– No, I’m sure we can freeway our way out of any problems we have.
– Awesome endorsement, WCV.
– If you take people’s guns away, they’ll just use a rock or something.
– Oh Iran, women can wear clothing without sleeves and it’s fine.
– Chris Hayes won’t go to CPAC.
– The BS approach will solve any problems.
One of the observations MHP made, given that tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of George Zimmerman having killed Trayvon Martin, is that if George Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, Trayon Martin would probably still be alive.
I think that had he not chosen to jump Zimmerman, his chances of being alive today would be significantly greater as well.
http://legalinsurrection.com/w.....0-LI-2.jpg
Choices.
Given the size of the federal budget, the actual effects of cutting a few billion — not from the budget as it existed in 2012 but from its projected increase — should be trivial. But it is in the power of the President to make it painful; and, if this President is true to form, he will make it as painful as possible.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Obama-s-Next-Move
Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6E4Oy6pFKQ
I never did understand the Muslim horror of women who might wear sleeveless clothes. What’s the big deal? Are Muslim men so horny that they fear they might get an erection in public if a women shows her upper arms or her knees? These Muslim guys make the Puritans look like a bunch of porn stars!
I didn’t have a problem with the bared shoulders and arms. Of course, now that I’m looking more carefully at the dress…..
Notice that ‘V’ pattern sitting right atop her pubic triangle?
From 5,
Pubic triangle? Don’t you mean The Holy of Holies?
“… If you were serious about having a discussion with the governors about the implications, you wouldn’t give it to the press before you gave it to the governors.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....le/2522544
Unserious.
‘Blow’ and ‘dropped’ might not have been the best word choices in this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z3
WaPo farming out editorial tasks to The Onion?
George W. Bush smiles.
In a performance at London’s Hammersmith Apollo on Saturday, the Chicago-born rapper at one point said: “I don’t give a f–k what the president’s got to say,” to an ecstatic London audience.
http://washington.cbslocal.com.....porations/
From 6′
Yes, rap music is soooooo sophisticated and erudite. The apex of art and culture!
Barf!!
From 6,
Full disclosure: I took that line from Samuel L. Jackson’s character in “Pulp Fiction.”
Secretary of State John Kerry offers a shout-out to Roger Rabbit:
(Reuters) – Secretary of State John Kerry offered a defense of freedom of speech, religion and thought in the United States on Tuesday telling German students that in America “you have a right to be stupid if you want to be.”
http://www.reuters.com/article.....HJ20130226
Not much different than the response to a certain famous wardrobe malfunction that happened a few years ago at a certain sporting event.
I’d much rather face a rock than 1 bullet, nevermind 30. I’d much rather face a machette than a bullet, never mind 30.
@1 – thanks for your wisdom. If george zimmerman wasn’t stalking trevon he wouldn’t have jumped him. Sounds to me like Zimmerman was the cause of the whole thing, regardles if trevon just robbed one of the houses.
@5 and 6 – it is called a cunt.
Liberals getting warmed up for Jeb Bush’s candidacy:
Liberal Super PAC Goes After Mitch McConnell’s ‘Chinese’ Wife
http://wfpl.org/post/liberal-s.....inese-wife
Although I suppose if Bill Clinton’s serial infidelity and associated dishonesty make him a target, why shouldn’t Jeb’s spouse’s ethnicity make her a fair target, right?
Really reaching, aren’t you, Serial? Hard to find tidbits you can stretch beyond recognition to try to distract everyone from noticing that by a convincing majority, Americans are blaming Republicans for failing to meet the upcoming sequestration deadline.
Republican response, yesterday: “What, me worry! It’s exaggerated!”
Republican response, today: “It’s all the Senate’s fault! Besides, the first lady shouldn’t appear on TV, much less the Acadamy Awards!
@ 18
Well, a plurality of Americans blame Congressional Republicans, particularly if they aren’t offered the option
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....an-option/
of blaming Senate Democrats for the obstructionism. Recall that two bills replacing sequester cuts have already been passed by the House and are languishing on Reid’s desk in the Senate.
You would think, would you not, that if the GOP feared blame they would be working hard to avoid it.
And you would think, would you not, that if the GOP were to be blamed that the Dems would be standing by and letting it happen rather than agitating to prevent it from happening.
And yet…….
Things are not what they seem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FsDFOIWiHo
@ 18
Suppose you’re a member of the Democrat leadership and, as the days tick by, it’s increasingly obvious that the GOP isn’t going to cave, and the sequester will occur, and spending will be cut.
You realize that another round of tax increases won’t be tolerated as part of a deal to avoid the sequester.
What, other than trying to scare people as much as you possibly can about the effects of a 2% cut in spending, which only hits the planned increase in spending and isn’t a decrease from what was spent last year, would you be trying to do right now?
