A new Kaiser poll reveals some interesting numbers: 60% of polled support the Affordable Care Act, 60% object to Republican attempts to block it from the budget. Support for specific elements of the law have even higher support.
These numbers are significant and show that the people like and want the law, contrary to Republican lies and the media who repeat them. How bad is the lying? 22% of people polled thought the law was repealed - where would they get so misinformed?
The Act is a law and it's been held as Constitutional by 2 of the 4 federal judges who've reviewed it. Some parts of the law won't go into effect for another few years - everything else is in full effect.
And when you start asking people about the facts of the law, they LOVE it! 70% of those who want to repeal the law, want the small business tax credit. 60% want to close the Medicare "doughnut hole", 52% want to give financial to people who can't afford private insurance, 56% want to guarantee insurance and prevent companies from denying coverage, and 40% want to increase the Medicare payroll tax on the "wealthy". This is all amongst people who want to repeal the law!
Fox News lies and people who watch Fox News buy into the lies. When you present the facts, people choose progressive options.
Our policy is based on God's biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.
Christians defend Israel uniquely because of their religious beliefs, including the role of Israel in Armageddon. The US is largely biased for Israel and that is evidenced pretty well, even without the Texas GOP stating it explicitly.
When I point this out, I'm sometimes labeled "pro-Palestinian" or, when people are feeling particularly ignorant and insulting, "anti-Semitic". But, I'm not biased for or against Israel or the Palestinians. I take issue with the biased and hypocritical treatment we give Israel (and a whole host of other states and organizations) and I think our bias for Israel is detrimental to everybody, including Israelis, in part because it's become an impediment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Unfortunately, anything less than that biased, hypocritical, unequivocal support for Israel, or any expression of sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, often earns a person personal attacks and slurs. Until we can be allowed to disagree without verbal insults or physical violence, the situation will not improve.
Former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega arrived Tuesday morning in France -- where he was extradited to stand trial on charges that he laundered drug money.
So not only is it legal to invade a sovereign country to capture a criminal ("Watch out Switzerland, we're coming for Polanski!") and then hold him as a Prisoner Of War after his criminal sentence is complete, we can then choose to extradite him to a third country rather than back to the original country we invaded which has also filed extradition papers to try him on MURDER charges.
QOTD: Jon Stewart on homosexuality, humanity and shame
"The fact that you would trust the government with tanks and nuclear weapons but not to pass out cheese to poor people, well, you gotta ask..."
"Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality."
"Semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity."
"You talk about the Pro-Life movements being one of the great shames of our nation. I think if you want number two, I think, I think it's that. I think it's an absolute...it's a travesty that people have, uh, forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else." -Jon Stewart to Gov. Mike Huckabee, The Daily Show, 09 Dec 2008
I am often amazed at how very respectful the audience of The Daily Show is. They don't boo; even when Stewart hits a big ideological point, they often stay quiet because cheering would make it more like a game than a discussion. For a show that's about laughing and humor and cheering, it's incredible how quiet and respectful the audience can be when they're hearing someone argue for something they argue against.
FBI determines 40yrs of scientific testimony wasn't ever based on science.
1. The FBI gives testimony which is later found to be untrue. 2. ... 3. FALSE CONVICTION!
"... a six-month investigation by 60 Minutes and The Washington Post last November showed that there are hundreds of defendants imprisoned around the country who were convicted with the help of a now discredited forensic tool, and that the FBI never notified them, their lawyers, or the courts, that the their cases may have been affected by faulty testimony." Evidence of Injustice
Just imagine if the state killed someone in your family based on bogus testimony. That'd really suck, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be really nice if the state were trying to help groups like the Innocence Project analyse cases and help clear innocent people of these crimes so we could, I dunno, find the real criminals and, I dunno, protect society. Too bad governments will attest to the dying day--the convicted's, that is--that they haven't made an error.
Craig Ferguson says we shouldn't get news from late-night comedians but they're the only ones who can tell the truth and not get fired for it. Sometimes the only way we can swallow our medicine is when it's wrapped in a sugar.
"Vito Fossella of New York, will retire from his House seat at the end of this term. Mr. Fossella revealed recently that he secretly fathered a child in Virginia." (as reported in the New York Times)
"What a welcome. That is so fabulous. And it's such an honor to be introduced by Laura Ingraham."
"It's wonderful to have Laura Ingraham on our side. You know that? She is wonderful."
