Perhaps the best part about this is that the "People Obama definitely lied to" section is actually two sections. Which makes no sense. Just like ObumbleCare.
Moonbat Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone was on the Megyn Kelly show last night and, well, just watch:
It's bad enough that Pallone is shoveling the bullsh** that ObamaCare is just "capitalism;" what's worse is that he is saying that HE -- and OBAMA -- "know" that the insurance plans which people had canceled were "inferior." Kelly tried to point out that millions liked those plans and are miffed they were canceled, so how were these so "bad?" But Pallone remained in moonbat-ville: As predicted, the talking point is that the insurance companies are the bad guys because they decided to drop coverage. Kelly attempted to point out to Pallone that the ObumbleCare law is precisely why the companies had to drop coverage. (It's actually the HHS minions who decided what a "change" in policy would be so as to disallow the "grandfathering" of policies.) But Pallone didn't waver. He just kept that swarmy smile on his face, saying "No, no ..." and swaying back and forth like the conceited d*** that he is.
Because he (and Obama) know better than us peons. Just shut up and accept it, dammit, and try not to be so ungrateful.
That's what Comic Book Resources' Brett White ponders. His beef is multi-fold, and even tosses in a neat little PC nugget to assuage the contemporary audience:
They're hitting Christopher Nolan-level dramatic highs to prove to everyone turned off by the super-silliness of those two films that things are different now. But that course correction involves moody lightning, slow motion pain faces, and grandiosely somber music -- three things that just don't get me as excited as Anthony Mackie's Falcon going head-to-head with a plane mid-air.
The older I get, though, the more I realize that I have very specific ideas of what I want from the X-Men. I find it hard to relate to what younger fans want, and I am not that enthralled with what director Bryan Singer wants to give me. At what point was it decided that the central characters of the entire X-Men film franchise would be Wolverine, Professor X, and Magneto? The three oldest, whitest dudes in the entire canon? It feels like I'm 8 years old again and all I want are some X-Men action figures -- but my parents bought me the old good guy who doesn't fight, the bad guy who makes speeches and controls metal, and the angry guy that's filled with metal. While I have to appreciate the fact that I have these toys, because otherwise I'd be a brat, I have to admit I wouldn't mind having a few more, maybe Rogue or Storm or Gambit.
Brett's problem is that he is thinking precisely like a fan-boy. Which is OK, certainly, but one cannot seriously maintain that manner while pondering a cinematic version of great comics. A couple points:
I could care less if there is little superhero action in DOFP. I just want a damn good story, like the way Claremont and Byrne told it. If Singer can get close to that, I'll be happy.
Is it a coincidence that lately, politically oriented Twitter posts have virtually disappeared from the likes of Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Erik Larsen, and Gerry Conway? I mean, there was no shortage of posts at all when Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were in the news ("America remains incorrigibly racist"), nor when the government shutdown was looming ("The GOP hates America and opposes Obama because they're racist"). But now? What's the deal?
Oh, right -- it's been revealed that President Lemon lied all along about his healthcare plan. For three years he lied to the public about something that will alter one-sixth of the US economy. For these hacks, nothing to see here ... move along.
I want you to view this video again. And again, if need be. It's since been revealed that the administration knew this clearly wasn't the case. Your typical average American would call this a "lie."
Rewind back to 2002: Then-President G.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and this was the major -- but not the only -- reason his administration used to justify a US invasion. Despite echoing exactly what numerous Democrats had said not very long prior, Bush was accused by Democrats of "lying" when US forces turned up no (or outdated) WMD in Iraq. I think Scott Monje pretty much encapsulates my view about the whole Iraq mess during Bush's two terms. It wasn't that Pres. Bush lied about WMD; it's that after Sept. 11, 2001, he and his administration were going to use any and every excuse to once and for all stop Saddam from f***ing around with us and the UN. Questionable intel was overlooked or ignored. Do I exonerate Mr. Bush for the invasion? Absolutely not. But besides him selectively choosing the best intel to "make his case," again I ask: Why would Bush "lie" knowing American forces would find zilch WMD? This makes no sense. It's as if W had a presidential suicide wish.
Or, to put it more succinctly, Bush made a [big] mistake.
But nothing will ever convince hardcore moonbats of this. Yet, they'll make every excuse in the book for Pres. I-Don't-Knowbama's outright falsehood about keeping your health insurance if you want to ... among [many?] other things. I wonder if the LGOMB's "El Somnambulo," for instance, will ever change his avatar from a pic of Pres. Bush holding up a prison number, to one of Boss Obama doing same.
Cheeyeah, right. How silly of me. That'd be racist.
Why does the NEA (National Education Association) and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) oppose this bipartisan bill?
A bipartisan bill that would stop convicted sex offenders from working in schools has been passed by the House but is running into a foe as it heads to the Senate: major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
The unions have said that the bill "might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts." Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) opposes the bill because it "does not allow for people to overcome their criminal backgrounds." Kyle Olson of the Education Action Group Foundation said that keeping sex offenders away from children is a "no-brainer." He's right. In this case, the unions and Ellison are brainless.
This is the sort of stuff that turns people's stomachs about unions like the NEA and AFT. They'll oppose this sort of stuff, but after an acquittal they'll take non-educational stances stances like urging the feds to investigate George Zimmerman. Gimme a royal break.
That would be the group Asian Americans Advancing Justice, who must be actively patrolling everywhere to see if they should be offended. In this case, the store Pottery Barn was selling two costumes -- that of a sushi chef and a kimono -- which the hyper-sensitive group claimed were "culturally offensive." Here's a pic of what's offensive, according to the group. Really?
Ling Woo Liu, "director of strategic communications" for the AAAJ (as opposed to what -- tactical communications?) said that Pottery Barn's apology was "very passive." Is that so. Well I'd say, Ms. Liu, that you're very boring.
I await now, among others, Irish groups having a cow over Leprechaun outfits, and Scandinavians moaning about Viking costumes.
... there's NO wiggle room for this one, President Lemon:
RELATED: Boss Obama managed to delay ObumbleCare to secure his re-election last year, but woe is upon these thirteen Democrats who're up for re-election next year. Well, except for Delaware's Chris Coons, who's on the list, to name one. He might have been vulnerable ... if the state's GOP wasn't such a hot mess. Massachusetts' Ed Markey is also likely safe in that heavily blue state, which amazingly elected "Native American" Elizabeth Warren last year.
ALSO RELATED: Pres. Lemon's fibs are infectious, it seems. Today before the House, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius actually claimed that the ObumbleCare website ... has never crashed. Oh really? Check out this image of the day!
And the non-Council nominations are here!
I keep telling you fanboys and rubes (but I repeat myself) Apple hates you. They think (read: know) you're stupid and aim to separate you from as much of your money as possible. You idiots line up outside stores for days in advance of a product launch for a phone that is 1% better than the previous phone. Oh that phone had a 4.7 megapixel camera? The new one has 5 megapixels. WOW! Let's all run out and buy one for $600. Stupid stupid stupid. They release the same product 4 times a year because they hate you.
At first, I thought it was my imagination. Around the time the iPhone 5S and 5C were released, in September, I noticed that my sad old iPhone 4 was becoming a lot more sluggish. The battery was starting to run down much faster, too. But the same thing seemed to be happening to a lot of people who, like me, swear by their Apple products. When I called tech analysts, they said that the new operating system (iOS 7) being pushed out to existing users was making older models unbearably slow. Apple phone batteries, which have a finite number of charges in them to begin with, were drained by the new software. So I could pay Apple $79 to replace the battery, or perhaps spend 20 bucks more for an iPhone 5C. It seemed like Apple was sending me a not-so-subtle message to upgrade. [snip]
When major innovations remain out of reach, and degrading durability threatens to tick off loyal customers, companies like Apple can still take a cue from the fashion industry. If you can brainwash consumers into developing new tastes that make the old stuff look uncool for aesthetic rather than functional reasons, you still have a shot at harvesting more sales from your existing customer base. But it seems Apple may have already figured this out too. Just check out the wait times for the iPhone 5S in that shiny new gold color.
President Obama issued a statement about Hurricane Sandy one year later. It contained this gem:
Unless you're in an embassy in Benghazi. In which case, up yours, you're on your own.
Check out Ace today: He notes that the ACA law does grandfather in health insurance policies that were in effect from March 23, 2010 ... with one big caveat.
... [but] the agency writing the regulations for this law wrote them as narrowly as possible -- any change in premium, copay, benefit package, or anything at all would be taken as a whole new policy, and thus be stripped of grandfather status and required, by law, to be terminated. And the White House, of course, oversees the executive agencies writing regulations -- including the one that that almost completely took back the law's promise that you could keep your current policy.
And they've known they were doing this, and they knew they were taking back Obama's promise via bureaucratic regulation, for three years.
I note as forcefully as I can: While laws are the creatures of Congress, regulations are entirely within the Executive's power. Obama's decision to break this promise is his own action. He could direct the regulation-writing agency to revise the regulations so that they honor the promise that Obama himself made; I do not believe he will.
So, what will be President Lemon's response to this? As the title notes, it's good money it'll be "I didn't know." Even though, y'know, as Ace said, the regulations were written by an Executive Branch agency.
Hey, look, I understand the need to make it seem as if the prez didn't know in this post-Nixon age, but this is, frankly, getting beyond parody.
RELATED: Chicago Tribune writer Clarence Page says Obama "‘probably’ knew he was lying" about ObumbleCare.
ALSO RELATED: How predictable. [Radical] White House advisor Valerie Jarrett is blaming insurance cos. for the millions losing coverage. She says "There's nothing in ObumbleCare that forces people out of their plans." Except that, y'know, there is, which she also notes in her tweet: "No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans." Of course she doesn't mention what is noted above -- that Boss Obama's own HHS made the rules as to what constitutes "a change." And those rules say "any modification at all, no matter how small or trivial."
In addition, House Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer admits that President I-Don't-Knowbama lied to us all. “We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage,” he said.
Remember, this flick is supposed to tie all the X-films together. If it does that without making me laugh and tells a great story, it'll be a hit.
