“No one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald, and that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happen in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?!”—
President Barack Obama at the White House Correspondents’s Dinner, with Donald Trump in the audience. (via warrennotg)
Ronald Reagan: Before he was president, Reagan actually lead a campaign against the creation of Medicare. He ominously warned: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” 
- Barry Goldwater: Goldwater, a conservative icon, said that establishing Medicare would lead us down the slipper slope of subsidizing alcohol for all: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” 
- George H.W. Bush: Bush, who would go on to be president after Reagan, said that Medicare shouldn’t be established because it was nothing more than “socialized medicine.” 
- Bob Dole: In 1996, during his campaign for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare … because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” 
- Sen. Carl Curtis (NE): During the debate over the creation of Medicare, Curtis said that the “insurance industry has a remarkable record” and that Medicare “is not public welfare. It is not charity. It is not kindness. It is socialism. Socialism is not the answer to anything.” 
- Dick Armey: Armey told reporters in 1995 that “we need to wean our old people away from Medicare.” 
- Newt Gingrich: Gingrich, who is now likely running for president, told a Blue Cross Blue Shield conference how he plans to eventually get rid of Medicare: “Now, we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that that’s politically smart, and we don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.” 
- Rep. Jeb Hensarling (TX): During an appearance on MSNBC last week, Hensarling referred to Medicare along with Social Security as “cruel Ponzi schemes.” [4/15/2011]
Sorry about the problems with my current theme. For whatever reason, when you have a theme with numerous options, Tumblr likes to randomly reset all of those options and change the user values for no apparent reason. So while it may be a bit of a mess now, I am working on hard-coding all of my customizations to assure this doesn’t happen again. Thanks for your patience.
Oh and Tumblr, thanks. I am now eternally grateful that I didn’t pay for a “premium” theme.
“Stop just a second. Hookers? Who? Who depends on Planned Parenthood? ‘I’ve got 400 abortions that I have to have. I’ve got these children that I have to have aborted. I depend on Planned Parenthood.’ Lawrence O’Donnell has friends that depend on Planned Parenthood.”—
absolutely beyond the pale misogynistic fear-mongering nonsense. i’m not a hooker and i’ve never had an abortion, but i absofuckinglutely RELIED quite heavily on planned parenthood pre-HCR when i had no health insurance.
fucking sexist asshole douchebag scum sucking rodent piece of shit.
“Welcome to hour sixteen of our continuing coverage of the massive news today out of Washington, D.C.: President Barack Obama has released a copy of his longform birth certificate. I repeat, for those just tuning in: the current President of the United States, who, after being born in the United States, and becoming that country’s President, has released the non-legally required version of the legally required birth certificate he had previously released.”—JON STEWART, The Daily Show (via inothernews)
If the document proves valid, it could answer the questions raised by those who have alleged he was not actually born in Hawaii. But it also could prove his ineligibility because of its references to his father. Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.
Maybe he is American. Big whoop. That just means he’s both American and Kenayan and ineligible to be president regardless. P.S. he’s muslin.
OK I feel it must be said at this point that the 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizenship to ANY person born in the United States, regardless of where their parents are from. Also, Obama does NOT hold dual citizenship. Where the fuck does this stuff come from? Are people really that ignorant to how things work?
“I’m taking great credit and you have to ask the president, ‘why didn’t he do this a long time ago? Why didn’t he do it a long time ago?’ When Hillary Clinton was asking, when everybody was asking, why didn’t he do it? It’s shocking. It’s shocking.”—
Donald Trump on Obama’s birth certificate. It’s over Trump. (via thenoobyorker)
What Obama did here is a really important thing. Not him validating that whole birth certificate drama. Instead, he separated what he’s trying to do from the spectacle around what he’s trying to do. And as a result, he should be able to get beyond the stupid drama and do what he’s been trying to do for over two years — improve our economy. For too long, Obama’s become less about his own goals and efforts and more about the people looking for any way possible to cut them down. And by making his statement today, he drew a line in the sand. If you jerks are going to continue to talk about this, you’re doing so at the peril of the American people. And that’s what we needed to hear as a country and as a media. source
The Republicans learned a lot while Clinton was in office. If they concentrate on attempting to de-legitimize a duly & legally elected Democrat president instead of doing anything useful, they take the spotlight off the Republicans own “warts” and the sneaky bullshit they’re up to because all anyone can talk about is whether the president should actually be president or not. This is ridiculous of course, anyone with half a brain should realize it’s a simple act of misdirection (pay no attention to the man behind curtain, kids), and yet here we are.