Ingram spends her career degrading people for their personal lives, most notably sexual preferences. She also told her viewers to call a voter help line all at once so it would tie up the line and make it unusable for the public. It was specifically a Democratic voter help line. That's voter fraud. The Bush administration declined to prosecute.
"Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt."
"I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
"I will continue to stand for conservative principles. I'll fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."
All are from fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney's speech 07 Feb 2008, that he was suspending his campaign for President. He was elected governor of Massachusetts because he was moderate and he was willing to work with and among both parties. It's sad that he's thrown that all away for a power grab.
To accuse your opponents of supporting our enemies is low. Slimeball Low. Mitt, are you slime?
Our policies need to be more than talking points. Though many politicians want to paint issues as right or wrong, black or white, they are entirely shades of gray. We've spent decades supporting tyrants and dictators (Hussein, Musharef), mass murderers and criminals (Pinochet, Bin Laden), choosing the side most convenient for our monetary interest while ignoring the ethical questions of supporting butchers.
Mitt, your arguments are worthless. You seek to ignore serious debate and instead paint patriots as traitors. You decry debate and seek defamation. Your positions are so without merit that you attack the personage of those with whom you disagree.
Police, saying they were responding to citizen complaints, carted away two large promotional photographs from the Abercrombie & Fitch store in Lynnhaven Mall on Saturday and cited the manager on obscenity charges.
The photos were pretty tame. It's ridiculous that we actually consider the naked body to be obscene; being naked in public will get you registered as a sex offender which is automatically assumed to mean you're a child molester.
Oh, speaking of child molesters, some sick fuck in Canada-ay molested another grand-daughter when he was on parole for impregnated the first. Yet the family welcomed him back with open arms.
At the time of the incident, the man was on parole after serving two years of a five-year sentence for incest. He had sexually abused another granddaughter several times when she was 12 and 13, and only admitted it when DNA tests proved he fathered his own great-granddaughter.
On a humorous note, the Winnipeg Sun had a slight ad mishap when I looked at the article:
In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has overruled the High Court and removed a limitation that said victims had only six years to sue their perpetrators for compensation. How long do they have now? Eternity. Yup, sexual assaults are a special case where the idea of a speedy trial is absurd.
Yeah, the newsworthy case is the one where the rapist got 7 million pounds in the lottery, after the time limit had passed. Here's a news flash--good things happen to bad people along with the bad things that happen to good people. I'm sorry, that's life. But don't go around fucking up established law for one or two cases that are egregious.
The limitations are there to protect the rights of everyone. There are some rights people cannot have taken away. Even when those people commit crimes, even the most abhorrent.
Don't be jealous, though, the government will get around to stripping your rights soon.
This guy isn't a small town douchebag police chief who doubles as the undertaker. This is a big town douchebag police chief who runs on the of largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
Does anyone feel safe in a city where the police chief doesn't know the amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Or where the media doesn't call out such a fucker?
The Atlanta City Council passed a resolution barring anyone under 21 from businesses that serve alcohol (excepting a few, such as groceries and restaurants). Their logic is, "Since a person under 21 can't drink in a nightclub, they should not be in these establishments." Balderdash.
New York City had a rule (maybe still does) that you had to be 13 to be at the bar (sitting or standing). I know this because I was shooed away from the bar and back to my table a few times when I wasn't yet 13. I wasn't anywhere close to 13, truthfully. Bars serve food and they also show pay-per-view sporting events--that was reason enough for me to be there in grade school.
When I came to college, years before I could drink, I'd still go to bars and clubs with friends. I wasn't drinking but I was still able to have fun. It's a false assumption that the only reason people go to bars or clubs or such is to drink--they go to socialize and drinking is how the businesses are able to pay the bills.
Atlanta is working very hard to make the city unpalatable for anyone under 50. They're turning Buckhead into Disneyland with shopping malls and tourist traps. Midtown has been gutted and little local flavor remains, replaced by condos. An event center I frequent has been in a battle to get licenses for a larger space and is being battled by a group that doesn't want us there (the battle has been pretty harsh, with someone printing fake flyers advertising illegal events at the space).
I started going over to Decatur to drink. I don't have to deal with smokers, they pour later (though I'm rarely out that late anymore), and the city and county seem to WANT my business. Atlanta will quickly learn that the old farts trying to make the city quiet aren't willing to pay the taxes that the businesses provide.