You’d be avoiding responsibility for coming up with the sequester in the first place, until Bob Woodward very publicly shoots you down.
Now what will you do? ’cause the GOP has already passed two bills that are alternatives to sequester cuts, and Boehner isn’t about to go back to his caucus and stump for more tax increases.
What will you do, rhp, when people begin to realize that not spending as much doesn’t cause the sky to fall?
From 13,
Yeah, but that was a one-time event with Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl. The fear of uncovered women has been part of Islam for centuries. The Muslim men must not have any sexual control!
From 16′
Gman,I wouldn’t use that word if you ever expect to get any of it. Since you are gay, I guess it doesn’t’t matter!
@ 16, 22
What he said isn’t a reflection on his sexuality. It reflects his hatred of/rejection by his mother and his intimidation by women. He doesn’t know how to deal with them on an adult level, so he treats them as vulgar objects instead.
LOL! No one’s explained to me yet why anyone would vote for something they weren’t at least partially in agreement with to start.
Heh. And the GOP wants people to buy their bullshit that it’s on Obama.. 750,000 people will try to make their mortgage and rent payments with unemployment checks.. Bernanke says the sequester is anti-stimulus.. a headwind … Hmmmm.. So far it’s not looking good for the GOP.
@ 24
No one’s explained to me yet why anyone would vote for something they weren’t at least partially in agreement with to start.
1. Political pressure.
2. Ever heard the term ‘lesser of two evils’?
Know what Bernanke didn’t say? He didn’t say to raise taxes.
@23 couldn’t be farther from the truth. You wouldn’t know what the truth is.
@ 26
Feel free to convince us otherwise, Gman.
Oh so
1. They caved.. They’re craven or stupid..
2. They’d take the filthy rich Mormon over the “community organizer” from Chicago?
Yes silly Bob.. They bought their own bullshit.. They believed Obama would lose the election and they’d be given free reign to increase homelessness and hunger in this country – all for low, low taxes on the rich..
He said it was a headwind silly Bob.. That means bad for employment growth.. And just like people placed the proper blame last November they will do so again Nov 2014. Count on it.
Banks made $141.3 billion of profits in 2012, their second-highest annual haul ever. Bankers, it seems, are doing just fine under Federal Reserve policies that have poured $3 trillion of newly-manufactured money into banks’ reserves — and virtually nothing into anyone else’s pockets. The bankers always get fed first, the rest of us sometimes not at all.
@1 Pushing someone who is following you isn’t a death penalty offense in this country; and in no case are private citizens delegated the authority of judge, jury, and executioner.
Let’s recap what Mr. Zimmerman’s legal position is. Self-defense, as a legal defense to a homicide charge, generally is not available to a person who initiates a confrontation. In other words, if you go into a tavern and start a fight, and the other guy pulls a weapon on you, and you kill him to save your own life, that is not self-defense and you will be found guilty of manslaughter.
That is basically where Mr. Zimmerman is. The second-degree murder charge probably won’t stick, although there’s a chance it will for the following reasons:
1. Mr. Martin was where he had a right to be, doing what he had a right to do, and was not engaging in any illegal conduct when confronted by Mr. Zimmerman.
2. Mr. Zimmerman not only initiated the confrontation, but disobeyed the police dispatcher’s instruction to get back in his car and stay there, which means he could have avoided the fatal encounter but wilfully failed to do so.
3. Mr. Martin was unarmed and was not a mortal threat to Mr. Zimmerman. You can’t legally kill a person because he gave you a bloody nose and a couple of minor lacerations.
Based on what we now know about what happened, even under Florida’s “stand your ground” law, there’s no fucking way Zimmerman gets off with less than a voluntary manslaughter conviction. A second-degree murder conviction is possible but unlikely in my opinion. Zimmerman probably will end up serving two or three years in a Florida state prison.
(That doesn’t count his potential liability if the feds prosecute him for depriving Martin of his federally-protected civil rights, but I don’t see a federal prosecution happening in a case like this unless state authorities refuse to prosecute or a racially-biased jury lets the perp completely off the hook, but those aren’t factors in this case.)
And, of course, if Zimmerman becomes a convicted felon, as he almost certainly will, he can never become a police officer and he can never again legally own or possess a gun. In fact, even if he’s acquitted, I think it’s extremely doubtful that any police department would ever hire him as a cop. And he’s going to wear the mark of Cain for the rest of his life.
So let his case be a warning to vigilantes everywhere.