It doesn't get much dopier than Claymont's Sherman Lewis ... who wants House Republicans and the Tea Party -- wait for it! -- in jail!
They should be tried for treason and measures should be taken to make sure that no member of the House or Senate can ever do this again to the American people without going to jail.
I guess we can chalk 'ol Sherm down as an authoritarian statist, more like a Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and/or Joe Stalin than a believer in Republican (not the party) government.
Bonus points: Sherm invokes the dastardly Koch brothers and brings up that the GOP lost the last two presidential elections. Like some other dopey letter writers, it seems Sherm forgot what happened in the House elections in 2010 and again in 2012.
The News Journal is on Delaware State Treasurer Chip Flowers' case because of alleged misspent funds while on a trip to Alaska.
I say that's racist.
Forum: What Do You Predict The Ultimate Fate Of ObamaCare Will Be?
The city council has approved a resolution that calls for radical historian Howard Zinn's A People’s History of the United States to be taught in the city's schools.The resolution was supported by Jim Kenny and Jannie Blackwell. These two morons believe that "Philadelphia students need formal instruction in recognizing privilege and inequality," and in
the need for students to be taught an unvarnished, honest version of U.S. history that empowers students to differentiate between moments that have truly made our country great versus those that established systemic inequality, privilege, and prejudice which continue to reinforce modern society’s most difficult issues.
I'm curious -- if Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' opposition to using the book in schools was so "controversial," then why isn't mandating the book's use also so?
Ms. Blackwell apparently is a supporter of former long-time Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: “Castro did not do everything wrong, or he would not have lasted so long,” she said in a statement to CBS. Yeah, like, uh, he would have been voted out of office, y'know??
Then there's Will "Panties In A" Bunch who chimes in with his support:
A lot of conservatives are frothing at the mouth today over the Zinn conversation because -- regardless of what they say -- thousands of young Philadelphians thinking critically is the last thing they want.
Riiiiight. Perhaps Bunch oughta put more effort into clamoring for something that will make "thousands of young Philadelphians" think period, considering what a disaster that district is.
Bunch notes about Zinn that he "retells the last 500 years -- the book starts with an epic and harshly critical look at Christopher Columbus ..." Indeed. If Bunch is so worried that "standard" history omits so many things, he ought to be aware that Zinn does precisely that in his own version of events. Way back in 2005, when Colossus of Rhodey was still a fledgling blog, I noted how Zinn was quite selective about historical events:
In the article, of course, Zinn blasts Columbus and the West in general. What I found most interesting was Zinn's inclusion of Bartolome de las Casas, the Dominican priest, as the "hero" for speaking out against Spanish atrocities inflicted on the Natives (Indians). Of course, including that de las Casas advocated the importation of black slaves from Africa would have put a monkey wrench into Zinn's proselytizing. Even a high school history text, A History of World Societies, notes that de las Casas recommended black slavery because "the Church did not strictly forbid it, and he thought blacks could better survive South American conditions." My prof. indicated she had no idea about this when I brought it up in a "thought paper." She commented that this was "interesting."
No wonder Bunch is a fan. "Selectivity" is only significant if the other side does it. I mean, Bunch notes notes how he "was a bland center-left voters and a pretty "balanced" journalist in the '90s" ... that is, until the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, etc. He says, "Reading Zinn helped me understand what went wrong, and how everyday people could fight to get things right." Of course, you won't ever read from Bunch how Zinn "helped him understand" the Boss Obama administration and its misdeeds. Y'know, things like using the IRS as a political weapon, upping the ante on Bush era surveillance tactics to the Nth degree, drone warfare, health care ineptitude ... and much more. Leftists approve of such, because it helps to do away with their [political] enemies. I mean, just look again at how Jannie Blackwell admires Fidel Castro.
Dave Ramsey is not a stupid man. He knows more about personal finance than you do. More than most people, I'll wager. Listen to this sermon:
"We used to launch men to the Moon. Now the U.S. government can’t launch a website." -- Glenn Reynolds
Want a conspiracy about ObumbleCare? Try this:
On PBS’s Inside Washington Friday, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Politico’s Evan Thomas both advanced single-payer as the solution to all that ails us (with ObamaCare) with host Gordon Peterson agreeing ...
Noel Sheppard then asks: "This of course raises the question: is it possible the disastrous rollout of the health insurance exchanges was intentional?"
Let's honest: With the group we have in power at present, it makes a helluva lot more sense than the Koch Brothers hacking the ObumbleCare website!
The non-Council winner was Mark Steyn with Whose Islam?
Full results are here.
Hey, remember when those nasty Tea Partiers screamed racial epithets at Democrats, particularly members of the CBC, during the ObumbleCare vote in 2010? Oh, that's right, it didn't happen -- despite Dems yelling about it and their MSM cohorts parroting every word. There was never a single shred of proof, despite the since-deceased Andrew Breitbart offering a $10K award for audio/video proof of such.
Now, "I'm A" Dick Durbin went on Facebook to claim that a "House GOP leader" told Boss Obama during gov. shutdown negotiations that he could not "even stand to look at [him]." But, just like the above, not only was there zippo proof, the White House itself denied Durbin's anecdote. This, however, did not deter Dick. That is, until the WH issued an "official" statement still not granting credence to his claim. Then Dick's office posted on Facebook again: "I appreciate this clarification from the White House that explains recent conflicting reports on the GOP quote."
Translation: "I'm a f***ing liar."
Jeff Cochran of Elkton, MD has an anger problem:
With the Republican-tea party so-called patriots running for the hills to blame everyone, except themselves for the mess this country is in we now, we are subjected to get “more” from a tea party, Joe McCarthy, Canadian-born, Texas Senator, wannabe president, hopeful who is going around telling the Senate to back away from the mess he and the fellow hypocrites created. That’s like calling a black kettle green. Where is Donald Trump on the birth issue? What does the media have to say about this senator born in Canada? That’s all we heard about for eight years about President Obama.
OK, that's out of the way. Jeff has pretty much established his moonbat bonafides. But the title of his letter is "Knock off the criticism: ACA is the law." *Sigh* How many times do we have to go through this? How many other laws were "law of the land" that were later altered and/or excised, either via Congress or the Supreme Court? Cochran seems to have the same problem as fellow 'bat Carol Love from yesterday's edition of Dopey WNJ Letters in that he doesn't grasp that the GOP House majority got there precisely because of ObumbleCare. They were elected to do something about it. This is how that little thing called checks and balances works.
Jeff also states "trying to change the rules in mid-stream is deceitful and outright dishonest." How is it deceitful/dishonest when the ACA was passed without a single GOP vote? It's no "deceit" that the Republicans despise the now-law. They despised it when it was passed -- again, without a single vote from their party -- just as now.
R.M. Cummings, in a different letter, has the same problem as Cochran:
They (the Tea Party) have not recognized they are living in a democracy where the people have spoken in two elections and they are attempting to undermine the will of the people of their own country, not a foreign power.
Presidential elections are not the only elections in which we, the people, partake. The Republicans became a majority in the House -- again -- precisely because of the disaster that is ObumbleCare. They also won again in 2012. Those people spoke in two elections. And despite Obama's re-election last year, the "will of the people" then, as now, are (were) against the ACA. Presidents are elected (and defeated) based on many things, not just one exclusively. (Ironically, this wasn't the case with the GOP House majority.)
Y'know, the thing about this clusterf*** is that there is no way Boss Obama can blame Republicans. No. Way. Not a single GOPer voted for this disaster.
But that won't stop them from trying, of course. No matter how insane it is. Case in point: Some "progressives" are blaming -- wait for it! -- the Koch brothers for the failure of the ObumbleCare website.
"If I were writing the Obamacare launch as a novel, it would turn out the Koch brothers hired someone to sabotage the ACA website," one person said.
"I believe the Koch Bros even tried to sabotage the ACA website. I put nothing past these devils," another person added. The tweet was deleted, but not before being captured by Twitchy.
"Why haven't you commented on the obvious sabotage of the ACA website by the Koch Bros and Tea Prty?" asked one person.
Avi Green found a comics/culture writer who tweeted a slew of such comments, including her belief that being against ObumbleCare is "treasonous."
Let's face it, though -- this is pretty much all President Lemon and the Left have left. I just wonder if the MSM acolytes (and especially MSNBC) will start "investigating" such lunacy.
Carol Love of Georgetown has a beef with the concept known as "separation of powers":
“We the people” is a phrase that has been co-opted by ultra conservatives and tea party factions. Well, I am also part of “We the people” and so are the majority of voters who in two free elections elected President Obama. If you disagree with laws that have been passed by Congress (again, elected by “We the people”), then you simply need to wait until the next election to try to change things.
Earth to Carol: We did wait until the next election -- the 2010 election was a GOP landslide based on the unpopularity that is ObumbleCare. If you're so intent on "educating" us on the concept of majority rule, you might wanna brush up yourself on the aforementioned separation of powers not to mention checks and balances.
What has happened to the concept of majority rule when a disgruntled minority in one House of Congress can rule?
The GOP House is "ruling?" How? What they are doing is precisely what the Founders intended: Checking the other branches of government, in this case the Executive Branch. And you can call them "disgruntled;" what they actually are is elected by the people in the states/districts they represent. Y'know, they won elections.
Love goes on to state she had to deal with eight years of President Bush and his "lies" about the Iraq War. (*Yawn*) That aside, maybe she doesn't recall what happened in 2006 when the Senate and House both turned blue? Didn't that make a statement to Mr. Bush, Carol? Didn't that lessen what you had to "deal with?"
Sure it did. That's the great thing about our system.
Yesterday we noted how [Marvel] writer Kieron Gillen is drastically altering the origin of Iron Man: He isn't the son of Howard and Maria Stark. But yesterday's post stated that Stark was genetically altered as a boy; that is untrue, according to this interview with the author. That supposedly was a ruse in earlier issues. Tony was a "decoy" for Howard and Maria's real son, Arno Stark.
