Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a contributing editor at Armed Forces Journal and regular talking head on cable TV for his military "expertise," sometimes has worthwhile things to say, although often I find myself disagreeing with him.
But his recent appearances on cable shows where he appears to encourage the Taliban to actually execute a captured American soldier (that Peters apparently suspects is a 'deserter' for God knows what reason) is one of the most appalling things to occur among the punditry in quite some time. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention from mainstream media, but the online media is abuzz. One can only imagine what it would have been like if someone from the "Left" said something like that.
In any case, a Congressman has now weighed in, which may very well become a tipping point.
Links here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/massa.pdf
I honestly can't fathom what Peters is thinking here, but I don't see any justification at all for it, even of the solider was a deserter.
Showing posts with label stupid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupid. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
GOP complains Obama is ignoring them
Jesus. What a bunch of wankers.
They give Obama not just the middle finger, but every single one of them and don't give him a single frackin vote and then they complain he's not continuing to make nice.
They are incredibly stupid and out of their depth. AT THE TIME it was pretty clear that Obama was giving them a chance to be team players. They blew him off like snot onto a rag. It was also clear that e was giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Well, now they are hung out to dry. With Franken coming in the only people Obama needs to placate are some Blue Dog Dems and I think they're going to be a lot easier to satisfy than hey-we-got-100% GOP fools.
Here's the link: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/gop-leadership-to-obama-you-never-call-you-never-write/
They give Obama not just the middle finger, but every single one of them and don't give him a single frackin vote and then they complain he's not continuing to make nice.
They are incredibly stupid and out of their depth. AT THE TIME it was pretty clear that Obama was giving them a chance to be team players. They blew him off like snot onto a rag. It was also clear that e was giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Well, now they are hung out to dry. With Franken coming in the only people Obama needs to placate are some Blue Dog Dems and I think they're going to be a lot easier to satisfy than hey-we-got-100% GOP fools.
Here's the link: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/gop-leadership-to-obama-you-never-call-you-never-write/
Saturday, May 30, 2009
GOP can't decide if it wants to look stupid, petty or silly, so it goes for all three
I really don't know what to make of the Republican Party's need to continually top itself withs stupid, petty and silly antics.
It's bad enough that their in-house racists like take-the-bone-from-your-nose Limbaugh and Miamia-is-a-third-world-city Tancredo are calling Sotomayor "racist."
But no, the president takes his wife out for a date on Broadway and they feel the need to criticize it as supposedly insensitive while GM prepares to file bankruptcy. What? The Obamas are supposed to be in mourning, or something?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23122.html
My God, get a grip, you guys!
It's bad enough that their in-house racists like take-the-bone-from-your-nose Limbaugh and Miamia-is-a-third-world-city Tancredo are calling Sotomayor "racist."
But no, the president takes his wife out for a date on Broadway and they feel the need to criticize it as supposedly insensitive while GM prepares to file bankruptcy. What? The Obamas are supposed to be in mourning, or something?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23122.html
My God, get a grip, you guys!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
They are so stupid it hurts
As Greenwald points out as the Right Wing suddenly rediscovers the dangers of unbridled governmental power: All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State -- from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA "reforms" to massive increases in domestic "counter-Terrorism" programs -- are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.
They are really so incredibly stupid that it hurts to even think of it. For years I have wondered why they thought this was a good idea. Did they ever stop to consider if they wanted Hillary to have this kind of power, for example? They're just lucky it's Obama.
They are really so incredibly stupid that it hurts to even think of it. For years I have wondered why they thought this was a good idea. Did they ever stop to consider if they wanted Hillary to have this kind of power, for example? They're just lucky it's Obama.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
It was knowable
Daily Kos has a good post running down how the factors leading to today's financial woes were predicted.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/25/713036/-Nobody-Could-Have-Known
It's like the cries that "No one could have predicted the levies would fail" in New Orleans. Of course the Weather Channel was doing the first episode of its then-new series "It Could Happen Tomorrow" about New Orleans and its vulnerability to hurricanes. It was the second most likely disaster (after a new SF earthquake -- how ready are we for THAT).
This "nobody could have predicted it" excuse is really lame.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/25/713036/-Nobody-Could-Have-Known
It's like the cries that "No one could have predicted the levies would fail" in New Orleans. Of course the Weather Channel was doing the first episode of its then-new series "It Could Happen Tomorrow" about New Orleans and its vulnerability to hurricanes. It was the second most likely disaster (after a new SF earthquake -- how ready are we for THAT).
This "nobody could have predicted it" excuse is really lame.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Gutfeld is gutless
A little-known conservative "comedian" named Gutfeld made a crack insulting the Canada and the Canadian armed forces (who have lost more troops in Afghanistan than any US ally) apparently doesn't have the balls to actually apologize when he says something stupid. That's evidently beneath his dignity, although apologizing is not beneath the dignity of the President of the United States (Special Olympics).
