.D. in classical logic!Then she went on to explain why both his ad populum attacks regarding ratings and his ad hominem attacks calling her a loon were wrong, but highlighted specifically his point that there was “no evidence” that Fox News ran stories designed to “scare white people,” as she put it. That point she classified as “so stupid” it didn’t even have a Latin name:
“It’s him saying that there’s no evidence to back up my claim that Fox News consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers– stories that are ginned up, exaggerated, charicatured, in some cases just flat-out made up scare stories designed to make white people afraid of black people. Designed to make it seem that black people– or in some cases, immigrants– are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs.”She gave that claim a name of it’s own: bullpucky.
Rush Limbaugh: Media Giving Michelle Obama Vacation Pass Because Of 'Slave Past'
Rush Limbaugh said Friday that the media is allowing Michelle Obama to take a vacation as a form of reparations for "our slave past."
In discussing the lack of media outrage over the First Lady's trip to Spain — which isn't exactly true, as documented here — Limbaugh said that it stems from her race.
"As far as the media's concerned, Mrs. Obama deserves this," he said. "Look at the sordid past. Look at our slave past, look at the discriminatory past. It's only fair that people of color get their taste of the wealth of America too."
Limbaugh compared the First Lady's vacation to Nancy Reagan changing the china in the White House.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
#atheist
"sin" is a concept invented by a #christian for christians!! As an #atheist I have no notion of sin. sin just sounds very silly to me...
becoming an #atheist is much easier once you accept the fact that the whole universe doesn't revolve around human wishes. #christian
becoming an #atheist is much easier once you accept the fact that the whole universe doesn't revolve around human wishes. #christian
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Discrimination by USDA Against Black Farmers Gets Presidential
Discrimination by USDA Against Black Farmers Gets Presidential
At a townhall meeting on Barack Obama's rural agenda in Kingtree, South Carolina, last November.The USDA kicked the auditors out.
Six members of the Congressional Black Caucus — including presidential candidate Barack Obama — then fired off a letter to USDA asking for an explanation. [1] Obama and the other legislators wrote that there had been a "troubling pattern of obstructing congressional efforts to understand and remedy decades of discrimination against African-American farmers."
The story is an old, but interesting one — and may be particularly relevant because Obama has been consistent in his backing of the claims of black farmers. Yonder contributor Rick Cohen has kept up with this story and reviews the details in a recent article for the Nonprofit Quarterly. Here is Rick's description of the saga of black farmers and the USDA:
"The Pigford decision is one of triumph and tragedy... One out of every nine black farmers lives—or lived, until recently—in North Carolina, including one named Tim Pigford. Like many black farmers, Tim Pigford thought he was going to get a farm ownership loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but he didn't. When he protested to the House Agriculture Committee, he suddenly lost the operating loans he had had access to as a tenant farmer. Then the Farmers Home Administration (part of the Department of Agriculture) foreclosed on his home.
"By depriving Pigford of critical loan funds, Pigford lost his farm, but he wasn't alone. Since the turn of the century, the number of black-owned farms has dropped from something around 1,000,000 around the turn of the century to approximately 18,000, proportionally a decrease from 14 percent to around 1 percent of farms.
"Pigford didn't give up. He filed a class-action suit in 1998—and won—charging the Department of Agriculture with a pattern of discrimination against African-American farmers regarding farm loan programs. Black farmers who could show even minimal evidence of discriminatory treatment at the hands of Agriculture between 1981 and 1996 would be entitled to a cash payment of $50,000, debt forgiveness (and potentially more money is specific instances), and preferential treatment on future loans.
A man cultivating a field near Tupelo, Mississippi, in March 1936.
Photo: Walker Evans [2]
"At that point, the successful class action suit began to frazzle. The Department was hardly aggressive in processing discrimination claims. After extensions of deadlines due to insufficient notice to black farmers, the end results were still shocking: 81,000 out of 94,000 black farmers filing for restitution were rejected. Under a court-ordered extension of the time limits for eligibility, nearly 66,000 farmers were reviewed, but only 2,131 assisted. Not only have black farmers received little of the estimated $3 to 4 billion value of the settlement, but patterns of insufficient support to minority farmers appear to continue. Statistics show that the subsidy gap between black farmers and white farmers is widening post-Pigford."So, Pigford won, but black farmers lost. By the end of 2004, according to Rick Cohen, 2,660 black farmers in Mississippi had received some kind of compensation — but 19,000 others had been rejected for missing a filing deadline. The Senate voted in December to re-open the Pigford case, allowing those who missed the filing deadline to reapply for compensation. That provision was put in the Senate's version of the farm bill.