Arno, as we also noted yesterday, is supposed to be the Iron Man of 2020. But that character actually is native of an alternate reality (Earth-8410 for sticklers) which means this Arno (Earth-616, the "base" Marvel universe) could have a different destiny. But Newsarama's Chris Arrant doesn't offer a complete picture of IM 2020 in his [brief] description. He mentions "the villainous Iron Man of the year 2020 that subverted the Stark legacy down a more militaristic and selfish bent." Indeed, Arno's career as a mercenary (Machine Man Limited Series) really only began after a major tragedy. Arno lost his wife and only son in a nuclear explosion (of a bomb he himself designed) after a terrorist had armed it. He journeyed back in time to get the retina prints of that terrorist, but was thwarted by an unknowing Spider-Man (in Amazing Spider-Man Annual #20). Despite his brief stint as a "hero for hire," Arno changed his ways to become "more heroic" after stumbling upon an evil plot while in the employ of Marcus Amalgamated (in the Iron Man 2020 one-shot). Indeed, Arno's right-hand man in that story was revealed to be none other than ... Tony Stark (albeit and aged one).
I always liked Iron Man 2020. He is basically Iron Man, but "cut loose," so to speak. He has weapons Tony would most likely never invent (or use) in the first place, and he certainly isn't afraid to use 'em. But, again, the Arno we all know is from an alternate reality. This new one in Gillen's tale is different.
Be sure to read the Gillen interview -- that is, if you're interested in yet another ridiculous retcon that destroys a major character's basic foundations. But who knows -- if we're lucky, maybe this will all be revealed to be yet another alternate reality.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is formulating a bill which will delay ObumbleCare by a year. Wait -- isn't that what the GOP wanted to do during the gov. shutdown "crisis?" I suppose we should await the "progressives'" epithets directed at Manchin -- y'know, "traitor," "racist," etc. -- not to mention how he is "trying change established law," blah blah blah.
Who'da thought this would happen: "A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of [health] insurance." But ... I thought prices would go down under the new plan! Nancy Pelosi said so!
Most transparent administration ever: North Dakaota Blue Cross rep says feds asked us not to reveal the number of people who’ve signed up for ObamaCare. Gee, I wonder why.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D., NJ) called a hearing about the problems facing ObumbleCare a "monkey court." If he was a Republican he'd have been immediately branded as racist for saying that.
In other Democratic unreality, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) said that ObumbleCare -- except the website -- has been an "enormous success." In other news, Waxman also thinks the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was an "enormous success."
In still more Democratic unreality, former DNC Chair Howard Dean blamed the GOP and even GOP governors for ObumbleCare's hassles. "Dean complained that governors forced the Obama administration to implement a large federal exchange by refusing to create their own state-level exchanges." Hey, how 'bout that? Governors actually believe in the 10th Amendment and don't blindly go along with whatever a president wants them to do. Dean certainly isn't the first to [hilariously] blame the Republicans for the law's problems; MSNBC recently had a chyron say the same thing, and most recently at the same network fill-in host Kristen Welker whined about the fiction, stating that the [GOP majority House] refused to "adequately" fund ObumbleCare. (GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn's retort was terrific, saying that "most website developers say an aggregator website, such as what healthcare.gov is, could be built easily for a half a million dollars. They have spent a half a billion dollars.")
And lastly, we'll end it with the one-trick pony Touré who -- wait for it! -- blames racism for opposition to Boss Obama's healthcare law. This dude doesn't even belong on a freakin' podcast let alone a cable network.
Ready? In the upcoming Iron Man #17 it is revealed that
Tony Stark was adopted. And he has a brother, Arno, Tony and Maria Stark’s natural son who was “imbued with alien technology proffered by the rogue android 451 - who has been hidden away from the world, laden with unknown abilities and, perhaps, powers,” according to the AP.
Yeah, it's a badly written sentence but I didn't write it. I think "Tony" in the second sentence is supposed to be "Howard."
So, Tony Stark is a genius only because of his alien genetic engineering? And he has a [step]-bro who was similarly tampered with? But Howard and Maria Stark aren't his parents ... but are Arno's? But isn't Arno ... the Iron Man of 2020??
The idea of Tony's being adopted rather than a genetic heir to Howard Stark’s genius changes nothing about him as a Stark, added Marvel Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso.
Really? If you really think so, you're a complete moron, Mr. Alonso. And judging by the comments at the article, I sure ain't the only one who so believes.
And the non-Council submissions are here!
By Juan Williams:
Williams claims that the White House would have delayed the rollout of ObamaCare’s exchanges except for the opposition of the GOP to the program as a whole. As a result, Williams argues, Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius had no choice but to lie about the exchanges and let it unfold.
Uh ... WHAAAAAT???
Seeing is believing:
Israel's Amit Ivry won a silver medal at the FINA Swimming World Cup 2013. But here's what Qatar TV did:
Classy, eh? Is it any wonder why their English language network is completely and utterly bombing (no pun intended) here in the States?
A parent of a losing football team has filed an accusation of "bullying" against the winning team's coach:
In the complaint, the dad of a player on the Western Hills High School football team claims Aledo High School football coach Tim Buchanan encouraged his players to bully their opponents by running up the score.
"We all witnessed bullying firsthand, it is not a pretty sight," the complaint reads according to MyFoxDFW.com. “I did not know what to say on the ride home to explain the behavior of the Aledo coaches for not easing up when the game was in hand.”
The final score was 91-0. Buchanan pulled his starters early and played 2nd and 3rd stringers. But he didn't tell the subs not to score.
"I'm not gonna tell a kid that comes out here and practices six to seven hours a week trying to get ready for football games ‘Hey, you can't score a touchdown if you get in, you're gonna have to take a knee,' cause that may be the only touchdown that kid gets to score in his high school career.”
He's absolutely right. As I noted back in September, what precisely should a coach do in such cases? It's not his fault the other team(s) absolutely suck, or, as mostly in Buchanan's case, a team is placed in a new division after realignment ... a division historically low on football talent.
If the parent "did not know what to say on the ride home (to his son)," then, in all honesty, he might wanna shore up on his parenting skills (such that they are). I mean, really? How 'bout, "Hey son, it doesn't matter what the score says ... all that matters is that you did your best"? Or, "Aledo always has had great teams. There's nothing at all to be ashamed of"? Does dad honestly think that filing a "bullying" complaint is the solution? Or that such will somehow shield his son from actual bullying in the future? If anything, dad has merely opened the door for a torrent of wisecracks and remarks aimed his son's way.
Failed GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell is pleading poverty. She needs $50,000 to battle a lawsuit brought by CREW -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington -- which accuses her of using campaign funds for personal use.
*Sigh* I don't know which is worse -- the fact that this vacuous woman is still in the news somehow, or the fact that the FEC (Federal Election Commission) is wasting its time on this matter. Perhaps because the head of CREW, Melanie Sloan, used to work for Joe "Plugs" Biden? Knowing the Boss Obama as we do, it shouldn't come as any surprise.
At any rate, if you want the in-depth scoop on all things O'Donnell, be sure to check out the Delaware Republican Record website. It's quite enlightening.
Successful Del. Affordable Care Act enrollee visits White House is the headline. Article author Kelly Bothum does her best to keep the positive spin, for sure.
Baker, 59, of Selbyville, spent Monday morning in the White House Rose Garden, where she introduced President Barack Obama during a media event addressing some of the glitches that have surfaced in the first weeks of the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
"Some of the glitches"?? The entire freakin' system is virtually completely unworkable. Baker is the ONLY person in a state of just shy of one million people to sign up for this boondoggle. ONE! But hey, Bothum points out that, despite having taken over seven hours to successfully register for ObumbleCare, Baker is tickled pink -- especially since President Lemon asked her to the White House:
“I’m just beside myself. I just had no bit of imagination that this could possibly happen,” Baker said. “I am just so thrilled.”
You're just a prop, ma'am -- a tool to make people buy into more of the snake oil that has personified this administration since day one.
Next, Bothum hits the Boss Obama talking points:
Baker was among a select group of small business owners, students and others invited to the White House for the Monday event, intended to highlight those who have had success getting health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance marketplaces opened Oct. 1 to help the estimated 15 percent of Americans who don’t have health insurance, either because they can’t afford it or aren’t offered it through their employer.
"Highlight those who have had success"? "SUCCESS"??? Are you kidding me?? No mention of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been dropped from their employers' coverage due to ObumbleCare? And what about those who now can't afford health insurance because ObumbleCare has caused their premiums to skyrocket?
It’s hard to pinpoint how many people have actually enrolled in the plans offered through the marketplace.
And that's because Prez Lemon and his acolytes don't want you to know just how dismal of a failure this mess is.
During Monday’s event, Obama acknowledged his own disappointment in the enrollment snafus that have plagued the roll-out of the health care exchanges. “There’s no sugarcoating it: The website is too slow; people have been getting stuck during the application process,” he said. “And I think it is fair to say that no one is more frustrated by that than I am.”
Absolute bullsh**. If you were so concerned about it all, sir, you'd have made sure this thing was running smoothly from the start. But you didn't want the TRUTH about it to come out before the 2012 election. To keep that info secret meant that the designers had to operate with insufficient information to enable a smoothly running site. And if you're sooooo concerned, Boss, why is Kathleen Sebelius off attending a gala instead of making sure all these problems get FIXED?
Baker’s once-in-a-lifetime day began at 2 a.m. Monday. By mid-afternoon, she had done interviews with CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets. She had time for a quick cup of coffee before another interview was scheduled. It was a whirlwind for Baker, who was notified Friday about participating in the event. The next day, the White House called to confirm.
“I thought it was a joke,” she said. “I put my name out to help other people in my same situation. I never expected something like this.”
It was a joke, Ms. Baker. To use you as a prop to tout the "success" of a miserably-designed failure of clusterf*** of a SNAFU ... the joke was on you. And, sadly, the whole of the American public in the long run.