Friday, March 6, 2009
Sense at Slate
Slate critiques the "War on the Rich" claim going around (with emphasis added my me:
It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power. Obama wants to let marginal rates for families with taxable income (not total income, but taxable income) of more than $250,000 revert from 33 percent to 36 percent, and to let the top rate—currently 35 percent on family income above $357,000—revert to 39 percent. (Here are the current tax tables.) There's also talk of capping—not eliminating, but capping—deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest.
Obama's proposals don't mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you'd pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.
Second, this return to 2001's tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. The Republicans who controlled the White House and the Republicans who controlled the Congress earlier this decade decreed that all the tax cuts they passed would sunset in 2010. They put in this sunset provision to hide the long-term fiscal costs of the cuts. The Bush team and congressional supporters had seven years to manage fiscal affairs in such a way that they would be able to extend the tax cuts in 2010. But they screwed it up. Instead of controlling spending and aligning tax revenues with outlays, the Bush administration and its congressional allies ramped up spending massively—on two wars, on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, on earmarks, etc. Oh, and along the way, they so miserably mismanaged oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector that it required the passage of a hugely expensive bailout. Even before the passage of the TARP, the prospect of extending all the Bush tax cuts was a nonstarter. Once Bush signed the $700 billion bailout measure into law, extending tax cuts was really a nonstarter. The national debt nearly doubled during the Bush years. So if you want to blame someone for raising taxes back to where they were in 2001, don't blame Obama. Blame Bush, his feckless Office of Management and Budget directors, his economic advisers, and congressional appropriators like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay.
Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren't wealth killers. I was around in the 1990s, when tax rates were at that level, and when capital gains and dividend taxes were significantly higher than they are today. And I seem to remember that we had a stock market boom, a broad rise in incomes (with the wealthy benefitting handily), and strong economic growth.
Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren't necessarily wealth producers. The Bush years, which had lower marginal rates and capital gains taxes, were a fiasco. In fact, if you tally up the vast destruction of wealth in the late Bush years—caused by foolish hedge funds, investment banks, and other financial services companies, it seems like the wealthy have in fact been waging war on one another.
Finally, there has been a near total absence of discussion of what higher rates will mean in the real world. Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income!
It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power. Obama wants to let marginal rates for families with taxable income (not total income, but taxable income) of more than $250,000 revert from 33 percent to 36 percent, and to let the top rate—currently 35 percent on family income above $357,000—revert to 39 percent. (Here are the current tax tables.) There's also talk of capping—not eliminating, but capping—deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest.
Obama's proposals don't mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you'd pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.
Second, this return to 2001's tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. The Republicans who controlled the White House and the Republicans who controlled the Congress earlier this decade decreed that all the tax cuts they passed would sunset in 2010. They put in this sunset provision to hide the long-term fiscal costs of the cuts. The Bush team and congressional supporters had seven years to manage fiscal affairs in such a way that they would be able to extend the tax cuts in 2010. But they screwed it up. Instead of controlling spending and aligning tax revenues with outlays, the Bush administration and its congressional allies ramped up spending massively—on two wars, on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, on earmarks, etc. Oh, and along the way, they so miserably mismanaged oversight of Wall Street and the financial sector that it required the passage of a hugely expensive bailout. Even before the passage of the TARP, the prospect of extending all the Bush tax cuts was a nonstarter. Once Bush signed the $700 billion bailout measure into law, extending tax cuts was really a nonstarter. The national debt nearly doubled during the Bush years. So if you want to blame someone for raising taxes back to where they were in 2001, don't blame Obama. Blame Bush, his feckless Office of Management and Budget directors, his economic advisers, and congressional appropriators like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay.
Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren't wealth killers. I was around in the 1990s, when tax rates were at that level, and when capital gains and dividend taxes were significantly higher than they are today. And I seem to remember that we had a stock market boom, a broad rise in incomes (with the wealthy benefitting handily), and strong economic growth.
Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren't necessarily wealth producers. The Bush years, which had lower marginal rates and capital gains taxes, were a fiasco. In fact, if you tally up the vast destruction of wealth in the late Bush years—caused by foolish hedge funds, investment banks, and other financial services companies, it seems like the wealthy have in fact been waging war on one another.
Finally, there has been a near total absence of discussion of what higher rates will mean in the real world. Say you're a CNBC anchor, or a Washington Post columnist with a seat at the Council on Foreign Relations, or a dentist, and you managed to cobble together $350,000 a year in income. You're doing quite well. If you subtract deductions for state and property taxes, mortgage interest and charitable deductions, and other deductions, the amount on which tax rates are calculated might total $300,000. What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you'd pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you'd pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise? That dentist eager to slash her income from $320,000 to $250,000 would avoid the pain of paying an extra $2,100 in federal taxes. But she'd also deprive herself of an additional $70,000 in income!
