Joseph West commented on Fox Whines About The War On Easter Again
2016-03-27 11:29:51 -0400
· Flag
Maybe I just never really looked at the packaging that closely but I don’t remember Cadbury’s ever using “Easter” on the candy. All I remember about “Easter” and Cadbury was the commercial with the (clucking) bunny and the voiceover saying “Nobody knows Easter like him”—even then, those have largely been replaced by “Everybody wants to be the Cadbury bunny.”
I did see an article on “The Blaze” website that mentioned Cadbury (in the UK) was dropping “Easter” from one specific packaging and that the “controversy” only seemed to develop in response to a presumably evangelical/right-wing Christian company’s branding itself as the “real Easter” cream egg.
I did see an article on “The Blaze” website that mentioned Cadbury (in the UK) was dropping “Easter” from one specific packaging and that the “controversy” only seemed to develop in response to a presumably evangelical/right-wing Christian company’s branding itself as the “real Easter” cream egg.
Joseph West commented on Bill O'Reilly Still Pushing Bogus History: America Founded On Judeo-Christian Values
2016-03-24 18:59:55 -0400
· Flag
Priscilla wrote “(Does O’Reilly know that once these godly folks got set up, they then oppressed others, such as the Quakers?)”
I’d be willing to bet that O’Reilly’s not even aware that his fellow Catholics were also oppressed by those “godly folks.”
In fact, the ONLY colony that was established where Roman Catholics could practice freely was Maryland. The charter that would establish the colony in Maryland was sought by George Calvert, the 1st Lord Baltimore, although he died just weeks before the charter was granted. The charter was signed by his son, Cecil, who would become the first Proprietary Governor of Maryland (his second son, Leonard, would become the first ruling Governor—effectively, his post was to represent the Proprietary Governor much the way the Governor-General in Commonwealth realms represent the Queen’s authority). One of Cecil’s most notable achievements was the Maryland Toleration Act which protected Catholics as well as Protestants who didn’t conform to the Church of England (the act did have a minor sticking point: it applied only to Christians and only those who accepted the Trinity as truth (Unitarians, for instance, who denied that Jesus was THE Son of God risked their lives to practice their faith). After Cromwell took control in England, Maryland’s new Anglican leadership repealed the Toleration Act (after Cromwell died, the colonial legislature reinstated it but after the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, it was permanently repealed and within 20 years, Maryland Catholics would even be denied the right to vote; Catholics in Maryland would have no legal protections until after the American Revolution).
And, Bill might really want to rethink that whole “Judeo-Christian” nonsense. That’s a Reagan-era idea designed by fundamentalist Christians to alleviate fears by Jewish Americans (especially those in the GOP) over the evangelical Christians’ rise to power. Jews had, for decades, been wary of the evangelical and fundamentalist movement with its anti-Semitic origins (the Klan limited its membership to Christians of churches that, in Biblical terms, offered no succor to Jewish groups). Many of the leading evangelical Christians in the 1960s and 1970s were adamantly opposed to Israel UNTIL certain officials saw Israel’s existence as vital to their “end times” philosophy. It was around this time that these Christians started supporting Israel, even though it was for purely selfish reasons (Christ could only return to Earth after Israel had been “restored”; without an Israel, Christ’s “Second Coming” would never come to pass). SO………to placate concerned Jews, the evangelicals started with the “Judeo-Christian” blather, insisting that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Jewish traditions in establishing the United States, even though it’s all a bunch of nonsense.
I’d be willing to bet that O’Reilly’s not even aware that his fellow Catholics were also oppressed by those “godly folks.”
In fact, the ONLY colony that was established where Roman Catholics could practice freely was Maryland. The charter that would establish the colony in Maryland was sought by George Calvert, the 1st Lord Baltimore, although he died just weeks before the charter was granted. The charter was signed by his son, Cecil, who would become the first Proprietary Governor of Maryland (his second son, Leonard, would become the first ruling Governor—effectively, his post was to represent the Proprietary Governor much the way the Governor-General in Commonwealth realms represent the Queen’s authority). One of Cecil’s most notable achievements was the Maryland Toleration Act which protected Catholics as well as Protestants who didn’t conform to the Church of England (the act did have a minor sticking point: it applied only to Christians and only those who accepted the Trinity as truth (Unitarians, for instance, who denied that Jesus was THE Son of God risked their lives to practice their faith). After Cromwell took control in England, Maryland’s new Anglican leadership repealed the Toleration Act (after Cromwell died, the colonial legislature reinstated it but after the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688, it was permanently repealed and within 20 years, Maryland Catholics would even be denied the right to vote; Catholics in Maryland would have no legal protections until after the American Revolution).
