You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Tea Baggers’ category.

Ted Cruz, Cuban Canadian iceback “running” for President:

intel-design-120209“The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty,” Cruz wrote to supporters in a fundraising email on Thursday, under the subject line “2nd Amendment against tyranny.”

You’ve almost got it, bozo (respects), but it’s a little thinner than that: The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides redress, provides relief, for the impositions of tyrannies upon the majority (the rest of us) by a minority (you).

You are in the minority.

You should be reading Dr Cole everyday

1. White terrorists are called “gunmen.” What does that even mean? A person with a gun? Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US? Other terrorists are called, like, “terrorists.”

2. White terrorists are “troubled loners.” Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners.

3. Doing a study on the danger of white terrorists at the Department of Homeland Security will get you sidelined by angry white Congressmen. Doing studies on other kinds of terrorists is a guaranteed promotion.

4. The family of a white terrorist is interviewed, weeping as they wonder where he went wrong. The families of other terrorists are almost never interviewed.

5. White terrorists are part of a “fringe.” Other terrorists are apparently mainstream.

6. White terrorists are random events, like tornadoes. Other terrorists are long-running conspiracies.

7. White terrorists are never called “white.” But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations.

8. Nobody thinks white terrorists are typical of white people. But other terrorists are considered paragons of their societies.

9. White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.

10. There is nothing you can do about white terrorists. Gun control won’t stop them. No policy you could make, no government program, could possibly have an impact on them. But hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent on police and on the Department of Defense, and on TSA, which must virtually strip search 60 million people a year, to deal with other terrorists.

The Stop White Genocide video. Un-flipping-believable.

Look at those fat asses, fat bellies, fat cheeks and chins, tits and thighs, ankles; flat feet, pink skin prone to burns, boils and lessons, hairless, near blind, deaf, stink utterly dependent upon adolescent fairy tales to justify sex with children, holding on to their little pee-pees like maybe they’ll cum in their pants. Can’t get any pussy, I guess, other than each other.

sieg-heil-709292

I am laughing, at the “superiority”.

This is actually quite funny:

lolLast spring, Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning got a letter from an eighth-grader at The Riverside School in Lyndonville. She was studying Latin, and wanted Senator Joe to introduce a bill to give Vermont a Latin motto. We’ve got “Freedom and Unity,” but no Latin.

As the idea developed, those involved came up with a motto: Stella quarta decima fulgeat. The translation: “May the Fourteenth Star Shine Bright,” is a nod to Vermont’s status as the fourteenth state to join the union. Nice. Poetic in both languages. Benning brought the student to Montpelier and introduced her to the Government Operations Committee, which would consider her proposal.
[…]
Funny thing. Last week, WCAX did a story about Benning’s bill. And the reaction, as Benning told me in an email?

I anticipated suffering the backroom internal joking from my colleagues in the legislature. What I did not anticipate was the vitriolic verbal assault from those who don’t know the difference between the Classics and illegal immigrants from South America.

That’s right, the WCAX Facebook page was inundated with angry posts from ignorant Vermonters spewing their hatred in barely readable fractured English. (Spelling and punctuation as-is)

Warning: Teh stoopid, it burns!

That means you Greg Walden, trust-funder punk who’s never done a day’s work in your life and don’t even live in Oregon… you don’t represent Oregon.

The differences between the four budget proposals recently put forth by President Barack Obama, both Republican-majority houses of the U.S. Congress, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are “stark,” according to a new analysis—while some provisions in the GOP blueprints “completely miss the mark in responding to what Americans say they want.”

gop-humping_nThe National Priorities Project (NPP), a non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to making the federal budget process transparent, released Competing Visions on Friday.

The report compares how each budget proposal responds (or not) to the stated policy priorities of the American people, on key issues including jobs, education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, food assistance, and military spending, as well as proposed strategies for tax reform and deficit reduction.

“Our analysis shows that, in most spending categories, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the president would do the most to address the priorities voiced by the majority of Americans,” said Jasmine Tucker, research analyst for NPP and author of the report. “In some areas, the House and Senate budget proposals completely miss the mark in responding to what Americans say they want.”

For example, on the issue of taxing the wealthy, according to the NPP analysis:

  • 68 percent of Americans think wealthy households don’t pay enough in taxes.
  • The Obama budget proposal raises top capital gains tax rate to 28 percent and closes the “trust fund loophole” that allows heirs to avoid taxation, raising $208 billion over 10 years. Places limits on tax deductions for top income earners and implements the Buffett Rule ensuring a minimum tax rate for the wealthy. Places limits on tax deductions for top income earners and ends the “carried interest” loophole that benefits hedge fund managers to raise $17.6 billion over 10 years.
  • The House budget calls for comprehensive tax reform that would lower tax rates for individuals and families. Closes some special interest tax loopholes but does not specify which ones. Eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax that sets a minimum tax for the wealthy.
  • The Senate budget contains no proposed changes to the status quo.
  • The CPC proposal raises tax rates for richest 2 percent (earning more than $250,000 per year) to Clinton-era levels, and taxes capital gains investment earnings at higher rates, yielding $1.4 trillion in additional revenue over 10 years. Places a cap on the value of itemized deductions that mostly benefit the wealthy (raising $566 billion over 10 years) and limits other tax deductions for top income earners.

Similar discrepancies exist on almost every issue.

As Tucker put it: “The differences between the four budget proposals are stark, and all signs indicate a difficult budget battle ahead as lawmakers try to resolve widely different approaches despite clear public opinion in favor of certain policies.”