@2 Total bullshit. This budget fight is about Republicans wanting to gut Social Security and Medicare, which they’ve hated ever since these programs were enacted. Ain’t gonna happen. The bloat that needs cutting is defense spending, which Republicans are protecting and trying to increase. Social Security and Medicare aren’t even part of the operating budget — those benefits have been fully paid for by dedicated taxes paid only by salaried and hourly workers. The bloat in the operating budget is defense, period, and none of the senators and representatives (read: GOP) trying to protect and increase defense spending have any credibility whatsoever on budgets and deficits. Reverse those captions and you’ve got a true picture of who is responsible for spending and deficits.
@4 That’s about the size of it. Most Muslims are dirt farmers in poor third world countries, where most people spend their entire lives in small isolated villages and marriages are arranged by clan elders, and if they didn’t lock up their women in huts with 10-foot-thick walls and allow them to go in public only when covered with head-to-toe burlap sacks and accompanied by armed male family members, these guys would be killing each other within a week. You know how small towns are, especially where some guys have three or four wives, which means other guys have none …
5, 6 – I didn’t know Iran lets their citizens watch Great Satan’s movies. I’m under the impression they get hanged for that.
@7 Of course it’s unserious. It’s posturing. As when Boehner demanded the Senate “get off its ass” and pass the Republicans’ budget proposals. Fat chance of that given the Democrats got more votes for the White House, more votes in Senate races, and more votes in House races just four short months ago. Boehner is losing it. With no hand to play, he’s reduced to empty shrieking, like a mynah bird lusting for your french fries. Screw Boehner! He’s a clown in a sideshow. Even his own party doesn’t listen to him, so why would anyone else?
“It’s all the Senate’s fault! Besides, the first lady shouldn’t appear on TV, much less the Acadamy Awards!”
I don’t recall wingnut heads exploding when Saint Reagan and FLOTUS Laura Bush appeared on the Acadamy Awards. IOKIYAR. Obviously.
@19 What exactly are Senate Democrats “obstructing,” Bob? Social Security and Medicare cuts, so 1-percenters can keep their tax cuts and get more? Defense spending increases, so Republican warmongers can start another recreational war and kill another 100 thousand or 1 million innocent people? Yeah, I’m 100% for obstructing what those assholes want. I think the GOP agenda should be made a criminal offense and all Republicans should be put in jail.
@36 Hypocrisy is their only talent.
@ 36
RR, how will the sequester affect Social Security?
The Medicare cuts are already being downplayed in various arenas, particularly as Simpson-Bowles would take a lot more out of it if it were to become policy, and Obama agrees with a lot of it:
Obama’s plan is only slightly more sensible. He’s abandoned any thought of reducing the debt, planning only to stabilize it at its historically high level by reducing deficits by just $1.5 trillion over 10 years through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. He made a point of saying Tuesday that he is willing to cut health-care costs over 10 years by the same level “proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission” — $400 billion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
So if the sequester cuts Medicare by $11B but Obama is willing to cut it by $40B/yr over 10 years, is the sequester all that bad, RR?
Oh, and please don’t forget to tell us how the sequester affects Social Security.
@38 Are you really this stupid, Bob? Democrats aren’t “obstructing” the sequester, idiot, they’re “obstructing” the Republican budget passed by the House. What’s in the sequester has nothing to do with what’s in that budget.
If you want to know what Senate Democrats are “obstructing,” look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03.....lines.html
@ 39
Why is a $11B cut to Medicare problematic when Obama’s willing to take $400B out of health care costs over 10 years, RR?
How will the sequester affect Social Security, RR?
Your response addressed neither question I put forth in @ 38.
@ 40
Wrong. That’s not sequester-related, RR. Oh, and the 2012 election results effectively blocked Ryan’s proposals for now.
See previous @ 38, 41 questions for you based on statements you made about the sequester.
Roger Rabbit, will the cuts to Social Security caused by the sequester mean you’ll have less to invest in the stock market and therefore fewer gains to regale us with on a daily basis?
If the sequester is going to cause cuts to Social Security @ 36, RR, wouldn’t we have heard Obama say something about that by now?
From 29,
Yes, that’s exactly correct: the Federal Reserve was established to insure the large Northeastern banks would always survive and always make lots of money. How about we audit the FED?
Remember, the Federal Resere Act of 1913 was passed to benefit the banks, not serve the citizenry of the US.
41, 42, 43 – I don’t have time for this level of idiocy.
@ 45
In other words, you grossly erred when you threw Social Security in the sequester mix, you’re too much of a pussy to admit your mistake, so instead @ 40 you tried to change the subject to something completely unrelated to the sequester. See @ 12.
I’m Knobbled On The Cobbles Cos I Hobble When I Wobble
Michelle Malkin attempts a send up of Evolution Of Mom Dancing (w/ Jimmy Fallon & Michelle Obama) and pulls off the amazing … Nobody. Could. Have. Predicted.
LOL
After some consideration, I think that the Republican shots at “entitlements” (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are not serious. They know that would never fly. But it makes for a big bargaining chip, and we can expect them to keep demanding concessions in other areas under threat of never giving up on those issues.
