With that in mind, this comment is absolutely mind-blowing, because they’ve even used the “they don’t have a jobs plan” argument against Republicans for years.

So is that the spin now? After 4 years of failure, the Democrats running the show are going to argue that they weren’t put there with the purpose of fixing the job situation because they’ve failed so miserably at it?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those folks who even believe government can create jobs, but for four years, we’ve heard that Democrats needed to be elected so that they could help get America get back to work.

Does the abject failure in that regard mean we won’t be hearing that any more?

Bookmark this post. I have a feeling this genius will say something contradictory as we get closer to November of 2012.

Oh… Right… It’s the gas generator running it. Got it.

via Big Government

Yeah. Not exactly, but you probably had the whole thing planned in your head, didn’t you?

Although the national debt under President Barack Obama has increased $4 trillion since he took office in 2009, as a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama criticized then-President George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, saying it was “unpatriotic” and also “irresponsible” to saddle future generations with such a large national debt.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

“That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.

However, in less than three years in office, Obama has driven up the national debt by $4 trillion himself.

So just so I understand; is “change we can believe in” meant to be “it’s us doing it now, so it’s okay?” or is it “when I’m done that’s all you’re going to have left; change.”

Inquiring minds wanna know.

Source

Not for nothing, but the argument that a scab is “hurting her” doesn’t hold a lot of weight when you plant “her” in front of a truck.

Just sayin’.

I refuse to take a side in this strike because it really doesn’t affect me one way or the other.  Verizon is a private company and their union isn’t a public sector union, so in reality, I don’t care if they strike for a million years to get what they want.  That being said, though, throwing your daughter in front of a truck to garner sympathy is probably not the smartest idea ever.

Just sayin’.

Good thing the markets have stabilized thanks to all that new debt we just loaded on.

Obama and his minions said numerous times throughout the negotiations that they wanted to provide some certainty and remove the doubt from the market and that’s why the debt ceiling needed to be increased.

Then again, they also said they needed to save jobs by stimulating  the economy so we didn’t hit the dreaded 8% mark in unemployment…

And they also said we wouldn’t lose money on Chrysler and GM…

And they also said no bailout money would go to foreign banks…

Come to think of it, these bastards haven’t been right about a whole lot, have they?

Because, really, why would you want to go to a pool in the heat?

If I’m the Republican Party, this is going in every campaign ad I run from now until the election.  You want credit Mr. President?  You got it.

Good luck with that.

ONONDAGA, N.Y. (AP) — Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike’s handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.

The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.

State troopers tell The Post-Standard of Syracuse that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets.

Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.

Not that I think people should be required to protect themselves, and not that I think he was wrong in principle (the government shouldn’t require you to protect yourself), but it is extremely ironic that a helmet would’ve saved his life.

via NY motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law | The Daily Caller.

How badly do right-wing bloggers want to live in a hermetically sealed bubble where they and their favorite political leaders never have to leave the cozy environment? So badly that in the wake of CNN’s GOP presidential debate this week, bloggers were furious with the format and announced the gotcha questions posed to the candidates were a waste of time, and worse, designed to make Republicans look bad.

Now where ever would they get an idea like that? I mean, where would these right wing bloggers get the idea that despite answering the questions asked of them, Democrats and other liberal tools would cut those answers out of context to smear them? After all, why would the Democrats do that? What would they have to gain?

Straight from the DNC.

More from Media Matters:

Morrissey and the Breitbart blogger forgot to mention that nearly one-third of the debate questions weren’t asked by sneaky liberal journalists. They were asked by New Hampshire voters, many of whom identified themselves as Republicans. And yes, it was New Hampshire voters (not CNN anchors) who asked about the economy, immigration, health care reform, job creation, Medicare, the separation of church and state, Afghanistan, and military spending. In other words, actual voter priorities.

But apparently, citizens asking presidential candidates questions about the topics of the day is no longer considered permissible. Instead, GOP candidates, argues one blogger, should sit for questions only in forums hosted by friendly sources such as Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, or Hugh Hewitt.

Yeah, where would they get the crazy ideas that CNN would pick ridiculous questions that would make the candidates look bad so that the Democrats could cut them up and use them in a rapid response attack ad?

They’re so paranoid.

Apparently bumperstickers have a tendency for understatement.

Even Factcheck.org isn’t buying this latest volley from the liberal organization.

The ads invite viewers to think — wrongly — that Sens. Brown and McCaskill voted to ease restrictions on common pollutants specifically covered by the Clean Air Act. These include nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, such as diesel soot. In one of the ads a child is even shown drawing a picture and coloring the sky a sooty black. Those toxic pollutants, commonly associated with “smokestacks” and “tailpipes,” do indeed cause respiratory problems. But the votes cast by Sens. Brown and McCaskill had nothing to do with them. The vote McCaskill cast specifically excludes tailpipe emissions, in fact.