... because she probably got wind of her new premium:
Pop music without all the production to cover the lack of talent and skill:
Look at these two guys. Raw talent. Impeccable. (h/t American Digest)
One problem I've always had with pundits and famous people is that a great many of them lose their sense when they get a modicum of fame. Bill O'Reilly used to be tolerable when he first started out but went around the bend when his show got popular. Now he loves himself so much he's unwatchable. One impossibly insufferable hypocrite for whom I've never had patience is Paul Krugman. The man who took money from Enron and then derided them later. The man who whinges endlessly about global warming and lives in a massive mansion and flys around on private jets. Carbon footprint? He needs a carbon bootprint on his ass. Anyway, this time Niall Ferguson gives chapter and verse in Krugman's lies, exaggerations, prevarications and self-aggrandizement.
Read the whole thing. Keep it handy next time someone cites him as some sort of prophet.
Bleeding Cool has it.
It looks like someone had the "brilliant" idea to "up the ante" from the first; however, that's hard to do. The original (from 2005) was an extremely well done suspense/horror flick about a deranged serial killer who preys upon tourists in the Aussie Outback. It takes a really good horror film to suck me in; Wolf Creek did just that. John Jarratt is eerily creepy as the madman.
And I see my main question about the [original] story has been answered ...!
At today's White House press briefing starring Jay Carney:
Carney: No response.
Carney: Could not say he agreed.
Carney: No response, other than to refer to HHS.
Carney: "There's no question that the website has not performed up to expectations.”
As Geena Davis said in The Fly: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
Five Predictions for Boss Obama's "Glitch" Speech Today. It's a very good bet all will be met, especially number one.
In 2014, the fact that their insurer is dumping their health insurance plan and making them pay twice as much for a crummier one -- now that will get their attention. They will have an opinion on that, plus they will be plenty interested in who is responsible for it. And does anyone want to guess who is responsible for ensuring that the Scarlet "O" of Obamacare is tattooed right onto the forehead of every Democrat running in 2014?
Boss Obama may have been able to hide the truth about this fiasco before the 2012 election, but it had to come out sooner or later. And now that it has, 2014 presents a prodigious problem for him and his minions. Prez Lemon will do all he can to sugarcoat it all (and his MSM allies will assist), but nothing beats the reality of a huge hit to one's wallet ... along with a worse product.
Forum: What Lessons Can We Take Away From The Government Shutdown?
That's a shame.
Via, of all places, NBC News: Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices.
Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.
“My impression was …there would be a lot more choice, driving some of the rates down,” said [Seattle resident Kris] Malean. Oops.
Just another gullible Obama-voting LIV, it seems.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out this Yuval Levin piece about Boss Obama's health exchanges -- and the impending disaster they'll cause if not fixed quickly.
No thanks. We've already had one president caught banging the help.
Whose fault is it that ObumbleCare's debut has been an unmitigated f*** up? Why, the GOP's, of course! Just ask MSNBC:
You just can't get more insane than this ...
I've read a lot of gloating the last couple days at MSM websites and "progressive" blogs over Boss Obama and the Democrats' seeming "victory" in the whole government shutdown affair. Included in a lot of that boasting is the claim that next year's mid-term elections will be disastrous for the GOP.
The American public's collective memory lasts about one week, maybe two. Conveniently forgotten by all the 'bats is that the GOP won back the House in 2010 (and kept it in 2012) -- a lopsided victory rivaled only by the 1994 GOP House takeover -- precisely because of the clusterf*** that is ObumbleCare. The 1994 victory was in large part for the same reason. So, yeah, sure, the GOP came out the bigger loser after the "deal" made the other day, but is the public gonna give a hoot come November 2014? Or, more likely, will the Hurricane Katrina-like disaster that is ObumbleCare drive people to the polls ... to vote against it?
It's true that all the technical glitches that have plagued the ACA rollout may be resolved by next summer. But, will the drastic increases in healthcare costs that way too many Americans will face be rectified? And, even if the tech problems are resolved, will it be in time? Unlikely. Thus, it's highly likely is that Boss Obama will sometime in the near future anoint himself "savior," and "after much reflection and consideration" propose -- just like the GOP wanted during the recent gov. shutdown -- a delay in the individual mandate. Which, basically, is a delay in the whole of ObumbleCare. This will lessen the anger directed at the administration (and Democrats) before the mid-terms, thereby lessening Republican gains in the House and Senate. The problem with this, however, is it presents problems in 2016 for Hillary Clinton, or whomever becomes President Lemon's Democrat successor.
Also consider the political ads the GOP could air if Obama unilaterally delays ObumbleCare for a year (no, I don't know how he'd be legally able to do that either, but it hasn't stopped him before):
"October 2013: The main request of GOP members of the House and Senate was for a one year delay in ObamaCare. But the president and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate stood firm and said 'no.' The impasse resulted in a two week shutdown of the federal government. And, despite having discretion on the use of funds during the shutdown, the president put more guards at open-air memorials and parks than around the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya. World War II veterans were prevented from visiting their memorial, but a march for illegal immigrants was permitted.
But then, shortly after the shutdown ended, President Obama claimed that after much consideration, he would delay his healthcare plan ... for one year."
Look at what Philly.com's Jimmy Kempski does with his NFL week 7 picks:
The "Washington team." How so-delightfully PC. Kempski = total tool.
The non-Council winner was David Horowitz//FrontPageMag with The Threat We Face.
Full results are here.
Of course, they never seriously were that label, but "progressives" couldn't allow The NarrativeTM to slip away. Yale Professor's Surprising Discovery: Tea Party Supporters More Scientifically Literate.
The prof who did the study offered up the following:
“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote. “But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” he continued. “All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”
To which Ace retorts:
I'm glad he admitted his cognitive bias, but is he actually aware of his deep cognitive bias?
Will he now do a study to document the cognitive biases of the left, their tendency to demean as nearly subhuman all those who disagree with them?
I doubt it. This is, for any behavioral scientist, obviously an interesting line of inquiry, and certainly one that has very little inquiry into it.
But having found that he himself has been Cocooned by a steady diet of bias-confirming self-selected sources which engage in a nonstop demonization of The Other, he will simply move on to his next hypothesis about the degenerated brains of Tea Partiers and attempt to confirm his own biases.
Perfect. And, if I may add, it's precisely akin to all those contemporary comicbook creators who all tweet the same anti-GOP/anti-conservative flotsam day after day after day. Because they all know each other -- they all live in the same Bubble (or Cocoon, as Ace says) and know virtually no one with sharply divergent political opinions. For them, it's an astonishingly stupid business model ... but come to think of it, their tweets kind of explain that.
Because only presidential elections matter, it seems:
President Obama: "You don’t like a particular policy, or a particular President, then argue for your position and win an election."— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 17, 2013
Uh, President Lemon? The GOP won elections in 2010 precisely because of your train wreck of a healthcare law.
And this guy has a law degree??
Getting harder and harder to believe this guy actually has a TV show given how freakin' far gone he is:
If you EVER hear the supposed desire for "civility," "new tone," "meanness" or ANYTHING remotely related to such from a "progressive," simply tell him/her to go f*** him/herself. Because that's all they're worth.
And that is to let ObumbleCare explode in its makers' faces. Seriously, when folks like these are getting royally pissed off, you know President Lemon will have to do something. Ace predicts Boss Obama will "voluntarily" delay ObumbleCare for a year -- y'know, to show what a great guy he is. But, he'll "pretend it has nothing to do with the law's disastrous implementation and its unavoidable structural flaws." But of course.
Sign of things to come? ObumbleCare website asks users if they want to register to vote. Y'know, "by the way, don’t forget which party is giving you 'free' healthcare. Wink."
In the meantime, visits to Healthcare.gov have plummeted 88% since the first week of availability. Wonder why that is?
In Delaware, a 27 year-old adult's costs will increase 99.9%. A 50 year-old's costs will increase 65.1%, and a family of four's costs will increase 19.4%.
They just don't stop. Obviously, the only business they want is that from like-minded people. The rest of you can go screw yourselves.
First up today is Ed Brubaker who [in]famously had Captain America go after the Tea Party:
http://t.co/tFhLhV55Dl This is pretty fascinating, if you like history.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) October 17, 2013
Yes, it's "fascinating" because the linked article's author trashes the GOP (it's Rolling Stone, after all), referring to their "extremism," their "suicide machine," and calling them "morons." Yep, "fascinating."
Here's a tweet retweeted by Rick Remender:
I want to congratulate the Republicans for a very brave fight against a very fake monster.— daveanthony (@daveanthony) October 16, 2013
Indeed. ObumbleCare is a "fake monster." The sign-up procedure is an unmitigated disaster, average folks' premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing, the overall cost of the program is at least three times what we were sold, and Boss Obama's promises about it have turned out to be complete fantasies. But these concerns are "fake." It's truly pathetic how these folks can't see anything outside their "progressive" alternate reality bubble.
And then there's the "prodigious intellect" known as Ron "STFU" Marz who tweets
So, basically, I got the same thing out of all this as the GOP, and I didn't hold the economy hostage.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 17, 2013
Is that right? $17 trillion in debt isn't "holding the economy hostage," Ron? Mandating folks purchase a private product or face the wrath of the IRS isn't "holding the economy (and the public) hostage," Ron? Forcing health insurance rates and deductibles to skyrocket for average folks isn't "holding the economy hostage," Ron you blithering idiot? Cripes, your logic is about as brilliant as your comicbook tales were.
Lastly, it's the anachronistic Gerry Conway who posts
These idiots need to pay a price for their stupidity: High Cost to the Economy From the Fiscal Impasse http://t.co/jw8tQzEVbx— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 16, 2013
Uh huh. As opposed to the stupidity of the 2009 stimulus bill. As opposed to the complete and utter waste of President Lemon's "green" projects. As opposed to the insanely inept boondoggle we're witnessing now called ObumbleCare. And, what would that "price" be, Ger? Something like this? Or maybe like this MoveOn.org petition? Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
This is what the industry thinks of you, right-of-center comicbook fans. They piss on you and your views. Spending your money on them is beyond counter-productive.