Sen. Obama was particularly active in this debate. In a statement, the Illinois senator said, "For far too long, this country's hardworking black farmers were discriminated against by our own government, and this legislation offers a chance for us to continue righting those wrongs." He talked about the Pigford case in his South Carolina campaign, and also in Iowa.
This was the case the GAO auditors were coming to investigate last week, when they were asked to leave USDA offices. The Agriculture Department has long fought re-opening the Pigford settlement. Last summer, in fact, USDA employees began a lobbying campaign against including any change in the Pigford settlement in the farm bill. At the time, Obama sent a letter of protest to then-USDA Secretary Mike Johanns. (Johanns condemned the lobbying effort.)
The Pigford case is far from over — and given Obama's long-time concern with this issue, the plight of black farmers in rural America could become an issue in the presidential election [3] should the Illinois senator be on the November ballot.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Most Disgusting Right Wing Viral Email Yet
The Most Disgusting Right Wing Viral Email Yet
Keep in mind that Obama's mother died in 1995. Words fail.
Subject: Nude, guess who
An interesting item. A famous porn star? A stripper? A layout in a cheap men's magazine? Perhaps a hooker?
Don't recognize her? Here's another view.
Still can't guess her identity? Well, here's one more picture.
Does she look familiar?
This is Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro - Barack Obama 's MOTHER!
Can you imagine the widespread play these pictures would be getting by the mainstream media if this had been John McCain 's mother, or Sarah Palin 's mother?
But you won't ever see these pictures anywhere in a regular media outlet.
Oh, and keep reminding yourself that Obama is the first
BLACK President of the United States . Yeah, right.
forward to everyone ..... wait a week and forward again.....be sure and forward in NOV We can't defeat these evil fucks enough.
Keep in mind that Obama's mother died in 1995. Words fail.
Subject: Nude, guess who
An interesting item. A famous porn star? A stripper? A layout in a cheap men's magazine? Perhaps a hooker?
Don't recognize her? Here's another view.
Still can't guess her identity? Well, here's one more picture.
Does she look familiar?
This is Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro - Barack Obama 's MOTHER!
Can you imagine the widespread play these pictures would be getting by the mainstream media if this had been John McCain 's mother, or Sarah Palin 's mother?
But you won't ever see these pictures anywhere in a regular media outlet.
Oh, and keep reminding yourself that Obama is the first
BLACK President of the United States . Yeah, right.
forward to everyone ..... wait a week and forward again.....be sure and forward in NOV We can't defeat these evil fucks enough.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
from Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Christians ask this of atheists all the time, “What would you rather believe that you were created with a divine purpose in life or that you are just a product of random chance?” The idea is to create the false dichotomy that if one were created with a divine purpose, then one is special and magical while if someone doesn’t believe in a god (the Christian God in particular) then one must believe that they were just a product of random chance with no purpose at all and are therefore not special and have no value.
Let’s start with the Christian view of divine purpose first. What does it mean to have divine purpose? It seems to mean that the Christian God created you with a very particular plan in mind. And while you have free will (according to the Christian doctrine) I don’t think you can really go against God’s divine plan. How stupid a plan would it be if you can just do whatever you want? Think about it this way, we live in an interconnected society. So if God has a divine plan for you and everyone else, it would stand to reason that his plan for them is at least in part dependant on his plan for you. So if you would or could go against God’s divine plan, then you would really be messing up God’s divine plan for everyone else too. That basically means that if God were to have a divine plan, it would have to be carried out one hundred percent by everyone. That means no free will when it comes to following God’s divine plan.
If we were to really believe that we were all born with a divine plan and a divine purpose, then we would basically be slaves. So I ask, “What would you rather believe that you were created as a divine slave with no freedom and thus no worth or that you are a product of natural selection capable of choosing your own plan and purpose in life as an intelligent being in your own right?”
That brings me to the second part of the false dichotomy. Do atheists believe we are a product of random chance with no purpose in life? Of course not and while I can’t speak for all atheists because all atheism really means is a lack of belief in a deity, I can speak for the atheists who subscribe to a humanistic worldview. Most atheists in the greater atheistic community, whether they consider themselves Humanists or not still subscribe to a humanistic worldview. Of those atheists, very few would consider life without God to be random chance. This claim is basically a strawman of the science of evolution.
