moonbattery.gif


« Village Idiot | Main | Obama's Science Czar John Holdren Considered Putting Sterilants in Our Drinking Water »


July 11, 2009

Open Thread

diversitylane_honduras.jpg
Compliments of Diversity Lane.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 11, 2009 9:12 AM

Comments

Woo Hoo!!

I'm first!!!

Posted by: Michelle at July 11, 2009 9:21 AM

Posted by: mega at July 11, 2009 9:36 AM

& who better than me to be the Global Governor, after all I have a Nobel prise and a butt bigger than Michelle's

Posted by: Al Gore at July 11, 2009 9:43 AM

Hey Al, don't forget the size 20x carbon bootprint that will be good for crushing the necks of all who dissent.

Posted by: Henry at July 11, 2009 11:03 AM

Check this little gem:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

The book he co-wrote is real - the ISBN checks out, via AceofSpades. God help us.

Posted by: Hope at July 11, 2009 12:16 PM

Racism in America, Liberal Style

It’s too bad and very sad that the Black power structure in this country does not have people like Walter E. Williams, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and, my personal favorite, ”the Black Avenger,” Ken Hamblin, in leadership positions and as media darlings.

Instead, much to its detriment, it has the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and various Black congressional hacks, charlatans, and crooks at the helm, all of whom wallow in and profit from racial divisiveness which keeps them in power and which keeps their pockets stuffed.

President Obama’s pockets have been sufficiently stuffed with his racially-motivated book deals as well as by his taxpayer-funded trips all over the planet for his family.

We’re told he pays for the family. We’re also told the Tooth Fairy pays a buck each nowadays for baby teeth and that Obama’s Kenyan half-brother is positively ecstatic living in his hovel in Kenya where he subsists on less than a dollar a month.

I imagine he would give an eye tooth for a tooth-dollar.

Obama’s thinking must be that his half-bro would probably stroke out if he got a generous gift from his millionaire American relative to keep him above water and above eating the bark off trees.

However, I digress.

In an article redundantly titled, “Vicious Academic Liberals,” Professor Walter E. Williams concludes with, “Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the liberal academic elite,” another obvious redundancy.

The scholarly, conservative, entertaining, Black professor of economics at George Mason University has surely been aware of that hypocrisy for many years but it was brought to mind by another article by an equally scholarly, and conservative Black, Ward Connerly

Connerly, a former University of California Regent, best known for his opposition to affirmative action, had had a conversation with an administrator at UC who told Connerly he would deny the content of their talk should Connerly ever publicize it.

He did make it public while not disclosing the identity of the official and it’s evident why the official would not want what he said made available for public consumption and consideration.

It was blatantly racist . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Posted by: Berlet98 at July 11, 2009 12:27 PM

"Hope at July 11, 2009 12:16 PM"

POINT FOUR:
>People who "contribute to social deterioration"...>

That would be the LIBERALS who have been encouraging riots, "civil disobedience", welfare states, frivolous lawsuits, race-hustling, class warfare, junk science, crap school lessons and the elimination of private property since the fiftys.

Posted by: KHarn at July 11, 2009 2:35 PM

"frivolous lawsuits" KHarn?

Posted by: andy42302 at July 11, 2009 3:15 PM

What do Socialists ask their Socialist Congressmen? What's do enquiring Socialist minds want to know?

From the Congressional Progressive Caucus website:

On The Healthcare Battle in Congress:
http://feedback.progressivecongress.org/pages/21377-healthcare-battle-in-congress

What's your plan for pressuring the Senate to include a public plan?
Why are Congressional progressives afraid to pressure Dems opposing strong public healthcare option?
What's the strategy for marginalizing blue dogs in the fight for a public plan?
Why are insurance companies allowed to be for-profit? Doesn't this encourage claim denials etc?
We were promised the same Health Care as Congress. Where is it?

On the Energy Bill:

http://feedback.progressivecongress.org/pages/21601-revised-energy-bill-june-25-2009

How are you going to protect this bill from being weakened even further by the Senate?
Why has the energy bill been stripped of anything that would actually protect the environment?
Why support a bill that aims far below what science tells us is needed to prevent catastrophy?
solar is cheaper than nuclear
Make sure the bill isn't used as a cover for expanded offshore drilling.
Down with corporate rule
Wind, electrolysis, fuel cells


Posted by: Kevin R at July 11, 2009 5:03 PM

That last comment is pretty funny, "Wind, electrolysis, fuel cells" the byproduct of the hydrogen fuel cells is water vapour if memory serves. And as far as a "green house gas" water vapour is to CO2 what a V8 is to a rubber band.