I happened -- purely by accident, but I'm glad -- to catch this PBS program last evening, and even for a well-seasoned comics guy, I thought it was quite entertaining. It's divided into three parts, basically dividing the Comics Age into their three main segments: Golden, Silver and Bronze Age. I know less about the Golden Age than the others, and learned quite a few neat tidbits about it. For instance, at one point, 70 million comics were sold around World War II. At the time, that was half the American population! And, for GIs fighting abroad, comics were their reading material of choice!
I didn't enjoy the Silver Age as much, mainly because I knew just about everything presented. What was cool, however, were the "insider" nuggets offered up by guys like Jim Steranko (Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD) and Neal Adams during their stints in the late 60s and early 70s. Adams' recounting of a DC editor telling him and writer Denny O'Neil that he wanted Green Arrow and Green Lantern together in their own book -- because they both had "green" in their names -- was hysterical.
I fell asleep during the Bronze Age-present segment, but I'm certain I didn't miss much. The previews leading up to it showed a lot from the comicbook films from the last thirteen years or so, and I read that the "bubble" of the 1990s was discussed.
The entire program is available for free for a limited time at the link above.
First up our 'ol "pal" Ron "STFU" Marz who thinks the linked article is a "great piece" about the GOP "crazies" ... or "claven of sociopaths":
Then there's conspiratorial moonbat Erik Larsen who, like so many others couldn't have cared less about the team name "Redskins" until their messiah Boss Obama chimed in on the matter. And now that Obama has, well, it's time for guys like Larsen to get all self-righteous. Remember, these "progressives" know better than you. Because shut up.
Watching people vehemently defend the racist name of the Washington Redskins is a little frightening.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) October 16, 2013
It is CLEARLY a racist name. There's no wiggle room. "Tradition" is a bullshit excuse because--at one point slavery was a tradition.— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) October 16, 2013
Your sad defense is "I don't care if it's offensive to some people--I don't know those people and I like the name more than I like them."— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) October 16, 2013
Sorry, Larsen you 'bat. The facts just ain't what you say/think/scream. It may make you feel all giddy and superior to others to boast otherwise, but in reality you're just another radical dolt who uses his position to act "smart."
Or ridiculously hypocritical. For Larsen also has the stones to tweet this:
I keep hearing paranoid folks saying Obama could drone attack American citizens and I keep asking, "Well, when is THAT going to happen...?"— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) October 16, 2013
Uh huh. Says the supposed non-paranoid who believes that the GOP "stole" the 2000 and 2004 elections! You just can't make this sh** up, folks!
Always remember, conservative/libertarian/GOP peeps: This is what modern comicbook creators think of you. Show them what you think of them by keeping your wallet closed around their [stale] product.
Here's the, er, "lucky" resident. Check it out:
But get this: The article suggests that clearing one's computer cache, browsing history and cookies might allow you to get through to sign up. “It might not be the government computers, it may be your own sitting in front of you,” Baker said. Uh huh. Right. But I'm sure Boss Obama will be all over that excuse; after all, he's a master at blaming problems on everybody but himself.
Naturally, Janice's story is portrayed as a net positive, as she was to pay around $1,600/mo. for insurance for her and her hubby, but she (not her hub) ultimately got turned down due to "minor pre-existing conditions." I wonder when the News Journal will do a story on how ObumbleCare has significantly raised many people's health costs ... even those of Boss Obama-loving "progressive" LIVs.
Yeah, I wonder ...
UPDATE: Did you catch White House spoke-idiot Jay Carney touting Ms. Baker as an example of ObumbleCare success today at the press briefing? Of course, he neglected to mention that she is the ONLY person in the state to have signed up.
In Boss Obama's favorite city, an organizer (a kindred spirit to Boss Obama, natch) for the Chicago Teachers Union told a crowd opposed to Mayor Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel that "“the mayor of this city and his corporate, greedy elitist friends that this city belongs to the people in this room. Black people, brown people, poor people, working-class people."
Wait -- white folks aren't permitted in Chicago? And, as Gateway Pundit's Andrew Marcus notes, Emanuel is Jewish so we all know what this organizer meant by "greedy," right Chris Matthews (and Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.)?
Then there's the completely unoriginal Denis Hamill of the New York Daily News who opines that "frightened white people in Congress" can't accept a black president, and that's what's behind all the government gridlock. But, he does note that "not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist." Wow, isn't that nice of him? If you're so inclined to read a highly uneducated piece of refuse, by all means click on the link.
(h/t to RwR.)
And the non-Council nominations are here!
"My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is going to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284. I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?"
I shouldn't laugh but I can't help it. I love when liberal fantasy land crashes into the rocks of reality.
... you see one dolt carrying a Soviet/Chinese flag at an Occupy or whatever "progressive" rally. Y'know, like here. Now, watch this:
Yep, that's Chris Matthews turning an entire segment of his show into a diatribe on how one protester with a Confederate flag "represents" all Republicans and conservatives.
Remember that Boss Obama, Joe "Plugs" Biden and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Dolt (among others) all expressed support for the Occupy Movement.
Via Insty: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me for five years, I’m an Obama voter.”
Quiet France stirs again. I've mentioned this topic from time to time as it is of some interest to me. I had a brief time in France as a student so I do keep half an eye on happenings there. One thing that I've noted in reading is that there is a grand undercurrent there that is right wing. Ultimately, they are a tolerant lot with a favorable eye toward socialism but in terms of social norms, they are fiercely protective of language and culture. FN has an eye towards Dirigisme and Gaullism which counterintuitively, makes it popular with the average Frenchman. Due to the structure of their political system, the major urban areas dominate politics and the more rural areas tend to get run over by civic concerns. There are noted exceptions to this rule (vinters) but it largely holds true.
Politically, this is not unlike the Tea Party here. The two are completely different in ideology but alike in their origin. The Tea Party grew out of discontent with wild spending and borrowing over the cliffs of fiscal sanity. The FN is not dissimilar except that they are coalescing around an already existing party and one with a troubling history. FN has been successful in rebranding itself as a nationalist party first and a socially conservative one second. They are decidedly leftist (by US standards) but rather towards the center than Msr Hollande. They are drawing numbers now, I believe, because the two previous PMs refused to deal with the unassimilated immigrants and the associate problems it creates. The average Frenchman sees the growing influence of Islam at home and the waning influence of France abroad and sees a world that is upside down. FN seeks to flip this on its head and restore France to its "rightful" place. Should Hollande and the socialists ignore these problems at their peril. How much of a nudge does France need to make FN a major player? What happens if they gain a majority in the assembly? I'm afraid we may find out before too long.
Wilmington, DE: "A Place to Be Somebody." If you can survive, that is.
This is what I've been on about. I take issue with the label of "radical" but rather, this is ancient. Literally. Socratic method and all that. The idea that we are going to continue to use the Prussian factory model from the industrial age with digital age kids is insane. We are choosing an outdated modality and worse yet, a single modality for all types of learners and abilities. This. Makes. No. Sense. Article after article and study after study tells me education is about to implode. (If not, it ought to.) We need to radically rethink education and what it actually is. How it works and whom it serves. I imagine Hube has some ideas on this front but I believe things are going to change radically and pretty quickly.
Forum: What Do You Feel Are America’s Chief Foreign Policy Challenges In The Near Future?
But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.
When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait. Nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.
It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it easy to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
Let's see, what would the equivalent be if "Fighting Irish" used, say, "Blacks" instead of "Irish?" Wonder what the result of that would be?
Ultimately, what matters is if Native Americans are offended by the DC nickname. And guess what? They're not. Not even close. Ninety percent (yes, ninety) of Native Americans said they are not offended by the name "Redskins." In fact,
Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”
Again, 90% said "no." In addition, check out ESPN columnist Rick Reilly's article from September for further non-PC facts about the 'skins. But these won't stop the mainstream media and elitist "progressive" whites ... because they "know" better. Just as they "know" that getting a photo ID is ridiculously cumbersome for minorities despite polls showing the population in question vehemently disagreeing with them, these same anointed "know" that Redskins is a racial slur -- because shut up. And if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is going to meet with one group of Natives (who, of course, are opposed to the Washington team name), then why doesn't he also meet with someone Adrian Jawort, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, who notes that actual history doesn't exactly jibe with that of PC idiots like Bob Costas and our president: That "red skins," among other things, was used by Natives themselves, and with pride.
In conclusion, if the mainstream media and academic institutions across the land are clamoring that something is "insensitive," "racist" or "intolerant," then you'd best investigate what exactly that "something" is. Because it's a good bet it's only those noted adjectives to conceited "progressives" who perpetually purport to know better than everyone else.
Doug Ernst has further thoughts.
UPDATE: Costas this morning admitted that most Natives aren't miffed by the team name, but wants a heckler's veto anyway:
[Costas] then admitted that most Native Americans are not offended with the name, but that since other people might be, it should still be changed.
Here's what I'm offended by: Costas' mouth. STFU already.
UPDATE 2: How 'bout this? It seems the most vocal Native in favor of getting the Redskins to drop their name is not even a member of the tribe from which he claims to be. But he is a big Obama supporter and donor. “He has no ancestry in the Six Nations but he has a lot of powerful friends in D.C.,” a NY State assemblywoman said.
What a surprise.
Maybe the dude should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren. After all, she got away with it.
Thank goodness Bob Costas finally weighed in on how offensive Washington Redskins team name is in this, his 30+ year of sportscasting!— proteinwisdom (@proteinwisdom) October 14, 2013
... and was underwhelmed. While I can appreciate the myriad homages to the classic 1982 Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, the story was pretty unoriginal and included way too much consipracy nonsense that writer Roberto Orci dabbles in.
*Sigh* I really don't have much to add from what I wrote here, despite then not having seen the film. One thing stuck out at me: If the film's message was supposed to be so ... "anti-military" (Admiral Marcus' clandestine attempts via Section 31 to prepare for war against the Klingons is the "real" bad guy), then why are Starfleet personnel now decked out in overtly Nazi-esque gray uniforms, complete with hats? Oh yeah, right -- maybe that's precisely it. Yeesh. And that ending? Kirk's speech about "not getting revenge?" Cheeyeah. Got it. "We created Khan and co. just like we 'created' al Qaeda/bin Laden/Muslim fundies." Or something.
