Visit Josh's TPMmuckracker for some great laughs: poor Katherine Harris, can't get no respect in her home state.
Posted by Mary at March 8, 2006 07:23 AMHey, good news, the Repukes are revealing their budget today. Calling it - "Contract With America Renewed."
Interesting. Dems revealed their budget repeatedly. Got no press. Dems budget was balanced and makes good fiscal sense. Dems budget takes all people into consideration; not just the wealthy.
Let's see how much MSM covers Repukes budget while at the same time saying "Dems have no ideas."
Uh, Dems budget has been introduced and refined every year for the last several. It has been completely ignored.
On another note, read these Articles of Impeachment.
The Crimes listed are immense and there is no coverage. Clinton lied about a blow job. Lying is not OK. I do believe that he should have told the truth, but that crime is nothing compared to these. No one died from Clinton's crime.
I also wonder what more Clinton could have accomplished if he had not had Newt and his gang investigating him non-stop.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2006 07:30 AM"Contract With America Renewed."
I think I'm going to vomit now.
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 08:08 AMSure it's not Contract on America?
Sign here, Georgie, or the country gets it!
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2006 08:47 AMCoyote, I think it is "Contract Fuck America" - everyone 'cept the top 5% gets screwed.
Nice soundbite, will go over well.
Also fits in nicely with the closet hornballs and pedophiles - they like anything that has to do with getting fucked. As long as they get to preach from their pulpit about the virtues of virginity and purity.
Problem with these "neo-con Christians" - they do not practice the teachings of Christ.
From the history that I have studied (although I am not Christian) seems that Christ himself did not shun anyone. These people are all about shunning everyone who does not follow their stepford script about what is "good and correct."
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2006 09:15 AMthank god deLay won the primary. another republican might have kept it a GOP seat.
Posted by benjoya at March 8, 2006 10:09 AMAlthough I have been pissed at Cantwell for many of her votes, she fights hard for the environment.
This is an important Petition.
The Bu$hCo admin has completely gutted all environmental regs. They have opened up National forests and sacred, previously protected areas for logging and mining and roads and whatever else will make them a buck.
Let's tell them no more.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2006 10:26 AMLet's tell them no more.
It's like telling a crack whore "No more."
Posted by phidipides at March 8, 2006 10:55 AMWell, the GOP is uniting behind a theme. And the good news (for all of us) is that it seems to be a fiscally conservative theme.
Posted by muckdog at March 8, 2006 12:29 PMmuck, Don't you think it's a little to late now?
Posted by bbtb at March 8, 2006 12:35 PMmuck, you're like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football and Lucy keeps promising that she won't pull it away. The GOP came into power in the mid-90s claiming they were for smaller government and fiscal restraint.
Then, Bush came into office and the same GOP that claimed they were for fiscal restraint and small government went at it like hogs to the trough. Why would anyone believe their "renewed contract" when they destroyed the first one?
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 01:18 PMThis morning on C-Span I was watching a floor debate on HR 4192, designating Bill Clinton's birthplace (the house in Hope) as a historical landmark. This has been done in the past with every presidential birthplace that is still standing. Some wacko woman republitilian (from Georgia I think) rose to demand an investigation into *Clinton's* connections to the UAE port deal, claiming that he should have been required to register as a foreign agent and further suggesting that Clinton was making huge bucks off the deal. WTF? My hope is that this will spur further investigation in to ALL the fingers that are dipping into the UAE pie. For instance, G.H.W. Bush and his buddies at the Carlyle Group. Not bloody likely though, I imagine. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at March 8, 2006 01:49 PMEvery responsible budget analyst admits that the federal deficit is now structural, and without new revenues, cannot possibly be returned to balance or surplus.
Hell, cannot even staunch the bleeding.
Anjha, good points (as always) about the utter lack of mainstream press coverage of anything out of the Dems mouths, their plans, their criticisms, their spin, whatever. They appear to have no ability to influence or hector the press into covering them.
Posted by euzoius at March 8, 2006 02:16 PMThey appear to have no ability to influence or hector the press into covering them.
Here's a thought about the press....I've read in a number of sources that Rove threatens the press with lack of access if they don't report the way he wants them to. Why would he stop with that? Wouldn't he just go ahead and tell the press "no access" if they don't ignore the Democratic message?
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 02:58 PMeuzoius, thank you.
Ann, I don't think that the threats of "no access" mean much. Everything is so censored and hidden and classified that "access" does not mean shit. The press is fed nothing but propaganda anyway. It is extreme propaganda and the administration has been penalized (barely) for this. Even though GAO has released reports stating that the admin has broken the law with their propaganda, no real penalization has occurred.
I think that it is more than threats of "no access".
My guess is that it is real threats of blacklisting, firing, bodily harm and blackmail due to illegally gathered info from the NSA spying.