The truth is that these ads attack the two senators for their stances on colorless, odorless carbon dioxide and other invisible “greenhouse” gasses. Viewers would need to do some serious homework to discover that. On screen, the graphics give only amendment numbers and an April 6 date. Both those votes turn out to deal only with the Environmental Protection Agency’s moves to regulate greenhouse gasses.

McCaskill is attacked for her vote on amendment number 215, which would have suspended for two years any EPA actions “with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions.” (Our emphasis added.) McCaskill was one of several Democrats to cosponsor that amendment, along with chief sponsor Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. It would have required 60 votes to pass, but got only 12, including three from Republicans.

The ad against Brown attacks him for supporting amendment number 183, which would have prohibited EPA “from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.” It also needed 60 votes, and failed on a 50-50 tie with only four Democrats voting in favor. McCaskill was not among them.

Or in other words, the ads are bullshit. Now here’s the interesting part.

Prior to the Citizens United vs. FEC decision, the League of Women Voters, the same one pushing this horrendously distorted ad, came out strongly against Citizens United, even filing an Amicus with the Supreme Court.

Throughout this history, the Supreme Court respected and approved congressional limitations on corporate and union spending, upholding these restrictions against a First Amendment challenge in 1990 in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and again in 2003 in McConnell v. FEC.

Opponents of campaign finance restrictions argue that the First Amendment should apply to corporations in exactly the same way that it applies to individuals. They suggest that the corporate “person” created by the state should have all the rights of an individual citizen, including the right to make unlimited expenditures to elect or defeat specific candidates.

But this argument is a radical new theory and based on a fundamental fallacy: that corporations are persons just like individuals, and that democracy would be served by unleashing the tremendous sums that for-profit corporations can amass because they are shielded from the liabilities, taxation, and other responsibilities that fall on individual citizens. Such legal arguments run contrary to constitutional text and history and could reverse our centuries-long march of progress toward a more expansive, inclusive, citizen-based democracy. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist said in this context, “it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons.”

The Supreme Court should follow precedent in this case and keep intact the basic principles protecting American democracy. Doing otherwise would bring about an anti-democratic revolution our country does not need.

So what does the League of Women Voters do at their first opportunity? They take full advantage of the decision they advised against. If corporations and organizations don’t have free speech rights, what gives them the right to run this false attack ad in the first place? And if corporations don’t deserve the protections granted under the First Amendment, maybe Scott Brown should sue, personally, the maker of the ad and the Executive Committee for a few million bucks, seeing as they can’t hide behind the corporation?

Let’s be honest; Citizens United vs. FEC was a beautifully correct application of the First Amendment, and in spite of the criticism thereof, it doesn’t only apply to corporations. The League of Women Voters stands as a perfect example of how that decision applies even when the message being relayed is an outright lie.

I once had a friend tell me people who earned more had an obligation to help those who earn less. Knowing the person made more than me, I asked him to help me out and give me a few grand so we can be equal. Do I even need to tell you how fast he said “that’s stupid, and it’s not the same thing.”

As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

Well, turns out that most of the top 20 political donors since 1989 aren’t corporations. They’re unions.

So… I guess if we’re going to be working to get money out of politics we can start with organized labor. I’m sure all the donkeys will be right behind that initiative, seeing as they’re obsessed with keeping politics as pure as the driven snow.

When President Barack Obama spotlighted a successful school in his State of the Union speech, he picked Bruce Randolph School in Denver.

“Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver,” the president said. “Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado. Last May, 97 percent of seniors received their diploma.”

Bruce Randolph was a middle school when it opened in 2002. In 2007, Denver Public Schools gave Bruce Randolph School permission to operate autonomously. It was the first school in the state to be granted autonomy from district and union rules.

Each teacher then had to reapply for his or her job. A published report said only six teachers remained.

A bunch of teacher union heads just exploded.

Nice citation, though, Mr. President. Maybe we should have other schools follow the non-union non-bureaucrat model, seeing as it clearly breeds success?

Yeah, obviously that wasn’t the indebted-to-the-union-President meant, even though that’s what his example said.

Source

The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.

“Now what’re we going to do?” said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful.

During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas.

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

200 people lost their jobs? Nice. Notice they weren’t shifted to other places in the company.

And what about the 18,000 that lost their jobs in 2009?

That’s just beautiful. I’m sure Immelt is the perfect guy to figure out how to save jobs and be competitive.

Well done, again, President Obama.

Posted via Posterous

I got this e-mail a few days ago…

Hi, we can provide free and professionally written article for your
website, blogspace, forum. Free article from 50 to 100 words on any subject of
your choice, Alpha to Zebra.

You would appreciate this service if you know how much and relevance
good content is to your business.

Please follow this link to request your own free Article now:

(link redacted)

Kind regards,

(name redacted)

I don’t know about you, but to me that e-mail doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.

What happened to this woman should never happen to anyone.

The criminals are armed. Honest law-abiding citizens are not.

If that seems fair to you, more power to you.