And, Bill might really want to rethink that whole “Judeo-Christian” nonsense. That’s a Reagan-era idea designed by fundamentalist Christians to alleviate fears by Jewish Americans (especially those in the GOP) over the evangelical Christians’ rise to power. Jews had, for decades, been wary of the evangelical and fundamentalist movement with its anti-Semitic origins (the Klan limited its membership to Christians of churches that, in Biblical terms, offered no succor to Jewish groups). Many of the leading evangelical Christians in the 1960s and 1970s were adamantly opposed to Israel UNTIL certain officials saw Israel’s existence as vital to their “end times” philosophy. It was around this time that these Christians started supporting Israel, even though it was for purely selfish reasons (Christ could only return to Earth after Israel had been “restored”; without an Israel, Christ’s “Second Coming” would never come to pass). SO………to placate concerned Jews, the evangelicals started with the “Judeo-Christian” blather, insisting that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Jewish traditions in establishing the United States, even though it’s all a bunch of nonsense.
Joseph West commented on Megyn Kelly’s Perfect Response To Trump’s Attack On Heidi Cruz
2016-03-24 18:20:38 -0400
· Flag
I guess I’d never been “lucky” enough to ever see Melania Trump but my first thought on seeing the pictures was “What do Ariana Huffington and Taylor Swift have to do with tRump and the CruzMissile?”
Then I read the article.
After doing a quick Google search, I’m going to say that Frau Trump’s picture has been, um, cleaned up a bit. According to Wiki, she’s 46 (and 2 years older than Sra Cruz).
A little more Googling, and I found a pic of Frau Trump that looks like it’s undergone a bit less retouching (and makes her actually look like a woman who’s at least 35). http://www.inquisitr.com/2923468/melania-trump-advises-donald-to-act-presidential-despite-wife-feud-with-ted-cruz/
It should be noted that Donnie’s not being completely honest about the “controversial” pictures. Yes, it was for GO—but the BRITISH version, which (like most fashion-related magazines) has a completely different editorial process, especially with modelling. The foreign editions of most fashion magazines display a lot more eroticism and frank sexuality than is allowed in any “mainstream” fashion magazine in the US (with interiors as well as covers). Nude models often frequent the covers of foreign fashion magazine editions though very tastefully done—it wouldn’t be odd to see a French or Italian or Brazilian edition of “Vogue” to have a fully-nude woman posing on the cover, breasts clearly visible but pubic region discreetly covered with her hands or holding a scarf over; pretty much think the most explicit “Playboy” cover on US newsstands, and that’s tame by foreign fashion mag standards.
Then I read the article.
After doing a quick Google search, I’m going to say that Frau Trump’s picture has been, um, cleaned up a bit. According to Wiki, she’s 46 (and 2 years older than Sra Cruz).
A little more Googling, and I found a pic of Frau Trump that looks like it’s undergone a bit less retouching (and makes her actually look like a woman who’s at least 35). http://www.inquisitr.com/2923468/melania-trump-advises-donald-to-act-presidential-despite-wife-feud-with-ted-cruz/
It should be noted that Donnie’s not being completely honest about the “controversial” pictures. Yes, it was for GO—but the BRITISH version, which (like most fashion-related magazines) has a completely different editorial process, especially with modelling. The foreign editions of most fashion magazines display a lot more eroticism and frank sexuality than is allowed in any “mainstream” fashion magazine in the US (with interiors as well as covers). Nude models often frequent the covers of foreign fashion magazine editions though very tastefully done—it wouldn’t be odd to see a French or Italian or Brazilian edition of “Vogue” to have a fully-nude woman posing on the cover, breasts clearly visible but pubic region discreetly covered with her hands or holding a scarf over; pretty much think the most explicit “Playboy” cover on US newsstands, and that’s tame by foreign fashion mag standards.