Now, with the admins enormous "leak" investigation. (Which we know is not at all leaks but whistleblowers who deserve protection.) However, this leak investigation with the press being subpeoned and investigated I am sure that they are really afraid.
This admin is doing something very evil where the press is concerned.
I know that they are under pressure from their CEOs who are in the pockets of the tax cut and press-company-benefiting-legislation - but this is more. I am sure of it.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2006 03:09 PMThis just in from AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S. port operations in an election-year repudiation of President Bush.
By 62-2, the Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but the vote underscored widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP's fears of losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.
Posted by Edward Copeland at March 8, 2006 03:16 PMWell, the GOP is uniting behind a theme. And the good news (for all of us) is that it seems to be a fiscally conservative theme.
come on, charlie brown, kick the football!
Posted by lucy van pelt at March 8, 2006 04:19 PMI'd just like somebody to please take their foot off the social spending gas pedal.
1. We have an $8 Trillion national debt.
2. We've spent $6.6 Trillion on the War on Poverty since the 1960's. (From George Will's column last week).
There is a connection between (1) and (2).
We've lost the War on Poverty. It's time to withdraw the troops. (Government employees, social programs, etc.) Time to let the poor manage their own self-interests (self-determination). We tried. They rebelled and rejected our assistance. They're still poor after all these years.
The fiscal conservatives need a Cindy Sheehan to protest the War on Poverty. And maybe the new Contract with America is a fresh start.
Posted by muckdog at March 8, 2006 05:07 PM$8 trillion dollar debt, brought to you by your Republican Party. Cut the pork, that's the problem, not social services for the poor. Get the Republicans in Congress to give up their pet projects and earmarks, cut the corporate welfare cord and then, and only then can we discuss leaving the poor to starve on the street.
For example, between 1948 and 1998, we spent $66 billion subsidizing the nuclear industry (Taxpayers for Common Sense,) and they still can't make it on their own! They're still poor after all these years? Why should the nuclear industry get such a generous handout? Why aren't they part of the market based economy?
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 05:43 PMmuck, What about the 'War on Drugs', that's a real inexpensive winning war isn't it?
Time we legalize the shit and tax it!
Rude Pundit on a solution to the SD abortion ban:
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 06:28 PMIt's about "personal responsibilty" after all.
Posted by ann at March 8, 2006 07:09 PMSilly Muck, you are never going to get rid of poor people but what Will doesn't tell you is that the percentage of people in poverty dropped nearly in half during the war on poverty.
Will's column, like most conservative's ideas, sound like they were written in the victorian era. Silly, those Okies in the dust bowl could have been rich if only they'd had a bar of soap! LOL!
At least guys like you and will are good for laughs. Will doesn't seem to have any problem with spending $22,000 of your money in Iraq muck! LOL!
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 8, 2006 07:12 PMann, The rude one's solution is hilarious!!
Posted by bbtb at March 8, 2006 07:14 PMWell, the GOP is uniting behind a theme. And the good news (for all of us) is that it seems to be a fiscally conservative theme.
Yeah, and a fool and his money are soon parted. LOL, the only people who would believe that the GOP was "fiscally conservative" are people who would buy ocean front property in AZ.
Besides "fiscal conservatism" is an oxymoron.
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 8, 2006 07:15 PMGa6thDem, Sooner than you think!
Posted by bbtb at March 8, 2006 07:24 PMThe black folk would be turned away at the South Dakota border, and the unlucky few who make it to the concert would be publicly lynched.
Think of another way to knock up the virgin army of one. Christain concert maybe?
Posted by TIKI AL at March 8, 2006 07:52 PMAnn, the fucker in the link you posted needs to get snipped (or castrated).
I guess that all sexual relationships should begin with a contract. First a thorough medical exam, including HIV test, then waiting for six months of abstinence, another HIV test so that the waiting period for the virus has been confirmed and then a legal contract stating exactly what will happen if birth control fails.
I have had this debate with men and some interesting questions have come up. One of the contentions on the male side of the issue seems to be what if the guy wants the baby? (this is when an accidental pregnancy occurs, neither having planned.)
My contention is that no one has a right to make a woman an incubator. If they want a kid then find someone willing to procreate.
Then the argument was, 'if I can be forced to pay for it, I should have a say in whether or not it is born.' Again, men do not seem to see the reality that a woman's choice, and the consequences of the choice, is far more reaching than a man's.
Even if a woman decides to have an abortion, it is an agonizing decision and the repercussions are life long. That decision and its after effects never go away. I know not a single woman faced with that difficult decision who does not go back and question it even when logic tells them it was the best decision to make.
Then there are the physical ramifications. Abortion is a surgery and the physical ramifications on one's reproductive ability are quite possibly irreversible. This also changes the equality equation. It is simply not equal for men and women.
Now, if the woman decides to have the child there is never any guarantee that a man will stick around or pay support or have any involvement. Sometimes it is better for the woman and the child if the man does not stick around. Often the woman has no say in this either.