Posted by: JustAl at July 11, 2009 5:27 PM

Enviromental watermellons GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE RED ON THE INSIDE

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at July 11, 2009 5:52 PM

""frivolous lawsuits" KHarn?
"Posted by: andy42302 at July 11, 2009 3:15 PM"

Is that all you object to? I was refering to all the lawsuits used by moonbats to block industry and the use of private property. Do I also have to point out the influential lawyers' lobby and the idiotic cases that have gone to higher courts when they should have been thrown out of the lower courts?

"Obstruct and disrupt" has been the Liberal/socialist tactic since the sixtys.

Posted by: KHarn at July 11, 2009 7:46 PM

Democrat left plots to destroy firefighter Frank Ricci; the firefighter Judge Sotomayor wanted to deny the civil rights of. Another ordinary American targeted for destruction by the Alinsky left.

Posted by: V the K at July 11, 2009 7:59 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 11, 2009 8:56 PM

Posted by: BURNING HOT at July 11, 2009 8:57 PM

Log Cabin “Republicans?”

Log Cabin Republicans, a splinter group of homosexual alleged Republicans, remind me of minorities who moved into an exclusively majority neighborhood not because they liked the area or a particular house but for the express purpose of causing a ruckus and gaining publicity for their cause.

It was a tactic used by civil rights activists as well as by unethical realtors who used “blockbusting” to drive prices down and drive majorities out of neighborhoods so they could make a killing.

Such agitators were fairly frequent back in the old days when racial agitation was more commonly employed to achieve the goals of the civil rights movement. In 2009, the bulk of those goals have been achieved, except in the minds of extremists and professional troublemakers who thrive on discord.

Today, except in very rare circumstances, most forms of blockbusting don’t occur. With all the laws on the books regarding racial discrimination, it’s largely unnecessary and a blockbusting realtor could find himself in the hoosegow, bunking with one of those minorities he manipulated to make his killings.

Leroy Tyrone Abdul would probably teach that realtor the meaning of Black Power.

Racial times have changed, whether for the better or worse only the future will tell, but times for the gay Log Cabineers haven’t changed an iota. I once wondered why they advertised themselves as Republicans since there is precious little in national Republican Party platforms that would attract the attention of homosexuals.

They derive their corporate name from Abe Lincoln’s log cabin roots at the same time their name is homosexually suggestive.

Okay, as their website, http://online.logcabin.org/about/, states, they say they believe in “limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty,” as traditional Republicans do. They are working to return the party to its “core principles.” However, any number of Republican principles are in direct opposition to their core.

Their site goes on to state that now the “GOP has another chance to choose fairness over discrimination, equality over bigotry, hope over fear, and freedom over oppression. . . . regardless of sexual orientation.”

All nice rhetoric, all predicated on false premises, and all concealing their true purposes, namely to subvert the Grand Old Party and enlist it on the gay side.

Fat chance, at least for true Republicans.

Indicative of how well gays have succeeded in browbeating American society, and the Republican Party, in 2009 is that a search for “gays” and “homosexuals” on GOP.com, http://www.gop.com/splashpage/index.aspx, turns up zero references for the latter and all of three for the former.

Clinton’s military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” dictum has become the “We dare not even mention them” Republican position for fear of attack by the forces of the powerful gay lobby.

President George W. Bush and Republican “moderates” soundly trashed the long-established limited government precept and Log Cabin Republicans clearly interpret personal responsibilities and individual liberties far differently than most Republicans. Perhaps they misinterpret avoidance of the topic of gays as agreement on gay core “principles.”

The GOP hasn’t, yet, caved to homosexual opportunings. The leadership simply hasn’t the testicular fortitude to tell them where to stick their “principles” . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Posted by: Berlet98 at July 11, 2009 11:12 PM

"Posted by: KHarn at July 11, 2009 2:35 PM"
I think the 'people who contribute to social deterioration' they're talking about would be ones like me, thee, and the non-trolls on boards like this. Non-compliant non-sheep who not only hold dear concepts like self-determination, but are happy to teach our children, grand-children and any one else who hasn't become dumbed, numbed and cowed by social engineers in their quest for the economic support for the top of the pyramid. Y'know - the ones for whom outcome-based education was conceived.

Posted by: Hope at July 12, 2009 3:39 AM

KHarn at July 11, 2009 7:46 PM

No it isn't all I object to but I've come to learn that it's easier for you guys to stay focused on one subject at a time.