If there was a need for the gratuitous "real Trek universe" Spock appearance ("new universe" Spock summons him for info on Khan), then why couldn't he also have filled in 'ol pointy ears about the Klingons, hmm? That Admiral Marcus was spot-on -- conflict with the Klingons was inevitable??
So Phase I: Disastrous rollout. Phase II: Sticker shock. Phase III: Why are they getting a subsidy and I'm not?— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 13, 2013
Newsarama has the hype.
Although Star Trek is best known these days as a film franchise, could a return to its first medium – television – be in the works? Could be.
Sky News reporter Joe Michalczuk tweeted on October 8 that during a press junket for the film Ender’s Game, Star Trek co-writer/producer Robert Orci told him that the franchise’s producers had met with CBS to do a new Star Trek television series. Neither Michalczuk or Sky News have published a formal article elaborating on this and Orci hasn’t made any public comment on his own, so this second-hand statement can be seen as a potential, but unconfirmed report.
This contradicts an earlier report that said JJ Abrams claimed CBS said it was not interested in a new Trek TV series.
Of course, there's no indication of just what the series would be about. It's highly unlikely that much -- or all -- of the "rebooted" universe cast would be willing to move to the small screen. And contrary to comments I have seen here and there, the "real" Star Trek universe does still exist. That supernova which [ridiculously] "threatened the galaxy" (as noted by "real" Spock in the 2009 reboot film) only annihilated Romulus, as far as we know. Spock stopped further destruction from occurring via the enigmatic red matter. Thus, there's a plethora of stories that could be done in what seems to be a popular idea: An anthology-style series.
Consider the possibilities: Episodes detailing the changes in the quadrant after Romulus' destruction. How Section 31 has influenced the Federation. Stories about the Dominion War. Episodes dealing with Starfleet Academy. io9 has some intriguing ideas in this thread.
At least the foreign press pretty much knows that Boss Obama is a complete bullshi**er:
Many thanks to loyal Colossus reader for Fred G. for sending this along.
There has not been a single confirmed enrollment in Delaware's state-run healthcare exchange since ObamaCare was "rolled out" ten days ago.
The state site has seen approximately 18K hits, but again, no confirmed enrollments. The fact that it's been a technological clusterf*** like everywhere else in the country probably has a lot to do with that.
After reading Ted Kaufman's piece on "improving education," is it any wonder why the hell nothing of substance ever gets done? It's admirable that Ted recognizes that a student's home and outside-of-school life can prevent much of what's supposed to go on in school; however, much of the rest of the op-ed is typical "progressive" fluff. Not to mention, it ignores outright what Ted's own party has done to education in the First State.
It is a disturbing trend. I am now aware of numerous studies that confirm what that veteran principal told me years ago. Schools can’t educate kids whose lives outside of school make learning difficult if not impossible. Nor can you combat things like bullying or truancy without spending the money on school professionals who are trained to deal with such things.
With all the cuts in school budgets, with all the painful and often painfully stupid cuts caused by the federal sequester, making a case for funding more guidance counselors might seem like a small thing. But I chose to write about it for precisely that reason.
Isn't that "admirable," Mr. Kaufman. What's missing from your piece is what each and every educator with half a brain would tell you -- if you actually did visit with them and discuss monetary issues in the field: Why the hell are we spending oodles of money on standardized testing year after year ... not to mention changing the standards and tests year after year. Why did we commit to Race to the Top, which is practically universally loathed by teachers? What about the ridiculous DPAS II teacher rating system which basically condenses a teacher's "effectiveness" to a short test given to students? Not to mention, those DPAS II tests are frequently riddled with errors!! Why are we committing to Common Core and changing our standardized tests YET AGAIN?
So, yes, Mr. Kaufman, focus on the lack of counselors in our schools. Maybe if you had a little Democrat confab with Jack Markell and co. and convinced him to do away with some (or all) of the above, you'd have your cash for more counselors. But we know that won't happen. Especially since it's more than a good bet that 'ol Jack is using all of the above to pad his résume to prepare for his post-gubernatorial career.
They're still at it feverishly, folks, as the government shutdown drags on. First, it's Erik "Bush Stole the 2000 and 2004 Elections" Larsen who retweets (the "they" being the GOP, natch):
@ErikJLarsen And at this point, they'd still be the assholes that held the country hostage after pitching a fit— Darkwing Duckface (@brownlashon) October 11, 2013
Next, Larsen asks a stupid (shock, I know) question:
What could Obama possibly give the GOP which the public could look at and say, "oh sure THAT was totally worth it!"— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) October 11, 2013
Um, at least a one year delay in the debacle that is ObamaCare? After all ...
Next is our pal Superior Spider-Man scribe Dan Slott who apparently doesn't recognize the racism associated with the New York Comicon:
Wait a second -- you mean to tell me that attendees not only have to have an ID badge ... but a mobile [phone] device which accesses the Internet?? THAT'S RACIST! Doesn't Slott and those in charge of the 'con know that minorities have less capability of obtaining those sorts of things?? And if Slott doesn't like it, then why is he still going??
Remember -- this is what modern comicbook creators think of you. Show them what you think of them by keeping your wallets closed.
The non-Council winner was Dan Carter/Richochet with When The Bleeding Heart Becomes The Iron Fist.
Full results are here.
Remember: dissent is patriotic -- unless "progressives" aren't getting their way. Still, arresting Boehner still isn't as extreme as what a local blogger once wanted to do.
Regarding the ObamaCare sign-up websites:
"It wasn't designed well, it wasn't implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it," Luke Chung, an online database programmer, told CBS News.
"It's not even close. It's not even ready for beta testing for my book. I would be ashamed and embarrassed if my organization delivered something like that," he said.
Newsarama, not exactly known for making popular choices when it comes to their countdowns, has up a Top Ten Origin Stories for the superhero set. Their list follows. If there's a strikethrough, it means I'd replace it with what's written.
GREEN ARROW THE VISION. In 1968 Marvel made numerous connections to its past, recent and distant, with the addition to the Avengers with the "synthozoid" Vision. Created by the evil robot Ultron-5 from the inert android body of the Original Human Torch and imbued with the brain patterns of the deceased Wonder Man, Vizh went on to become one of the most popular Avengers of all-time. Some of his best stories take place during Steve Englehart's Earth's Mightiest run in the mid-late 1970s.
9. GREEN LANTERN.
IRON MAN DAREDEVIL. Should be on the list for its ingenuity. A canister full of radioactive materials (OK, using radiation to explain superpowers ain't that original) falls from a truck and smacks Matt Murdock -- who was busy saving an old man from being hit by the truck -- right in the kisser. What's original is what comes next: Matt is struck blind, but his other senses become heightened to such a magnified degree that, acting in unison, they more than make up for the loss of vision.
7. FANTASTIC FOUR. Their origin is yet another testament to the "miraculous" nature of radioactivity; however, one has to take into account the utter dopiness factor in Reed Richards' taking Sue and Johnny Storm along for the trip. Like, what purpose did they serve? At least Ben Grimm was a pilot. And, how was it so damn easy to sneak aboard a rocket??
CAPTAIN AMERICA THE HULK. How can the updated version of Jekyll and Hyde not be on this list? If you're not old enough to remember, the Hulk was originally gray, and Bruce Banner only turned into the monster when the sun set. These both didn't last long, just as Jade Jaws' original run didn't. It only made it to six issues. However, he got new life in Tales to Astonish, and eventually his own book again. All that said, anyone but Bruce Banner dies instantly when getting caught in the explosion of a gamma bomb.
CAPTAIN MARVEL/SHAZAM SUPERMAN. Newsarama has Supes at #3; we knock him down a peg for the bit of unoriginality in his origin. I mean, c'mahn -- how easy is it to make a super strong guy just by claiming he's from another planet?
X-MEN CAPTAIN AMERICA. The mutants shouldn't be on the list because let's face it -- their "origin," such that it is, is lame. They're born with their powers. That's doesn't require a lot of thought. On the other hand, Cap's classic origin still resonates today: A wholesome, just plain good guy (Steve Rogers) is the epitome of a 98 lb. weakling, but is selected to test a new "super soldier" serum. It works. And the rest, as they say ...
SUPERMAN IRON MAN. What does it take to change the essence of a man? In Tony Stark's case, being taken hostage and being on the brink of death. The updated origin is as good as the original, maybe even better. Robert Downey Jr. in the 2008 film turned Shelhead into a Marvel marquee character, after perpetually being noted as a B-lister.
2. BATMAN. Much of what I said above can be applied here.
1. SPIDER-MAN. Easily #1 in my view, Peter Parker embodied "real life" for generations of teens (mostly boys) ... with the "slight" addition of having been bit by a -- what else? -- radioactive spider. But he let his new powers go to his head, and it came back to haunt him. His life was forever changed, ultimately for the gain of the greater good.
UPDATE: By the way, after I uploaded the image of Spidey's first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15, I noticed I had forgotten how silly the word balloons are on the cover. Like, why would Webhead state out loud what his secret ID is while carrying somebody within easy earshot??
Ah yes ... our contemporary crop of four-color entertainment -- just like their Hollywood and music business brethren -- really think their position makes them so much more "enlightened" than you. Let's take a gander at the latest.
Here's a beauty retweeted by Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:
Then there's poor Gerry Conway. Conway ain't exactly "contemporary," having written Amazing Spider-Man back in the 1970s and his stint included such noteworthy events like the death of Gwen Stacy and the introduction of the Punisher. He also wrote the classic treasury edition Superman vs. Spider-Man which came out in 1976, one of the "Big Two's" first cross-over events. But nowadays he is no stranger to Twitter, nor is he shy about letting you how "stupid," "extreme," "racist," and "scary" you are if you're a conservative. First, an invocation of Godwin's Law:
If you ever wanted to know how things looked at the Reichstag early in 1932, read this. http://t.co/EQoSWdCf6x— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 9, 2013
Oh, hey! Ger found some conservatives who actually disagree with the House GOP (as if that never happens):
Even the American Conservative sees the House GOP stand for what it is: political theater http://t.co/vLOy85JdPy— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 9, 2013
And then, predictable as all hell, the invocation of racism:
Yep, the GOP has become the Southern Democratic Party of 1860. God help us all. http://t.co/8SqqHBoBtu— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 9, 2013
Lastly, conservatives are "fearful of reality":
More fun thinking from the reality-phobes: http://t.co/wnyh9G6qMM Many in G.O.P. Offer Theory: Default Wouldn’t Be That Bad— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) October 9, 2013
Remember folks, these people put out entertainment which they want YOU to spend your money on. Any self-respecting Republican/conservative shouldn't give these bums a red cent.