A man can force himself into being involved or can take off and never be heard from again. A woman is always involved.
Then, there seems to be no discussion on the hormonal and physical toll that 10 months gestation brings. The results are irreversable. A woman is never the same after having had a child.
The questions that I posed are simple. At what point in an unplanned pregnancy does the man have the option to walk away? If it is a one night stand, then can he walk away and pay no support? What if they are a couple and decide to go ahead and have the baby and he changes his mind when she is 8 months pregnant - then does he pay no support? What if they are a couple and he is around for the first year, the second year, the third? At what point can the man walk away and be immune from child support?
Then I posed another thought - if the man does not want to have any financial responsibility, then he should be forced to sign away all rights to the child as well - no visitation, no pictures, no acknowledgement that he is the father at all. This really seem to hit some men hard who have a desire to spread seed around like a fucking dandelion in a wind storm.
There can just be no "fairness doctrine" when it comes to having children.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2006 08:22 PMAnjha, now you know why Christ hung out with the prostitutes and those who were of questionable character.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2006 08:30 PM"My guess is that it is real threats of blacklisting, firing, bodily harm and blackmail due to illegally gathered info from the NSA spying."
Anjha, BINGO! You win the all expense trip to Disneyland.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2006 08:58 PM"One of the contentions on the male side of the issue seems to be what if the guy wants the baby? (this is when an accidental pregnancy occurs, neither having planned.)"
That one is hilarious. LOL LOL LOL LOL
Yeah, that's why we have hundreds of thousands of children without fathers.
"Then I posed another thought - if the man does not want to have any financial responsibility, then he should be forced to sign away all rights to the child as well - no visitation, no pictures, no acknowledgement that he is the father at all. This really seem to hit some men hard who have a desire to spread seed around like a fucking dandelion in a wind storm."
Anjha, isn't it interesting that when you suggest men sign their rights away if they do not support the child, they get upset. The irony of that statement. What? Take a man's right away. How dare you suggest such a thing.
Posted by Judith at March 8, 2006 09:18 PMI guess that all sexual relationships should begin with a contract.
Anjha, I've had the exact same debate with men before. I've discussed that the "she tricked me" argument is total bullshit.
Men have plenty of choices:
*abstinence
*condoms
*vasectomy
"She told me she was on the pill." Use a condom, ever heard of STDs? "I told her I didn't want kids" Get a vasectomy. Don't.have.sex.
It's funny, men keep trying to force women to have babies but if they, God forbid, are forced to cough up money, they scream how unfair it is and how victimized they are. I love the guy in the article blithely stating that if she can't afford the child on her own, she can just give it up for adoption. What an ass.
And Judith is right: what if they guy wants the baby? In what freaked out, altered universe? Guys want kids if women are around to take care of them, and they'll accept the kid if their wife dies, but if a guy says he doesn't want the woman to have an abortion, he's wanting to punish or control the woman.
Ann, if we have an $8 Trillion debt, and have spent $6.6 trillion on the war on poverty since the 60's thanks to LBJ, how are the republicans involved exactly?
Unless you're a high school senior in California, it's pretty easy to do the math and see where the debt is coming from.
Posted by muckdog at March 8, 2006 10:18 PMMuck,
You are conveniently forgetting the surplus that Clinton left our country with. The GOP is responsible for the most red ink in the history of our nation. Quit trying to scapegoat someone else for your own problems.
That's a pretty pathetic excuse for logic, muck. Look, we all know you love your tax cuts and tax shelters for the wealthy. We know you love the corporate welfare and pork projects that benefit your way of life. We know you loathe anyone who gets something that you don't. We all know you disdain anyone who doesn't live their life just like you do. But the reality is, to prove a correlation between government spending for the less fortunate among us and the national debt, you would need to prove that the debt has grown at the same level as spending on programs for the poor. You can't do that, though, so you just claim that the coincidence proves your point.
Here's a lovely graphic representation of our debt compared to the presidents in office when it was incurred: An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending
As you can easily see from this graph, our debt has grown the most under the great fiscal conservatives, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. And, I know this will shock you, muck, but spending on anti-poverty programs did not increase at the same rate under these presidents. So your "theory" holds no water.
Posted by ann at March 9, 2006 05:22 AMann, beautiful chart. It proves that piss-all-over economics does not work.
Reagan tried the voodoo shit and it failed miserably. Bush I kept it up. Clinton tried to fix it. GW brought it on full boat.
Without a healthy middle class the economy will tank. Making the rich richer does nothing for the economy. It does not create jobs.
Great chart.
Posted by Anjha at March 9, 2006 06:52 AMThe fiscal conservatives need a Cindy Sheehan to protest the War on Poverty.
you mean other than you?
Posted by benjoya at March 9, 2006 07:15 AMcause i'm sure the war on poverty killed one of your children, and not in a figurative way.
Posted by benjoya at March 9, 2006 07:16 AM