While 70 percent of Americans oppose cuts to food stamps, the House and Senate budget plans would both cut the program.

imagesWhile 67 percent say improving the education system in the U.S. should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year, the House and Senate allocate no new funding for education—and in fact the House proposal “freezes the maximum Pell grant award at the same level for the next 10 years, provides financial aid to fewer families, and makes substantial cuts to domestic discretionary spending, including education.”

Overall, the House Republican budget would cut $5 trillion in government spending over the next decade, mostly out of programs that low- and moderate-income Americans need and depend on—and say they support. At the same time, it adds $400 million in defense spending—not in line with public opinion polls—and promises to lower tax rates for wealthy Americans and corporations.

The Senate version follows the same basic outlines.

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) alsonoted the divergence between GOP policies and the priorities of the general public.

“[T]he rich get much richer, and the Republicans think they need more help,” he said. “The middle class and working families of this country become poorer, and the Republicans think we need to cut programs they desperately need. Frankly, those may be the priorities of some of my Republican colleagues in this room, but I do not believe that these are the priorities of the American people.”

Otis Byrd, found hanging from a tree in Mississippi today.

Post-racial “America” my rosey red ass.

Magical Laffer Curve Fairies, And Other Economic Theories

House Republicans gear up for another round of massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid while eliminating Obamacare with their budget proposal.

Republicans say their plan would balance the federal budget and create a surplus by 2024. By contrast, they say, Obama’s proposed budget would generate more than $700 billion in annual deficits by that year. The GOP budget would save over $5 trillion over the next 10 years.

guillotine1

The GOP plan would replace Medicaid expansion through State Flexibility Funds, which would put Medicaid coverage plans in the hands of state governments. It would leave in place some alternatives to traditional Medicaid expansion plans proposed by Republican governors in states like Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence (R) won federal support for a program that is similar, but not identical, to expansion envisioned under the ACA.

The budget repeals several parts of the Dodd-Frank legislation, including an end to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s authority to bail out creditors of institutions deemed too big to fail. It would require Congress to appropriate funding for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which currently generates its revenue from the Federal Reserve.And it would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the semi-public lending institutions.

The budget also curtails some programs implemented through the 2009 stimulus bill, which spent about $800 billion trying to drag the United States out of an economic recession. The bill proposes limiting Energy Department programs that have invested in emerging technologies by requiring the department leave application and commercialization of those technologies to the private sector. It also rescinds money that hasn’t yet been spent on green energy programs.

Republicans said their bill would simplify the tax code through comprehensive reform, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and lowering rates for both individuals and corporations. It would create a reserve fund to spur a new surface transportation bill that would keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent.

Jeb Lund, at Rolling stone, writing about Tom Cotton, says it all:

Critics who leapt on Cotton and his 46 fellow clowns for “treason” for violating Nixon’s nemesis, the Logan Act, were so close to getting the point. To read most analyses, Cotton engaged in an act of political grandstanding that went too far and undermined the faith and function of the United States. It’s a judgment that relies on the begged question that Cotton even remotely gives a shit about that. He doesn’t. Undermining the United States’ function as it is presently constituted is a feature, not a bug.

To be fair, a large portion of this fondness for a non-functioning government stems from the president being a black Democrat, but stopping there imputes solely a racial motive to a comprehensive and enduring contempt for government’s existence at all. Holding government hostage over the debt ceiling again and again, holding it hostage over a Homeland Security bill, holding a knife to its throat over Iran – these are just elaborations on a theme from the 1990s. Back then, Cotton’s fellow travelers and their predecessors shut down the government when it was run by a self-made white bubba from Cotton’s own Arkansas, a guy who embodied the American dream about as much as anyone can, a drawling southern burger-fiend who liked chicks with big hair. The point wasn’t who was running the government, but that someone was trying to run it in the first place.

In its Constitutional idolatry and boundless bellicosity, Cotton’s Republican Party has arrogated to itself the presumption that anything it does is explicitly American. The normative conditions of patriotism are whatever they want to do at any given moment, because only they have the courage to defend you from enemies abroad with guns and enemies at home via a fundamentalist reading of the texts and hadith of Our Founding Prophets (which, conveniently, also mentions guns). Anything outside their chosen agenda is met with the word no, which is the finest distillation of their agenda for anyone other than their own. [emphasis added]

All War, all the time. Think about that when, and if, you vote.

Just kidding…

TMW2015-03-18color

.

Dictionary.com:
1. v. to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action,process, etc.); hinder or impede.
2. v. to be delayed.
3. n. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive.
  1. a contemptuous term used to refer to a person who cognitively impaired.
  2. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way:
    a hopeless social retard.

5. Automotive, Machinery. an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark forignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.

1480-90; < Latin retardāre to delay, protract, equivalent to re- re- +tardāre to loiter, be slow, derivative of tardus slow
Synonyms
1. obstruct, check.
Antonym
1. accelerate.
British Dictionary definitions for Retard

retard

verb (rɪˈtɑːd)

1. (transitive) to delay or slow down (the progress, speed, ordevelopment) of (something)

noun (ˈriːtɑːd)

2. (US, offensive) a retarded person
3. (US, offensive) a foolish person
Word Origin
C15: from Old French retarder, from Latin retardāre, from re- + tardāre tomake slow, from tardus sluggish
Word Origin and History for Retard

v. late 15c., “make slow or slower,” from French retarder “restrain, hold(someone) back, keep (someone from doing something); come to a stop”(13c.) or directly from Latin retardare “make slow, delay, keep back,hinder” (see retardation ). Related: Retarded; retarding.

The noun is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English,with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956), retardee (1971).
retard

nounA stupid person; airhead, spaz: the stereotype of the crazy retard

[1960s+; fr mentally retarded]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.