What they do seem to care about is making sure that the there is one crisis after another, which by itself keeps a lid on the recovery. At stake is nothing less than the legacy of Saint Ronnie Reagan. Despite losing ig in 2012, they hope to keep the economy on crutches (at least) so that a Republican “savior” can appear in 2016 claiming, like the last one, to have the “magic elixer” to fix the economy.
Nothing else makes sense, unless you believe that the Republicans are so irrational that they are willing to drive the U.S. economy into the ditch. This theory, at least, assumes some part of rational thought process. Selfish, immoral, narcissistic, and psychotic, perhaps, but rational in it’s own way.
Oh, and as for Boener’s (and Serial’s) insistance that the Senate simply pass the House bill –
That’s pretty arrogant of them. They control the House by a majority of seats only because of gerrymandering, a majority of Americans didn’t vote for them. And yet this “minority/majority” insists that the Senate and the President rubber-stamp their bill, or they will let the U.S. economy head for the ditch?
What a bunch of crybabies. “Mommy! Those mean Senate Dmocrats and that black man aren’t letting me have the entire jar of cookies! Make them give them to me!”
@ 48
After some consideration, I think that the Republican shots at “entitlements” (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are not serious. They know that would never fly.
You are not correct. Let Steny Hoyer explain it:
Hoyer said GOP proposals to raise the Medicare eligibility age, make wealthier seniors pay higher Medicare rates and limit the cost-of-living increases for some federal programs are legitimate ones, even as he warned he might not support them.
“They clearly are on the table,” Hoyer said of the Medicare changes during his weekly press briefing in the Capitol. “They were on the table in the Boehner-Obama talks. They’ve been on the table for some period of time. That does not mean that I’d be prepared to adopt them now, but they’re clearly, I think, on the table.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/ho.....z2M3ggcYCL
Obama has said so, as well:
At his Twitter town hall yesterday, Obama said a “balanced approach” to reducing the nation’s $14 trillion-plus debt means “everything is on the table” — including cherished entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare.
“We need to look at entitlements, and we have to say, how do we protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security for not just this generation but also future generations?” Obama said. “And that’s going to require some modifications, even as we maintain its basic structure.”
http://content.usatoday.com/co.....S1go4VXv1w
@ 49
Oh, and as for Boener’s (and Serial’s) insistance that the Senate simply pass the House bill …
Er, no. I never said that. Doubt Boehner said that either.
Let the Senate take up the House-passed bill, modify it, pass it in modified form acceptable to that legislative body, and then it goes to conference committee.
It won’t happen, because then something unfavorable to the Dems will result if they are forced to negotiate a compromise with House Republicans, and Reid knows it. So he chooses to let the House-passed bill languish, and you choose to misunderstand and misconstrue, then to misstate the position of others.
There’s a difference between what you alleged and reality, rhp. A big one.
“After some consideration, I think that the Republican shots at “entitlements” (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are not serious. They know that would never fly.”
Of course they’re not serious. They don’t give a rats ass about the deficit and never have. Where was the concern when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor? Recall “deficits don’t matter”?The repub’s only mission since the day Obama took office was to create one crisis after another and make him a one term president. The new mission is to make him as unpopular as dubya on the day he leaves office. So no, they’re not serious.
If Republicans want to do something about out-of-control Medicare spending, they should start by repealing the $700 billion plus Medicare prescription benefit they enacted with no means of paying for it.
Yes, I (slightly) benefit from it, but I never paid a penny of FICA taxes or income taxes or any other taxes for it, so I’m willing to give it up — on one condition, namely, that Congress also repeal the provision that prohibits the government from shopping for drugs at competitive prices.*
(* Full disclosure: Roger Rabbit owns stocks of drug companies that profit hugely from this taxpayer largess, and would be financially hurt by changing the law that requires Medicare to pay sticker prices for drugs. Well, screw that money-grubbing rabbit! He knew what the risks were when he bought those stocks.)
@51 “Doubt Boehner said that either.”
Are you fucking serious? No, you’re not. You’re a fucking joke.
Why has little jimmy miller turned off the comments to his diatribes on unSound Politics?
@ 51
Let the Senate take up the House-passed bill…
What House-passed bill are you talking about? The House of Representative of the 113th Congress hasn’t passed any alternative to the sequester. The two bills the Boehner mentioned were passed during the 112th Congress. If the Speaker of the House wants the Senate of the 113th Congress to take up a House-passed bill, then the Speaker of House in the 113th Congress needs to get a bill passed in the first place.
The real question is, why is Boehner demanding that either the Senate or the White House do the work that is his responsibility? Is it because he can’t get a sequester replacement through the 113th edition of the House of Representatives?