Some Christians who are not educated about the evolutionary process seem to think that evolution is about random chance. The fact is that evolution is brought about by a process called Natural Selection. Natural Selection is definitely not random. While random mutations occur, it is the mutations that are more adaptable to change which survive and are therefore passed on.
Finally, let’s talk about purpose. The idea that either you were created with one particular purpose in mind or no purpose whatsoever is just ridiculous. One of my favorite philosophers once said, “The purpose of life is a life of purpose.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein. This is in a sense an existential moment for people. We can live the life of a slave to an imaginary Lord and Master or we can find our own meaning and purpose in life.
We can choose the quick and easy path and do what others in our religion tell us God wants us to do, or we can learn and grow as people and find our own path and purpose. I see it as an issue of freedom. Back in the day, children (scratch that) young boys were expected to follow in their father’s footsteps. If your father’s purpose in society was a blacksmith, then your purpose would be to be a blacksmith. But today, we can be whatever we wish to be regardless of the occupation of our parents. We are free to create our own purpose in society and in life. Will you choose to limit your own purpose in life to that of a slave to an imaginary God, or will you choose to find your own purpose or purposes (no need to just choose one)?
Let’s start with the Christian view of divine purpose first. What does it mean to have divine purpose? It seems to mean that the Christian God created you with a very particular plan in mind. And while you have free will (according to the Christian doctrine) I don’t think you can really go against God’s divine plan. How stupid a plan would it be if you can just do whatever you want? Think about it this way, we live in an interconnected society. So if God has a divine plan for you and everyone else, it would stand to reason that his plan for them is at least in part dependant on his plan for you. So if you would or could go against God’s divine plan, then you would really be messing up God’s divine plan for everyone else too. That basically means that if God were to have a divine plan, it would have to be carried out one hundred percent by everyone. That means no free will when it comes to following God’s divine plan.
If we were to really believe that we were all born with a divine plan and a divine purpose, then we would basically be slaves. So I ask, “What would you rather believe that you were created as a divine slave with no freedom and thus no worth or that you are a product of natural selection capable of choosing your own plan and purpose in life as an intelligent being in your own right?”
That brings me to the second part of the false dichotomy. Do atheists believe we are a product of random chance with no purpose in life? Of course not and while I can’t speak for all atheists because all atheism really means is a lack of belief in a deity, I can speak for the atheists who subscribe to a humanistic worldview. Most atheists in the greater atheistic community, whether they consider themselves Humanists or not still subscribe to a humanistic worldview. Of those atheists, very few would consider life without God to be random chance. This claim is basically a strawman of the science of evolution.
Some Christians who are not educated about the evolutionary process seem to think that evolution is about random chance. The fact is that evolution is brought about by a process called Natural Selection. Natural Selection is definitely not random. While random mutations occur, it is the mutations that are more adaptable to change which survive and are therefore passed on.
Finally, let’s talk about purpose. The idea that either you were created with one particular purpose in mind or no purpose whatsoever is just ridiculous. One of my favorite philosophers once said, “The purpose of life is a life of purpose.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein. This is in a sense an existential moment for people. We can live the life of a slave to an imaginary Lord and Master or we can find our own meaning and purpose in life.
We can choose the quick and easy path and do what others in our religion tell us God wants us to do, or we can learn and grow as people and find our own path and purpose. I see it as an issue of freedom. Back in the day, children (scratch that) young boys were expected to follow in their father’s footsteps. If your father’s purpose in society was a blacksmith, then your purpose would be to be a blacksmith. But today, we can be whatever we wish to be regardless of the occupation of our parents. We are free to create our own purpose in society and in life. Will you choose to limit your own purpose in life to that of a slave to an imaginary God, or will you choose to find your own purpose or purposes (no need to just choose one)?
Andrew Breitbart/Michael Steele-Headlined GOP Fundraiser Postponed For September
According to Politico, the announcement noted that it was a “scheduling change” and that RNC spokesman Doug Heye commented that the party is “working on scheduling and we fully plan to have another event based on existing trips to California.” The reason for the scheduling change was not given, nor an exact date for the new event, but it seems that, whatever the reason, the event will end up taking place further away from the epicenter of the Sherrod scandal and closer to Election Day.
Politico also notes that Steele canceled an appearance today with the National Association of Black Journalists, in a similar event to the one where Sherrod announced that she planned to sue Breitbart. Steele cited food poisoning as the reason for the cancellation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)