Joseph West commented on Sean Hannity Melts Down After Jorge Ramos Calls Out Donald Trump’s Racism
2016-03-24 11:55:13 -0400
· Flag
Sure, Steve. You’re biracial.
It just proves you don’t understand the concept. To most Whites, anyone who’s not of EUROPEAN heritage exclusively can face racism. Skin color has VERY little to do with it. That can play a factor, but here’s a fun fact for you: Did you know that when Lucille Ball wanted her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz, to play her TV husband for a project that she and Desi had planned, executives at CBS television balked at the idea because they feared affiliated stations (mostly in the South and Southwest) would refuse to air a show featuring an INTERRACIAL couple. In Texas, in the 1950s, it was still against the law for a “white” person to marry a “Mexican” person (if the Mexican’s skin tone was less white than their prospective spouse).
And, of course, throughout the South (in the “Jim Crow” era), the “one-drop rule” applied. You could look whiter than a typical Klan rally, but if you had even “one drop” of “Colored blood,” that made you “Colored.” (Ironically, for prostitutes in New Orleans, this made some “octoroon” pros very costly. The pricing scale for most brothels put the “octoroon” ladies at the very top, with “pure-white” ladies just below. Other racial mixes fell below that while “pure-Black” ladies were typically in the “bargain basement.” The “octoroon” ladies had the “right” skin color but the “thrill” for the john of “breaking the color barrier”—in fact, it wasn’t unheard of for some “pure-white” women to fake their backgrounds by adding some “color,” for financial reasons.)
For Ramos—who’s Mexican—I don’t know his specific family history, but the “blancos” (those who are of “pure” European ancestry) are very uncommon. A majority of Mexicans are “Mestizos” (generally mixed with European and Native American genes, but European/African and African/Native American are also “Mestizo”) of varying degrees. And since he’s Mexican, if he’d lived in Texas growing up, he’d very likely have heard the “w” term more than once. I can tell you (having lived in El Paso/Ft Bliss for several years growing up) that the word was VERY common—rarely spoken in “polite” company but as common there as the “n-word” was (is) used in the South.
It just proves you don’t understand the concept. To most Whites, anyone who’s not of EUROPEAN heritage exclusively can face racism. Skin color has VERY little to do with it. That can play a factor, but here’s a fun fact for you: Did you know that when Lucille Ball wanted her real-life husband, Desi Arnaz, to play her TV husband for a project that she and Desi had planned, executives at CBS television balked at the idea because they feared affiliated stations (mostly in the South and Southwest) would refuse to air a show featuring an INTERRACIAL couple. In Texas, in the 1950s, it was still against the law for a “white” person to marry a “Mexican” person (if the Mexican’s skin tone was less white than their prospective spouse).
And, of course, throughout the South (in the “Jim Crow” era), the “one-drop rule” applied. You could look whiter than a typical Klan rally, but if you had even “one drop” of “Colored blood,” that made you “Colored.” (Ironically, for prostitutes in New Orleans, this made some “octoroon” pros very costly. The pricing scale for most brothels put the “octoroon” ladies at the very top, with “pure-white” ladies just below. Other racial mixes fell below that while “pure-Black” ladies were typically in the “bargain basement.” The “octoroon” ladies had the “right” skin color but the “thrill” for the john of “breaking the color barrier”—in fact, it wasn’t unheard of for some “pure-white” women to fake their backgrounds by adding some “color,” for financial reasons.)
For Ramos—who’s Mexican—I don’t know his specific family history, but the “blancos” (those who are of “pure” European ancestry) are very uncommon. A majority of Mexicans are “Mestizos” (generally mixed with European and Native American genes, but European/African and African/Native American are also “Mestizo”) of varying degrees. And since he’s Mexican, if he’d lived in Texas growing up, he’d very likely have heard the “w” term more than once. I can tell you (having lived in El Paso/Ft Bliss for several years growing up) that the word was VERY common—rarely spoken in “polite” company but as common there as the “n-word” was (is) used in the South.
Joseph West commented on Brian Kilmeade Pimps Bogus Controversy Over Pledge Of Allegiance "Ban"
2016-03-24 11:06:12 -0400
· Flag
@ Zap Pow: For starters, the Balch pledge is actually worse than Rev Bellamy’s “revision” (incidentally, “revision” is hardly the word I’d use—I’ll post both “versions” at the end of this comment and let you decide for yourself).