The term "frivolous lawsuits" was often referred to by the Bush Admin and associated with his push on limiting malpractice claims when he was wanting to limit settlements to 250K.

It's interesting that your tone tends to promote industry's ability to take over private property while forbidding small businessmen and home owners the privilege of obtaining "influential lawyers" that might "Obstruct and disrupt" their opponents.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 12, 2009 3:53 AM

Chairman Zero stuck on -7 over the weekend.

Posted by: Karin at July 12, 2009 6:52 AM

Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Posted by: Refuter of Liberal Vermin at July 12, 2009 7:37 AM

Force serlization forced abortions FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLES OF COMMUNISTS CHINA AND ITS ONE CHILD PER FAMILY IDEA WHICH IS STRICTLY ENFORCED BY THE WATERMELLONS

Posted by: Flu-Bird at July 12, 2009 8:15 AM

something funny I found...

Top twelve indicators the economy is bad

12. CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

11. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

10. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.

9. Hotwheels and Matchbox car companies are now trading higher than GM in the stock market.

8. Obama met with small businesses - GE, Pfizer, Chrysler, Citigroup and GM, to discuss the Stimulus Package.

7. McDonalds is selling the 1/4 ouncer.

6 People in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and are learning their children's names.

5. The most highly-paid job is now jury duty.

4. People in Africa are donating money to Americans. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "finish your plate; do you know how many kids are starving in America?"

3. Motel Six won't leave the lights on.

2. The Mafia is laying off judges.

And my most favorite indicator of all:

1. If the bank returns your check marked as "insufficient funds," you have to call them and ask if they meant you or them.

Posted by: mega at July 12, 2009 9:28 AM

mega: ROFLMAO!

Posted by: Anonymous at July 12, 2009 9:52 AM

Justice under the little bronze god.

Binyam Mohammed: jihadist plotting mass-murders against American cities — released outright.

Laith Qazali: abduction/murder of 5 U.S. soldiers in Karbala — released outright.

Irbil 5: Iranian IRGC operatives (i.e., the same guys who murdered 19 of our air force at Khobar Towers in '96) coordinating Iraqi terrorist operations that have killed HUNDREDS of U.S. forces in Iraq since 2003 — released outright.

New Black Panther Party operatives on videotape intimidating anti-Obama voters — charges dropped after DOJ had already won the case.
CIA Interrogators who obtained information that saved countless American lives — under investigation.

Bush officials who deliberated over national-security policies that prevented another 9/11 (many of which the Holder/Obama DOJ have defended in court and, however inadvertently, in Congress) — under investigation.

Posted by: V the K at July 12, 2009 10:01 AM

Andy, one question: why does the American Trial Lawyers Association (i.e., Ambulance Chasers Anonymous) contribute heavily and exclusively to Democrats? Hmmm?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 12, 2009 10:55 AM

Presented without comment.

Ban on tobacco urged in military

Posted by: Rob Banks at July 12, 2009 11:18 AM

That's a specious argument Jay but I'll answer. They do it for political pull in hopes that to sway legislation in their favor, just as the AMA, insurance companies, and Big Pharma pay heavily and exclusively to Republicans hoping to sway legislation in their favor. Ditto for Big Oil. There's nothing new or relevant to your question.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 12, 2009 11:50 AM

It's not a specious argument. Communists accuse industry of supporting Republicans because they see it as in their interest. So Americans can similarly accuse PI lawyers and other parasites of supporting Reds because they see that as in their their interest.

If one argument is valid, so is the other.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 12, 2009 4:50 PM

Granted, people CAN accuse anyone of anything they like I suppose. But that's not the case. Accordingly, your argument has no validity.
But it sounds like you're trying to say that unless you believe that industry should have supreme rule, and of course unless you're very anti-Union, you must be a Communist.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 12, 2009 5:41 PM

Andy, ambulance chasers are buying protection from a corrupt political party. It's that simple.

It's not clear what you mean by "supreme rule." Frankly, it's sloppy thinking, because it could refer to political decisions, economic decisions, or both.

But if you believe that the government should have "supreme rule" over the economy, then you're either

a) a Fascist, if you believe that industry should remain in private hands but be "guided" by the government, or

b) a Communist, if you believe that the government should dispense with the niceties and simply take ownership.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 9:25 AM

Jay, I never said I believed that government should have supreme rule nor did I imply it by any stretch.
What I said was "But it sounds like you're trying to say that unless you believe that industry should have supreme rule....".
You failed to acknowledge the AMA, insurance companies, Big Oil, and Big Pharma paying heavily and exclusively to Republicans.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 13, 2009 9:39 AM

Andy, please. That's disingenuous. For the record, I think industry should run industry (not being a leftist, I'm not comfortable with the phrase "supreme rule") and the government should govern, i.e., maintain order and defend the nation, but leave managing the economy in general and industry in particular to...industry.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 10:54 AM


You failed to acknowledge the AMA, insurance companies, Big Oil, and Big Pharma paying heavily and exclusively to Republicans.