I fear for the future mainly because people have shown themselves to be so easily distracted from reality. I’m not sure why this is. People often blame the education system, or call it simple racism (which is certainly a part of the criticisms of Obama, but obviously doesn’t apply to what happened to Clinton), but I think the answer is both easier and more complicated than that. No, I’m afraid this is a deep-seated problem with the general mindset of the American public. Always looking for an easy way out, and sore losers to boot.
“What [Brooks] doesn’t mention is that Ryan’s proposal also includes dropping the top tax rate for rich people from 35 percent to 25 percent. All by itself, that one change means that the government would be collecting over $4 trillion less over the next ten years. Since Brooks himself is talking about Ryan’s plan cutting $4 trillion over the next ten years (some say that number is higher), what we’re really talking about here is an ambitious program to cut taxes for people like… well, people like me and David Brooks, and paying for it by “consolidating job-training programs” and forcing old people to accept reduced Medicare benefits.”—
Across the country, a growing number of cities are adopting nuisance ordinances that impose fines and criminal penalties on landlords and tenants when the police are called too many times to the property. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, landlords may be fined if the police are called to the premises three or more times within 30 days. While the stated goal is to deter crime and recoup costs, these ordinances endanger domestic violence survivors, particularly women of color.
Property nuisance ordinances can take a variety of forms, but generally impose fines or other sanctions on building owners and tenants when the police are called to the premises a certain number of times, or where certain offenses are alleged to have occurred on the property. Under these ordinances, the only practical way for an owner to abate the “nuisance” and avoid a penalty is to evict the resident who called the police or whose home was the site of the alleged offense.
These ordinances present two very serious problems for women who experience domestic violence or stalking, two crimes that often occur in one’s home: They may prevent victims from calling the police when they are endangered by an abuser or stalker, and they may result in housing discrimination against victims of domestic violence.
“Christian Republicans support the right to carry assault weapons, and are pro-War. They completely ignore the fact that Christ was a Liberal, and was opposed to capitalism and violence.”—T Thralls (via leftish)
When even the New York Times, the supposed bleeding heart of the liberal media, is asking whether it’s more “perilous politically” to accept tax increases for 3 percent of households or benefit cuts for everyone, you’d assume that even Americans who aren’t rich are are opposed to raising taxes on those who are. But you’d be wrong: nearly three-quarters of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy. So why is raising taxes on the wealthy so hard—or why do we think it is?
The obvious answer is that rich people have political clout—but can it really be so simple? A growing mound of evidence suggests that while wealthy people’s preferences may not be the only factor in political decision-making, it’s a worrisomely important one. In a recent study, Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels found that senators outright ignored the views of their least advantaged constituents while catering to the preferences of the wealthy. Princeton’s Martin Gilens has also found that policy changes reflect the preferences of the most affluent, while the preferences of poor and middle-income Americans have almost no bearing.
Politicial scientists Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page have found that the preferences of foreign policymakers correspond more to the preferences of executives of multinational companies than to the general public. Page and Jeffrey Winters estimate that the top 10 percent of income earners hold about 90 percent of materially based political power, and that “each member of the top 1 percent averaged more than 100 times the power of a member of the bottom 90 percent; about 200 times if the index is calculated in terms of the more politically relevant non-home wealth.” These numbers are staggering, and should be seriously troubling to anyone who thinks political equality worth defending. Indeed, by Page and Winter’s definition of oligarchy as “the extreme political inequalities that necessarily accompany extreme material inequalities,” it’s pretty hard to argue that the United States isn’t an oligarchic society.