Secondly, Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian socialist (which could be a bit of a redundancy if using the most historically accurate understanding of each—it was necessary in the late 19th Century, however, as most Socialist movements of the era de-emphasized the role of religion in society). He originally wanted to include frightening words like “equality” and “fraternity” in his Pledge (to reflect the motto of the French Revolution—liberté, égalité, fraternité) but realized that a lot of state education superintendents (the Pledge was originally designed for school children) might balk at the idea of “equality” and “fraternity” being in the Pledge at a time when there was a lot of open belief against the idea of equal rights for women and for Blacks. (The man was NOT stupid.)
Then, the pledge idea was supported by a corporate marketer to sell flags. The Pledge was devised in time for upcoming Columbus Day celebrations which were to be observed by schools across the country, and wouldn’t it be nice if all those schools had nice new flags just in time for the celebration?
Incidentally, Bellamy’s original used the phrase “my Flag” which was later changed to “the Flag of the United States” because OF immigrants. A Flag Conference in 1923 (can you believe it!) decided that the change would help new immigrants accept their new flag.
The full Balch pledge: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.”
Bellamy’s original: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Secondly, Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister and a Christian socialist (which could be a bit of a redundancy if using the most historically accurate understanding of each—it was necessary in the late 19th Century, however, as most Socialist movements of the era de-emphasized the role of religion in society). He originally wanted to include frightening words like “equality” and “fraternity” in his Pledge (to reflect the motto of the French Revolution—liberté, égalité, fraternité) but realized that a lot of state education superintendents (the Pledge was originally designed for school children) might balk at the idea of “equality” and “fraternity” being in the Pledge at a time when there was a lot of open belief against the idea of equal rights for women and for Blacks. (The man was NOT stupid.)
Then, the pledge idea was supported by a corporate marketer to sell flags. The Pledge was devised in time for upcoming Columbus Day celebrations which were to be observed by schools across the country, and wouldn’t it be nice if all those schools had nice new flags just in time for the celebration?
Incidentally, Bellamy’s original used the phrase “my Flag” which was later changed to “the Flag of the United States” because OF immigrants. A Flag Conference in 1923 (can you believe it!) decided that the change would help new immigrants accept their new flag.
The full Balch pledge: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.”
Bellamy’s original: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Bill Hemmer Uses Belgium Terrorist Attacks To Suggest Obama Should Cut Short His Cuba Trip
2016-03-23 01:44:38 -0400
· Flag
Well, I’ll give FoxNoise’s suggestions consideration just as soon as the next white guy who shoots up a theater or school/university leads to a serious discussion about having “direct surveillance” in gun shops and Christian churches and tRump rallies.
Of course, THAT will NEVER happen because, you know, that makes up a large portion of the FoxNoise audience.
Of course, THAT will NEVER happen because, you know, that makes up a large portion of the FoxNoise audience.
Joseph West commented on Megyn Kelly Slyly Works To Ensure Garland As SCOTUS Nominee If Clinton Wins
2016-03-20 23:33:09 -0400
· Flag
Well, Sanders has already thrown down the gauntlet to the obstructionist GOPers, promising to name a definite hardcore liberal/progressive (assuming the Senate hasn’t acted on Obama’s nominee in the meantime).
You can just about bet that, come November 9th, if the Senate hasn’t held hearings before then, the hearings will go into overdrive and EVERY GOPer will vote to confirm Garland as the next Justice simply to prevent Hillary or Bernie from naming someone less palatable to the GOP. (I believe, as long as the nomination is not formally withdrawn—or the nominee hasn’t rejected the offer—it stays open until the Senate holds hearings. I may be mistaken, but, then again, this is completely uncharted territory as no other Supreme Court Justice has ever been as self-centered as Scalia and gone up and died with nearly a year to go in a President’s term. IMS, there’s never been an instance where it’s happened. Eisenhower recess-appointed William Brennan in Oct 1956 as a political ploy—Brennan was fairly liberal but was also a Northeastern Roman Catholic Democrat, and Ike hoped his appointment would sway that bloc of voters to him; his formal confirmation hearing in 1957 was a nearly unanimous vote to confirm with only Joe “There’s Commies Everywhere, I Tells Ya!” McCarthy voting against him. And the Fortas deal that’s been mentioned recently was more about LBJ’s attempt to name him as Chief Justice to replace Earl Warren. Warren announced his intention to retire and tried to get Fortas named as CJ but that was the failure; Warren retired and Nixon nominated Warren Burger in 1969, after the election. Fortas ended up resigning at the end of 1969 and was replaced by Harry Blackmun.)