I believe Obama has done more damage to the Left than they realize. In fact, I don't think we will know just how much damage he has done until he's out of office for a while.
Al Jazeera America’s Ratings Hit Zero. Alec Torres notes that "the 10 p.m. primetime show Consider This averaged only 3,000 viewers of those aged 25 to 54 and only 9,000 total. The network's flagship program, America Tonight, "pulled an average of 18,600 viewers last week."
For comparison, even CNN's Piers Morgan managed to pull in over half a million viewers on average.
Forum: Do You Have Friends Or Family With Opposite Political Views, And Are You Able To Ever Discuss Politics With Them?
And the non-Council nominations are here!
The people who shut down the government are going to be in charge of your healthcare. If they will shut down monuments as a political stunt, you can be damn sure they'll use your access to healthcare as the greatest leverage this country has ever seen.
If we're to believe Democrat talking points that requiring a photo ID is "racist," then why isn't the extreme difficulty in signing up for ObamaCare -- arguably a lot more tough to do -- also "racist?"
Ace notes a few nuggets I had never known about Gene Roddenberry and his beloved Star Trek. Like, Gene never dug the idea for the best of all the Trek films, The Wrath of Khan. He did not want Spock to die at the end (OK, I can dig that), but he also had an issue with the "paramilitary" aspect of the film. Uhh, what? Hey dude, what about all those original series episodes featuring, y'know, Klingons ad Romulans which the Enterprise (and Starfleet) had to fight? Gene also wanted a plot he had pushed for years to be used: The 1701 going back to 1963 to the time of the Kennedy Assassination. This, in a movie.
OK, so let's consider this: Would Kirk and co. thwart Lee Harvey Oswald? What could you do that wouldn't make the flick hopelessly political? Would Roddenberry take an Oliver Stone-like tact and have the Enterprise discover Oswald wasn't really the shooter? If not, what would happen in the altered timeline? Would JFK end the Vietnam War before it really got rolling? Would the turmoil and social unrest of the late 1960s be no more?
No, to all of the above.
Like in what is considered the best episode of the original series, "City on the Edge of Forever," Kirk and crew would have had to ensure Kennedy's death to preserve the timeline. (Recall that in "Forever," Kirk and Spock had to "undo" McCoy's saving of Edith Keeler [Joan Collins] to prevent the Nazis from ultimately winning World War II.) The plot indeed used the Guardian of Forever from that episode. After "losing ships to V'Ger" (Star Trek: The Motion Picture), some Klingons discover the Guardian, and use it to jaunt back to 1963. Somehow, preventing JFK's assassination results in the Klingons dominating our portion of the galaxy by the 23rd century. (I'd love to hear the explanation for that.) William Shatner noted that the plot's climax "would find Spock standing on a grassy knoll in Dallas, firing that infamous `phantom shot'... thereby guaranteeing a brighter future for all of mankind." The film also would have included Kirk vociferously trying to persuade Kennedy about his mission, and the president touring the Enterprise. Paramount nixed the idea, obviously. I mean, preventing the death of one of the country's most popular leaders leads to a dystopic future? That wouldn't exactly have sat well with a lot of Americans.
Roddenberry apparently was distraught at the rejection; he tried to get the plot approved for ST III and then ST IV, but no dice. (Ironically, ST IV involved time travel, but instead of allowing JFK to be killed, Kirk saved a couple of whales.)
Hey, I'm a huge time travel fan, and I have to admit I kind of like this idea. The problem with it is (was), it certainly wasn't original. "City of the Edge of Forever" was way too similar -- Kirk having to allow a death, and a very unpopular one at that, to preserve the timeline. No doubt it would have been Trek-gastic to see Kirk and Kennedy chum around and the latter strolling through the Enterprise, but as noted above, how would the Klingons know that allowing JFK to live would ensure their dominance some 300 years later? If anything, it seems like his death logically would result in that as the former president was very pro-space program. Kennedy's challenge to land on the moon by the end of the 60s was met despite his death in 1963; does anyone think it wouldn't have been had he lived?
John Connelly of Wilmington makes the choice very easy this week with his rant against Ted Cruz:
They (the Tea Party) could not be more subversive if they were scripted. Sen. Ted Cruz is acting subversive and undermining the stability we have established in America. His activities should be identified for what they are, “Un-American activities.” This man’s actions are not those of a patriot or concerned citizen. They are from a person who wishes to disrupt a system of government, our system of government.
"Un-American" and "subversive," eh? Ironically, some have noted that Cruz resembles the notorious Sen. Joe McCarthy who went after supposed "un-American" and "subversive" individuals in government back in the early 1950s.
So, thanks, John, for proving that you're more like the firebrand Cold War senator than Ted Cruz has ever been!
I used to read and comment over at Kavips but she became increasingly partisan and willfully ignorant of simple economics so I had to leave.
Which means we'd have had Lum's Pond closed or White Clay Creek or whatever else we gave away to the Feds. I'm sure Kavips would be now breathlessly railing against the Republicans for disobeying the Dear Leader.
Either way, this shutdown theater is just a reminder of how petty the Feds can be and shows the value of Federalism. If they don't own it, they can't shut it down.
Look at where CNN thinks Hong Kong is:
"Layers and layers of fact checkers."
Ace details how more average folks are shocked -- SHOCKED, I tell you -- that their healthcare premiums are skyrocketing up. The money quote:
But people with no pre-existing conditions like Vinson, a 60-year-old retired teacher, and Waschura, a 52-year-old self-employed engineer, are making up the difference.
"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
"I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
Just remember, LIVs: As Ace notes, "Nancy Pelosi guaranteed that everyone's rate would go down. Obama promised a $2500 per year reduction in premiums. He campaigned on it."
Just how small is the current occupant of the White House? Take a look:
In a nutshell, here's what a park ranger said: “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”
This is your federal government. And it currently wants to run our healthcare system, by the way.
I suppose I'll have to make this a regular feature since they show no sign of letting up on their disdain for half of the country.
First up is ultra-moonbat Erik Larsen who writes
1) As if such a sentiment is unique to the GOP. Only total moonbats limit such to one party.
2) I'm sure the Democrats were "fighting hard" to have America succeed during 2001-2008 instead of "fighting hard" to have George W. Bush fail, right?
3) Regarding #2, Larsen probably considers it moot since he believes the previous president "stole" his two elections.
Next there's genius Dan Slott who "shows off" his elementary civics knowledge:
It's a different story if you replace "limits on Obamacare" w/ "limits on a passed law that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 5, 2013
*Sigh* How many such comparisons should we make that are just like the above ... but which Slott would hate? It's like something I read on Twitter yesterday: "Progressives" and the mainstream media call it "obstruction," "extremism," etc. when a Democrat president doesn't get his way with another branch of gov. dominated by the GOP; however, when there's a Republican president who faces a similar situation, then divided government and checks and balances to "diminish" an "imperial" executive are of paramount importance.
And if Slott is implying that just because the SCOTUS deemed the ACA constitutional that it must be passed, then he's a bigger idiot than he's already proven himself to be many times.
Remember, right-leaning comicbook fans: Contemporary comicbook creators piss on your views routinely.
UPDATE: I found where I had seen what I referenced above. It was from Jonah Goldberg:
When the president is a Democrat he needs to rule unimpaired. When he’s a Republican, his dictatorial tendencies must be held in check. When liberals want to reinterpret the Constitution by judicial whim or fiat, it’s proof that the Constitution is living up to its nature as a “living, breathing, document.” When conservatives actually want to amend the Constitution — the only legitimate and constitutional means to change the meaning of the Constitution, I might add – it is a horrible affront to the vision of the Founders!
From Cracked: Four Famous People Who Have No Clue How to Handle Criticism.
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Angela Couloumbis acts akin to what Hube posted about recently regarding the owner of Barilla pasta. The headline of her article states "Corbett compares same-sex marriage to incest," and she writes in the article "Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett on Friday compared same-sex marriage to the marriage of brothers and sisters." (Just in case you thought she's blameless for the headline.)
But did he actually do that? Let's see:
The Republican governor, whose approval ratings have been low and who is up for reelection next year, made the comments during an interview with WHP-TV in Harrisburg, after being asked about a controversial statement his lawyers had made over the summer on gay marriage.
During the interview, Corbett called "inappropriate" his attorneys' statement in an August court filing. In the filing, the attorneys wrote that gay marriage is against Pennsylvania law, just as marriage is between children.
The governor then told the news station that he thought "a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don't you?"
Where, exactly, did Corbett compare gay marriage to incest? The only such "comparision" made was that both are against state law currently. And hell, he was trying to atone, however clumsily, from an even clumsier statement.
Of course, Couloumbis's like-minded politicians rose to the occasion:
"Governor Corbett's remarks comparing marriage equality to marriage between siblings is hateful and demeaning," [Democrat gubernatorial challenger] Wolf said in a separate statment.
Gotta love the wording. If it's "marriage equality," then what the hell does Wolf (or anyone) care what two consenting adults do with their lives? To believe otherwise is hateful and demeaning! (See, the other side can play that childish game, too.)
"They're just directly from the president's speech!"
That's what MSNBC dolt Thomas Roberts told RNC Chair Reince Priebus when the latter accused him of spouting DNC talking points. Seriously. See for yourself (h/t Ace):
Apparently Barack Obama does not believe workers have the right to strike:
Richard Trumpka was unavailable for comment.