Rubbish.

In total, health insurance companies' PACs and employees have given 25 members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation $3.3 million in campaign contributions since the 1990 election cycle, with 53 percent of that going to Democrats*.

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: Money to Congress: $6,134,393 to Dems, $5,817,304 to Republicans.

It’s more true of oil companies, but even there it’s not “exclusively” to Republicans, but about 3:1. See Oil & Gas: Money to Congress.

But let’s just check the facts. Here are the top ten industrial contributors in the 2008 cycle :

1 Lawyers/Law Firms $128,828,934 78% 22% Barack Obama (D)

2 Retired $128,646,472 57% 43% Barack Obama (D)

3 Securities/Invest $64,273,599 65% 35% Barack Obama (D)

4 Real Estate $62,117,258 57% 43% Barack Obama (D)

5 Health Professionals $58,380,338 60% 40% Barack Obama (D)

6 Education $37,324,699 88% 12% Barack Obama (D)

7 Misc Business $33,791,095 70% 30% Barack Obama (D)

8 Business Services $32,349,475 73% 27% Barack Obama (D)

9 Insurance $30,403,012 51% 49% John McCain (R)

10 Misc Finance $26,751,624 54% 46% Barack Obama (D)

So, objectively, your contention is not correct, either in the split of contributions nor in their magnitude.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 12:07 PM

One postscript. Here are contributors 18 and 19 (from the link above):

18 Pharm/Health Prod $19,324,049 55% 45% Barack Obama (D)

19 Oil & Gas $17,435,140 27% 73% John McCain (R)

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 12:11 PM

That's all fair and good Jay and I don't argue your point. However, I simply asked KHarn to elaborate on "frivolous lawsuits". You asked why ATLA contributed exclusively to Ds and I answered. I asked you to justify exclusive funding to Rs and you conveniently toss that aside as "disingenuous". I think we all know that significant political contributions are an investment in hopes of swaying votes.

But you did give one answer; "Andy, ambulance chasers are buying protection from a corrupt political party. It's that simple." So, are you saying that it should only be legal for Republicans to be able to except contributions?

Posted by: andy42302 at July 13, 2009 12:17 PM

Warming to the topic, despite all the crap from Dems about corruption and special interests buying influence, check out what Open Secrets calls the “heavy hitters,” the top ten donors:

AT&T Inc $43,206,447

American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $40,949,173

National Assn of Realtors $35,053,513

Goldman Sachs $31,021,759

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $30,722,281

American Assn for Justice $30,646,429

National Education Assn $29,889,575

Laborers Union $28,167,600

Service Employees International Union $27,498,307

Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,328,258

Most of these outfits donated over 95:5 to Democrats. No prizes for guessing which ones.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 12:25 PM

But you did give one answer; "Andy, ambulance chasers are buying protection from a corrupt political party. It's that simple." So, are you saying that it should only be legal for Republicans to be able to except contributions?

Not at all. I think the Democrat Party is, objectively, corrupt, and corrupt to the core. The Republicans have their problems with corruption, but nothing like the Democrats. They’re marinating in corruption, from Chris Dodd’s sweetheart mortgage deals while chairing the Senate Finance Committee through Dianne Feinstein’s steering lucrative contracts to ...her husband through Barack Obama’s acceptance of illegal campaign contributions from overseas. Big city corruption and electoral fraud are a Democrat tradition going back to Tammany Hall, and one that continues to thrive today, as ACORN can attest.

Trial lawyers are effectively buying protection from the Democrats, to the detriment of the country. Else why are contributing so heavily and exclusively to Democrats?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 12:30 PM

To get the facts on campaign contributions, you might want to look at this. It makes clear that Democrat bleating about campaign contributions reflect staggering hypocrisy.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 12:38 PM

I understand where and how to find who contributed to who. The hypocrisy is in your acceptance of contribution to Rs on issues you support while condemning contributions to Ds on issues you're against.
I don't need your link to know that labor unions are huge supports Of Ds just as you don't need my links to anti labor being contributors to Rs. We know this. The entire House and Senate are owned by their contributors.
The main reason trial lawyers support Ds is because Ds generally do not support Tort Reform. Insurance company support Rs because Rs push for Tort Reform.
There are arguments on both sides for tort.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 13, 2009 2:16 PM

There's no hypocrisy here, except on the Dem side. I fully accept the notion of political contributions.