You can just about bet that, come November 9th, if the Senate hasn’t held hearings before then, the hearings will go into overdrive and EVERY GOPer will vote to confirm Garland as the next Justice simply to prevent Hillary or Bernie from naming someone less palatable to the GOP. (I believe, as long as the nomination is not formally withdrawn—or the nominee hasn’t rejected the offer—it stays open until the Senate holds hearings. I may be mistaken, but, then again, this is completely uncharted territory as no other Supreme Court Justice has ever been as self-centered as Scalia and gone up and died with nearly a year to go in a President’s term. IMS, there’s never been an instance where it’s happened. Eisenhower recess-appointed William Brennan in Oct 1956 as a political ploy—Brennan was fairly liberal but was also a Northeastern Roman Catholic Democrat, and Ike hoped his appointment would sway that bloc of voters to him; his formal confirmation hearing in 1957 was a nearly unanimous vote to confirm with only Joe “There’s Commies Everywhere, I Tells Ya!” McCarthy voting against him. And the Fortas deal that’s been mentioned recently was more about LBJ’s attempt to name him as Chief Justice to replace Earl Warren. Warren announced his intention to retire and tried to get Fortas named as CJ but that was the failure; Warren retired and Nixon nominated Warren Burger in 1969, after the election. Fortas ended up resigning at the end of 1969 and was replaced by Harry Blackmun.)
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Extremist Sheriff Clarke Suggests Protesters Should Be ‘Hit First And Hit Hard’
2016-03-20 02:30:12 -0400
· Flag
Oh. Someone ought to remind this ignorant SOB that he was elected AS A DEMOCRAT. So, if he’s so upset about the “liberal mainstream media’s” being “nothing more than a propaganda arm for the Democrat [sic] Party,” then he needs to formally announce his switch to the GOP. Or is he only opposed to that “propaganda arm” when it’s NOT giving him favorable election coverage?
And, it is completely ironic that he would accuse the “liberal mainstream media” as a “propaganda arm” for the Democrats on the network that EVERYONE knows is a for-real 150% propaganda arm for the Republicon Party. Naturally, Sheriff Oreo can’t see the irony of his words.
And, it is completely ironic that he would accuse the “liberal mainstream media” as a “propaganda arm” for the Democrats on the network that EVERYONE knows is a for-real 150% propaganda arm for the Republicon Party. Naturally, Sheriff Oreo can’t see the irony of his words.
Joseph West commented on Fox's Guilfoyle: The Irish 'Got Over' Being Discriminated Against. They Don't Run Around Saying Irish Lives Matter
2016-03-18 02:49:52 -0400
· Flag
Well, we all know someone who dyes her hair.
It’s hard to believe a natural brunette is that stupid.
Then again, she is on FoxNoise. (I thought Rupert made it a contract point for female presenters that they had to be blonde when on camera.)
It’s hard to believe a natural brunette is that stupid.
Then again, she is on FoxNoise. (I thought Rupert made it a contract point for female presenters that they had to be blonde when on camera.)
Joseph West commented on Watch Charles Krauthammer Eviscerate Donald Trump’s Bizarre Press Conference
2016-03-09 16:38:19 -0500
· Flag
@ truman: And let us not forget who the Donald considers to be a veritable political soul mate.
Seems like his soul mate’s infected him with the gift of word salad.
Seems like his soul mate’s infected him with the gift of word salad.
Joseph West commented on Ainsley Earhardt God Blesses Anti-Gay Fire Chief "Fired For Faith"
2016-03-08 01:53:32 -0500
· Flag
@ Warp Resident: No one is arguing the content of the book or who wrote it. The whole argument is based on how and when the man chose to distribute it.
As to the guy’s claims of “tolerance,” I seriously doubt he’d be very tolerant of (white) people yelling the “n-word” at him. And I’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t appreciate a Klan rally that went past his home and would sue the city if they issued a permit for such a rally.