The non-Council winner was Victor Davis Hanson with Obama: Transforming America.
Full results are here.
LIVs express shock -- SHOCK, I tell you -- that ObamaCare fines (taxes) you if you don't get coverage!
Mundo de Votantes de Poca Información.
The lunacy of "progressive" comicbook creators who really must want to limit their audience. Here's Ron "STFU" Marz yesterday, trying to be "cute":
You know, those veterans who went to WW2 Memorial fought against lunatic ideologues who wanted to force their beliefs on rest of the world.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 2, 2013
You know what Ron is implying here, right? Of course, not even considered for a second by his pointy little head is this: Who, again, got a "health" care plan passed on a purely partisan vote that, for the first time demands a person purchase a private product ... or face a penalty enforced by our very own IRS? The very same IRS which this same person who got "health" care passed has been using as his very own political Gestapo?
Knee-slappingly, Marz also tweeted yesterday "I'm not stupid." Yes, Ron, you most definitely are.
The Dems have seen a jump in the "generic ballot" immediately following new of the government shutdown; however, in their zeal (as they always do) to make the GOP look "extreme," "childish," "petty," etc, they may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (h/t to Insty): Sending more personnel to the World War II Memorial than Benghazi, Libya. Closing parks the [federal] Park Service doesn't even run. The Boss Obama administration paying union thugs to protest WWII vets (see also here) who showed up at said memorial. Grocery stores on army bases are closed ... but the golf course at Andrews AFB (where Boss Obama plays) is open.
But perhaps most vile of all is Harry Reid stating "Why would we want to do that?" in response to a reporter's question about allowing funding for child cancer patients.
But hey, if you're into all this crap, then you actually believed President Lemon's preposterous promises about ObamaCare (among many other things) in the first place. You're beyond help now.
RELATED: Ace reports on a poll that includes the following distressing info:
A Harris Poll for the American Bar Association in 2005 found that 22% of respondents thought the three branches of government were "Republican, Democrat and Independent." Two-thirds of Americans couldn't name a single sitting Supreme Court justice in 2003, and fewer than 1% could name all nine. In 1987, about half of Americans thought Karl Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was in the U.S. Constitution. In 1964, only 38% of the American people were certain the Soviet Union wasn't in NATO.
When arguing with leftist types, if they use the phrase "both sides are to blame" it means, "Democrats are wrong but I'll never admit it so just take this as a win and allow me to save face."
This just happened to me on Facebook. Its a rare thing to squeeze even that level of concession out of a lefty so I take it as a huge win.
Courtesy of "Terry Jim" over at Twitchy: "More security sent to parks and monuments today than Obama sent to Benghazi on 9/11/12."
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
I like it. If you like too, feel free to sign the petition at the link above.
And the non-Council nominations are here!
The "military thriller" novelist is dead at age 66. Of his work, I'll best remember his Red Storm Rising as it came out my senior year of college and I skipped a few classes to finish the damn thing. It was that good. (It's about a hypothetical World War III scenario ... but would come off as "dated" now, I'd wager.)
Avi has still more evidence of what many contemporary comicbook creators in the business think of you, conservatives.
Worst of the lot in this case? Erik Larsen calling Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal a "fucking idiot" and a "sore loser." Keep in mind Larsen is the guy who claimed George W. Bush "cheated his way into the Oval Office -- twice." Just so you know how tenuous his grip on reality really is.
In a naked attempt to blame Republicans for their own government shutdown, the Parks Service and the White House are closing every popular thing they can whether or not it is germane or actually needs to be shut down. The Mall in DC is closed. Seriously. The freakin' grass. Why? They claim to be worried about vandalism. They have park police there to make sure people don't go to the monuments. Uh, here's an idea, how 'bout those same guys you sent down just make sure there isn't any vandalism? HMMMMM??????
This is pure bullshit and the public knows it. The vast majority of people know this is naked bullshit politicking.
They have shut down websites. Seriously. I'm supposed to believe that a website can't run itself? If you left the site up and running, what's the worst that would happen?
They are spending money to erect barricades. If the government is truly shut down am I to believe that Barricade Engineer is an essential function?
While we're at it, let's talk about money and funding. Nancy Pelosi hilariously suggested there is no more cuts possible without people dying in the streets. (Not literally but that's what she'd have you believe.)
What about these guys?
One federal employee leased a $53,000 take-home car with taxpayer money in apparent defiance of federal regulations and regularly billed the government for service at shops such as BMW of Fairfax.
Others charged the government monthly for family members’ cell phones and high-end TV packages and Internet at home — and even at second homes.
Managers freely made out checks to employees without requiring documentation of how it would be spent, giving $1,316 directly to one who said she was reimbursing herself for furniture she bought for a “home office” and using convenience checks to give workers bonuses.
Government employees used federal purchase cards to order items such as a $560 Bose stereo and $1,490 for two high-definition televisions that could not be located.
All of these examples happened at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an obscure runaway government agency where the median annual salary is $120,000.
No money to cut? Really?
Also, where the hell were these jobs on Career Day?
Fast food workers are clamoring for wages in the ~$15/hr range. What they fail to understand is that they are going to find themselves unemployed should they succeed. Their jobs will either be automated further and fewer employees will run the shops. Or they'll be cut to part time and then be marginally employed. Or, they'll suddenly be surprised that all the marginally employed white collar people who were going to Manpower et al. for wages in that range will take their jobs.
There's a reason this guy is feared. He's whip smart and he just rope a doped a seasoned member.
Keep it up Sir, you're doing yeoman's work.
Mark my words, this guy is headed for the White House.
Remember that 800+ billion dollar stimulus that was supposed to prove, once and for all, that Keynesian economics somehow worked? Where did that money go? Well, here's a list of green energy companies that went bankrupt in the last few years.
Your tax dollars (not) at work.
... the mainstream media continues to tell us so, natch.
John Rosenberg nails most concisely today:
Why is it only House leaders, i.e., Republicans, who are “running out of time and options”? In this telling, and it is the conventional telling reported almost everywhere, the Democrats have no “options.” Everything, in this telling, is on the shoulders of Republicans. The only question left is “whether Republicans would consider the only plan President Obama and other Democratic leaders insist they will accept: a simple bill that funds federal agencies without dismantling any part of Obama’s signature 2010 health-care law.” So, the Democrats’ position is “simple” but the Republicans’ is … what? Complex?
According to the Post and just about every organ of the major media, for some unexplained reason the Democrats simply do not have the “option” of choosing to accept the House bill that funds the entire federal government while repealing a tax on medical devices and delaying the implementation of Obamacare for one year. They would rather close down the government, while blaming the Republicans, rather than do that. But according to conventional press wisdom, the Republicans’ willingness to fund everything except the start of Obamacare bears the entire responsibility. Go, as I’ve argued before on this issue, figure.
Go figure, indeed. After all, it's not as if Boss Obama hasn't unilaterally altered provisions in the healthcare law now, right? The power to do so being quite, well, dubious? And all the GOP wants to do is delay it all by 365 days? So as maybe to avoid stuff like this:
The MSM is the LIV's greatest buddy. Because it's a lot easier than, y'know, thinking.
UPDATE: What a surprise -- the buck still never stops at President Lemon's desk:
Yep, that's an image from the White House website today. Three and a half years to have this stuff up and ready, but in a few hours the GOP is at fault for these [easily predicted] snafus?? This is absolutely guffaw-inducing, but, again, sadly, a nation of LIVs will buy it hook, line and sinker.
UPDATE 2: An MSNBC anchor tried to sign up for Boss ObamaCare and was stymied. After the website refused help, she tried calling ... and was put on hold for 35 minutes. “If I were signing up for myself, this is where my patience would be exhausted,” she said. But didn't she get the memo? It's the GOP's fault! (See above, natch)
Forum: Will There Be A Federal Government shut down,And Do You Approve Or Disapprove?
... remember what these folks -- who want you to buy their product -- think of you:
The rest of the civilized health-care-is-a-basic-human-right world is like, "You shut down your government over WHAT?"— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
Remember these people when the next elections come along. Remember how little they cared about their own constituents.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) October 1, 2013
Remember when Congress didn't approve Obamacare, the Supreme Court struck it down, and we didn't re-elect the President? #MeNeither— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
I want a "conscience exemption" for paying Congress.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
People get confused when they claim we had a revolution over taxation. They forget that the "…without representation" part was key.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
I want a return to the "reasonable" GOP who impeached a President for lying about getting a blowjob.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
"No health care for you, or we stop paying our soldiers" is apparently a successful political slogan in some districts.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 30, 2013
And complete "WTF?" statements:
Let's not forget that the entire Obamacare/Affordable Care Act law that passed was a HUGE compromise to the GOP. Dems wanted single payer.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
Then there's these retweeted by our old pal Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
All this to stop poorer Americans from getting health insurance funded by Medicare cuts and taxing rich people. http://t.co/HydO3bftUM— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) October 1, 2013
If only there were procedures for US to enact new laws and determine if they met standards of Constitution instead of piecemeal extortion— Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) October 1, 2013
Never underestimate Speaker Boehner's willingness to risk your job to save his. http://t.co/KI95KbIQQd— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) October 1, 2013
They actually did it. A group of Republicans in the House just forced a government shutdown over Obamacare instead of passing a real budget.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 1, 2013
If you don't care about a creator's personal/political views, good for you. If you want to shell out four dollars per issue for what they put out, even better. But for me -- and many others -- I have a problem with giving my hard-earned cash to someone who pisses on things I believe in, and/or ridiculously distorts same, so much like our pathetic MSM.
I know you've heard it all here before. It just really remains a mystery to me why these guys (and gals) utilize such "business acumen." Maybe they realize their medium is dying so they don't care? That they've already made their cash when times were good, so big deal? Or, hell, maybe it really is a matter of principle -- that these folk put beliefs over money. I don't believe that (there's ample evidence across the "progressive" spectrum of such hypocrisy), but it is a possibility, I have to admit. But even if true, my cash will remain in my well-worn wallet. I don't need to give affirmation to someone who thinks I'm a Neanderthal-browed miscreant.