What I don't accept, however, is demagoguery, which is what the Dems indulge in. They pose as though they fight "special interests," but in fact are in hock to them up to their eyeballs.

The corruption comes in when Dems place their contributors' welfare far beyond that of the country. GM in trouble? Soros's houseboy shamelessly abrogates contract law to give half of the company to...the UAW, which coincidentally is a big contributor. That's corruption, coming and going.

Furthermore, Obama's campaign turned off address verification on credit card donations (the default for a business website). It's hard to imagine why anyone would do that, unless it's to circumvent Federal law regarding campaign contributions (e.g., against overseas contributions). (Can you suggest another reason?) It stinks, and explains how he raised seven times as much money as the American running against him. And since Soros's houseboy has already shown he can be bought (for which the UAW is grateful), it'd be nice to know who's bought him.

My point above is the disingenuousness of criticizing the "heavy and exclusive" contributions to Republicans from the oil, pharma, and insurance industries, when trial lawyers donated four times as much as any of them, and overwhelmingly to Dems. Face it: your point is bogus. Totally, hopelessly, bogus.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 2:33 PM

Jay, Capital Hill is owned by special interest, both parties. It had a lot to do with Ds getting their ass kicked in 1994 and with the Rs in the last few years. Your claim that Ds are more guilty simply because one of their contributors out did one of the Rs contributors defies logic.
Your main objection seems to be your dislike of trial lawyers as well as democrats.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 13, 2009 5:36 PM

One of their contributors? One?? Try the top ten, whose collective contribution swamps the rest of the list!

Meanwhile, you're flaying Rs for a 51/49 split of insurance industry contributions of $30 MM, while ignoring a 78/22 split of $128 MM from lawyers.

Sheesh. And you lot have the nerve to say Republicans are in hock to special interests? There must not be a God, or you guys would be fried by lightning bolts for that one.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 13, 2009 5:58 PM

There's nothing new here Jay. Contributors put their money where it will do them the most good. When Rs were in power, they took in the bulk. These guys ain't dumb. The Rs are no longer raking in the big bucks because they have little power. When the tide turns, so will the money. Nothing new.
The problem here is that you can find no good in anything pertaining to a Democrat and no bad to anything pertaining to a Republican, even when it's the same thing.

Posted by: andy42302 at July 13, 2009 7:00 PM

You're right, there is nothing new here. Both parties have problems, but the Democrat Party objectively has much worse ones. The Democrat Party has been steeped in corruption and electoral fraud since ...Tammany Hall, at least. The asymmetry arises because the Democrat Party dominates big cities, and therefore big city machine politics. What Republican machine compares with, say, Chicago? New Orleans? Baltimore? Boston? Seattle? You get the idea. Chicago is a byword for corrupt big city machine politics, and hasn’t had a Republican mayor since WWII.

Furthermore, the parties differ fundamentally in how they treat malefactors. Compare Duke Cunningham with Alcee Hastings. The former, a war hero (a real one, not like Kerry), was prosecuted by a Republican Administration for corruption, and is in prison as we speak. Alcee Hastings, one of seven Federal judges impeached and convicted (for bribery and perjury) in the history of this nation, is a respected member of the House Democratic Caucus, and is pissed off that he wasn’t appointed chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. (I was spoiled for choice here: Rangel (tax fraud, while chairing the Ways and Means Committee that writes...the tax code), Jefferson (diverting rescue helicopters from New Orleans during Katrina to fish $90 K out of his freezer), half a dozen Cabinet appointees who are tax chiselers...decisions, decisions.)

Let’s look at personal failings. Compare Barney Frank with Mark Foley. Barney Frank’s live-in “boyfriend” ran a homosexual prostitution ring from their little lovenest (thereby spreading disease – attaboy!). Barney didn’t know anything about it, of course. (Right.) Still a respected member of the House Democratic Caucus (sp?), even after that and being a major factor in crashing the financial system by defending Fannie and Freddie from Bush’s 18 attempts to rein them in. Mark Foley, on the other hand, sent a lewd IM to a Congressional page. That’s it. IMs. He resigned.

I could go on, but the pattern is clear. Republicans tend to kick out their moral reprobates; Democrats have no problem with them – they fit right in.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 14, 2009 10:09 AM