As to the guy’s claims of “tolerance,” I seriously doubt he’d be very tolerant of (white) people yelling the “n-word” at him. And I’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t appreciate a Klan rally that went past his home and would sue the city if they issued a permit for such a rally.
Joseph West commented on Now Ted Cruz Is Feuding With Fox News
2016-03-01 02:55:16 -0500
· Flag
@ Kevin: The real test for Cruz will be his finish in Texas. If he can’t be really competitive in his home state, he’d do well to consider dropping his run on Wednesday.
For Cruz, anything less than a win in Texas will be seen as a serious blow. BUT, it all depends on how the rest of the field develops. If Cruz wins by double digits, he could carry on for a bit longer—but that largely depends on how the 2nd and 3rd place finishers end up. For instance, Cruz wins with 38% while tRump and Rubio end up with 28% and 25%, that could be seen as a “close call.” If Cruz gets 40% and tRump and Rubio are kept below 25% each, that could be a “solid win.”
But, Cruz could conceivably survive with a 2nd place finish, as long as he’s no more than 5% below the winner (and at least 10% above the 3rd place guy). Let’s say tRump pulls it off with 40%; as long as Cruz gets 35% and Rubio is held below 20%, Cruz’s 2nd place finish might be seen as a disappointment but not a devastating blow. But, if tRump gets 45% and Cruz finishes with 35% (even if Rubio winds up with less than 20%), Cruz would do well spending Wednesday reconsidering (I was going to write “soul-searching,” but one needs a soul for that).
Of course, Cruz could absorb a “devastating” 2nd place in Texas *IF*he gets a not too distant 2nd place in the rest of the Southern States and isn’t completely shut out in any state. He’s really lucky that the GOP has largely abandoned the “winner take all” method for delegates. It’s this reason that he can come out of Super Tuesday without having to consider dropping out (unless, of course, Texas voters decide they’ve had enough—this could turn into a possible referendum on a Cruz re-election campaign if he doesn’t get the GOP Presidential nomination; a seriously bad showing will likely have some potential competition sharpening their knives to take on Cruz’s Senate seat in 2018).
For Cruz, anything less than a win in Texas will be seen as a serious blow. BUT, it all depends on how the rest of the field develops. If Cruz wins by double digits, he could carry on for a bit longer—but that largely depends on how the 2nd and 3rd place finishers end up. For instance, Cruz wins with 38% while tRump and Rubio end up with 28% and 25%, that could be seen as a “close call.” If Cruz gets 40% and tRump and Rubio are kept below 25% each, that could be a “solid win.”
But, Cruz could conceivably survive with a 2nd place finish, as long as he’s no more than 5% below the winner (and at least 10% above the 3rd place guy). Let’s say tRump pulls it off with 40%; as long as Cruz gets 35% and Rubio is held below 20%, Cruz’s 2nd place finish might be seen as a disappointment but not a devastating blow. But, if tRump gets 45% and Cruz finishes with 35% (even if Rubio winds up with less than 20%), Cruz would do well spending Wednesday reconsidering (I was going to write “soul-searching,” but one needs a soul for that).
Of course, Cruz could absorb a “devastating” 2nd place in Texas *IF*he gets a not too distant 2nd place in the rest of the Southern States and isn’t completely shut out in any state. He’s really lucky that the GOP has largely abandoned the “winner take all” method for delegates. It’s this reason that he can come out of Super Tuesday without having to consider dropping out (unless, of course, Texas voters decide they’ve had enough—this could turn into a possible referendum on a Cruz re-election campaign if he doesn’t get the GOP Presidential nomination; a seriously bad showing will likely have some potential competition sharpening their knives to take on Cruz’s Senate seat in 2018).
Joseph West commented on Hillary Clinton Wins Big In South Carolina – Fox Can’t Stop Talking About All The Ways She’s A Loser
2016-02-29 02:26:40 -0500
· Flag
Kevin, I’m not so sure about that. I’m already seeing self-described Sanders supporters already vowing to vote third-party if Clinton is the Democratic nominee but very little on the other side.
Basically, what I’m seeing is a virtual repeat of 2010, when far too many self-described progressives chose to stay home to “punish” Obama for not being as far-left as they thought he was (seriously, anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 because they thought he was a hardcore progressive simply chose to delude themselves—Obama’s Senate voting record was virtually identical to Clinton’s, with their major difference coming on women’s issues, on which Clinton was the “more progressive” candidate). They were incensed that he didn’t provide “Medicare for all/single-payer” health care coverage (again—not bothering to pay attention to the opposition Obama had to deal with).
I have read a lot of these “progressives” who’ve somehow managed to convince themselves that a far right-wing Presidency and far right-wing Congress will wind up being so bad that the people will “rise up” and toss them all out for a magical group of progressive candidates to usher in a progressive paradise. Of course, these are some utter narcissists who seem to think the country would survive such a horror.
Clinton’s supporters obviously want her to be the nominee as much as Sanders’ supporters want him to be the nominee. But, realistically speaking, I’m betting Sanders would pick up 99% of Clinton’s supporters if he’s the nominee. I’m betting Clinton would be lucky to get even 50% of Sanders’ supporters because too many of them seem to have no fucking understanding of politics. Sanders or Clinton will have to deal with a GOP-controlled House (there is NO feasible way of swinging 30 seats from the GOP to the Dems this cycle—most analyses I’ve seen suggest there’s a chance to pick up 20, at most; it’s true that the GOP captured 60 seats in 2010 to take the House majority, but that election was using the PREVIOUS district lines—in 2012, following redistricting, the Dems only managed to pick up 9 seats during a Presidential election, a year in which the Democratic President was re-elected by a 3.5 percentage point margin). And, considering how hampered Obama was in 2009 and 2010 with a GOP minority (the GOP never held more than 178 seats through the period, until Election Day of 2010 when they had 180 for almost a month), just imagine how well President Sanders (who has proudly called himself a Socialist) would fare with a GOP majority (keeping in mind that the GOP has spent the last 7 years obstructing Obama’s “Socialist” agenda)—even a narrow GOP majority.
Basically, what I’m seeing is a virtual repeat of 2010, when far too many self-described progressives chose to stay home to “punish” Obama for not being as far-left as they thought he was (seriously, anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 because they thought he was a hardcore progressive simply chose to delude themselves—Obama’s Senate voting record was virtually identical to Clinton’s, with their major difference coming on women’s issues, on which Clinton was the “more progressive” candidate). They were incensed that he didn’t provide “Medicare for all/single-payer” health care coverage (again—not bothering to pay attention to the opposition Obama had to deal with).
I have read a lot of these “progressives” who’ve somehow managed to convince themselves that a far right-wing Presidency and far right-wing Congress will wind up being so bad that the people will “rise up” and toss them all out for a magical group of progressive candidates to usher in a progressive paradise. Of course, these are some utter narcissists who seem to think the country would survive such a horror.
Clinton’s supporters obviously want her to be the nominee as much as Sanders’ supporters want him to be the nominee. But, realistically speaking, I’m betting Sanders would pick up 99% of Clinton’s supporters if he’s the nominee. I’m betting Clinton would be lucky to get even 50% of Sanders’ supporters because too many of them seem to have no fucking understanding of politics. Sanders or Clinton will have to deal with a GOP-controlled House (there is NO feasible way of swinging 30 seats from the GOP to the Dems this cycle—most analyses I’ve seen suggest there’s a chance to pick up 20, at most; it’s true that the GOP captured 60 seats in 2010 to take the House majority, but that election was using the PREVIOUS district lines—in 2012, following redistricting, the Dems only managed to pick up 9 seats during a Presidential election, a year in which the Democratic President was re-elected by a 3.5 percentage point margin). And, considering how hampered Obama was in 2009 and 2010 with a GOP minority (the GOP never held more than 178 seats through the period, until Election Day of 2010 when they had 180 for almost a month), just imagine how well President Sanders (who has proudly called himself a Socialist) would fare with a GOP majority (keeping in mind that the GOP has spent the last 7 years obstructing Obama’s “Socialist” agenda)—even a narrow GOP majority.
Joseph West commented on South Carolina Democratic Primary - Open Thread
2016-02-28 03:10:19 -0500
· Flag
Um, I’m NOT pleased with the caricature of Hillary currently showing at the top of this page.
Save the caricatures for the GOP clowns, please. There’s no need for what’s presumably a Dem-leaning site to be caricaturing the Democratic candidates.
Save the caricatures for the GOP clowns, please. There’s no need for what’s presumably a Dem-leaning site to be caricaturing the Democratic candidates.
Joseph West commented on FBN’s Varney Blames Obama For Donald Trump’s Popularity
2016-02-27 14:29:37 -0500
· Flag
Um, it’s kind of funny how EVERY Republicon candidate has attacked Obama during the current campaign. (Hell, the incumbent Senator of my state*, running in one of his first real primary challenges in several years, decided to run against Obama in his first campaign ad. He’s talked about Obama’s “failures” and how he’s “stood up to” and “will continue to stand up to” Obama—completely overlooking the fact that Obama will NOT be the President for most of the Senator’s next term. It’s only been in the past couple of weeks that he’s bothered to get around to discussing/attacking his primary opponents.)
But Varney fails to acknowledge that because THAT does NOT help explain tRump’s “popularity.”
*I refuse to call him “my Senator.”
But Varney fails to acknowledge that because THAT does NOT help explain tRump’s “popularity.”
*I refuse to call him “my Senator.”
Joseph West commented on Fox News "Hate Crime" Victim Not So Innocent?
2016-02-26 01:35:19 -0500
· Flag
@ Eyes on Fox: The real irony of the conservative whine about affirmative action is that Matquez is, in fact, a DOUBLE recipient of “affirmative action” when it comes to employment.
First off, being “Hispanic” is every bit as much a “privilege” when it comes to a job application as being “African-American.” When he applies for a job and gets to the “ethnicity” box, if he checks the “Hispanic” (or “Latino”) box, that can give him a leg up on other applicants who can only check “White” (or “Caucasian”).
And then, there’s the biggie—especially for a job with a government agency—his status as a “veteran.” He’s (allegedly) a Marine* and, for any civil service exam, he gets some major points for that. I’ve applied for a few civil service jobs in the past—at local, state and Federal levels—and every one of them, on the test portion, has stated that military service automatically adds points for that test; someone who’s never served but scores a “straight” 95 can lose out to someone who scored a 76 but gets 20 bonus points for military service. AND, on top of that, if he’s called up for active duty from his regular job—no matter how long his deployment lasts—that job will be waiting for him when he comes back (meanwhile, the person hired to replace him has no guarantee that he’ll be able to continue working after the serviceman returns; even worse, the replacement may be required by the company to bring the serviceman back up to speed on any changes that may have happened during his deployment). The other workers, however, get no such protection for their jobs—if they need time off and the boss says “No,” they risk being fired if they take off that time (and, in most states, it’s very doubtful that they’ll get unemployment in such a case).
So. He’s a Latino who served in the Marines. But conservatives don’t seem bothered with HIS benefiting from affirmative action. (Unless, of course, he were also a Democrat.)
First off, being “Hispanic” is every bit as much a “privilege” when it comes to a job application as being “African-American.” When he applies for a job and gets to the “ethnicity” box, if he checks the “Hispanic” (or “Latino”) box, that can give him a leg up on other applicants who can only check “White” (or “Caucasian”).
And then, there’s the biggie—especially for a job with a government agency—his status as a “veteran.” He’s (allegedly) a Marine* and, for any civil service exam, he gets some major points for that. I’ve applied for a few civil service jobs in the past—at local, state and Federal levels—and every one of them, on the test portion, has stated that military service automatically adds points for that test; someone who’s never served but scores a “straight” 95 can lose out to someone who scored a 76 but gets 20 bonus points for military service. AND, on top of that, if he’s called up for active duty from his regular job—no matter how long his deployment lasts—that job will be waiting for him when he comes back (meanwhile, the person hired to replace him has no guarantee that he’ll be able to continue working after the serviceman returns; even worse, the replacement may be required by the company to bring the serviceman back up to speed on any changes that may have happened during his deployment). The other workers, however, get no such protection for their jobs—if they need time off and the boss says “No,” they risk being fired if they take off that time (and, in most states, it’s very doubtful that they’ll get unemployment in such a case).
So. He’s a Latino who served in the Marines. But conservatives don’t seem bothered with HIS benefiting from affirmative action. (Unless, of course, he were also a Democrat.)