Friday, February 27, 2009
He didn't know watermelons were a stereotype
One of the most annoying things about the faux apologies that go around these days is that the apologizer implicit assumes the rest of us a credulous fools who are as stupid as they are. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/white-house-watermelon-em_n_169933.html
The latest is Los Alomitos, Calif., Mayor Dean Grose. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/white-house-watermelon-em_n_169933.html
The latest is Los Alomitos, Calif., Mayor Dean Grose. He said he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.
Right.
Evidently he assumes that we're stupid enough to believe that it's just a coincidence he chose watermelons to be on the White House lawn in his email "joke."
Here's a photo of the mayor from his Web site. I don;t know how old he is, but he's obviously not a young kid and it's simply unbelievable that a grown man his age didn't know about the stereotype.
Here's a photo of the mayor from his Web site. I don;t know how old he is, but he's obviously not a young kid and it's simply unbelievable that a grown man his age didn't know about the stereotype.In the Army we used to call this sort of behavior pissing-on-me-and-telling-me-it-is-raining.
It's bad enough he did it, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending it was some innocent mistake.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Mocked by a Nobel prize winner
Krugman notes that conservatives used to agree with liberals that there are some things that governments properly do, such as defense and provide for public safety.
Hence his surprise that Jindal criticized funding for monitoring volcanos that could erupt, obviously a public good that no private interest could undertake.
Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Hence his surprise that Jindal criticized funding for monitoring volcanos that could erupt, obviously a public good that no private interest could undertake.
Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
GOP too stupid to earn votes of the college-educated
Scott Horton's long post has plenty of example, but this one stands out for the profound ignorance it reveals:
And of course there was the recent historical excursion of Ohio Republican Congressman Steve Austria:
“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.”
Except of course that Roosevelt became president in 1933 and the Great Depression started in 1929 in the presidency of Republican Herbert Hoover.
And of course there was the recent historical excursion of Ohio Republican Congressman Steve Austria:
“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.”
Except of course that Roosevelt became president in 1933 and the Great Depression started in 1929 in the presidency of Republican Herbert Hoover.
He goes on: How does this play to the voters? In an intriguing article in the current National Journal, Ronald Brownstein and David Wasserman take a look at how Republicans are doing with educated voters. Their view: Democrats are scoring “dramatic gains” among better educated voters, namely those who hold college diplomas. They bore into a number of sample counties, like Oakland County, Michigan, which was once reliably Republican—and where well-educated voters now feel the G.O.P. is just too stupid to earn their vote.
The whole post is here: http://www.harpers.org/subjects/NoComment
Monday, February 9, 2009
Rush Limbaugh is a dumb fuck
He evidently said this:
Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....
Let me emphasize the key part: Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....
How stupid can you be to utter this and not understand the implications of what you are saying?
Yes, Rush, if the GOP doesn't wise up it could be another 50 years before they recover ... if ever. Or maybe they'll be the Whigs and get replaced by an genuine conservative party instead of the right-wing knucklehead semi-fascist anti-science racist kooks completely in the pocket of corporate interests that passes for a Conservative party now.
Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....
Let me emphasize the key part: Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule.....
How stupid can you be to utter this and not understand the implications of what you are saying?
Yes, Rush, if the GOP doesn't wise up it could be another 50 years before they recover ... if ever. Or maybe they'll be the Whigs and get replaced by an genuine conservative party instead of the right-wing knucklehead semi-fascist anti-science racist kooks completely in the pocket of corporate interests that passes for a Conservative party now.
Friday, January 23, 2009
When they return to reality the GOP may have some prospects
From the National Republcain Website:
"Economy
Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.
Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one."
I know that the Bush years were marked by strong doses of if-you-believe-it-hard-enough-it-will-be-true thinking, but that was then and this is now. Until they rejoin the same reality as everybody else they really won't have anything to say to voters.
"Economy
Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong.
Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one."
I know that the Bush years were marked by strong doses of if-you-believe-it-hard-enough-it-will-be-true thinking, but that was then and this is now. Until they rejoin the same reality as everybody else they really won't have anything to say to voters.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Powerline's bizarre retrospective on Bush
The Powerline Bush retrospective is full of questionable comments, but this one caught my eye:
President Bush leaves office mostly unloved, with some poll respondents saying that they consider him one of our worst presidents ever. This in itself is odd. Generally, our worst Presidents have been one-termers, for obvious reasons: James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover (if you buy into the myth). But George W. Bush was re-elected rather easily in 2004. Thus, if he really was one of our worst Presidents, either the electorate was subject to mass hypnosis, or something must have gone seriously wrong in his second term.
Easily re-elected? If I remember correctly , if just a few thousand votes had gone the other way in Ohio then Kerry would have been president. That's "easily" for an incumbent president? What, pray tell, would have barely winning re-election looked like?
President Bush leaves office mostly unloved, with some poll respondents saying that they consider him one of our worst presidents ever. This in itself is odd. Generally, our worst Presidents have been one-termers, for obvious reasons: James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Herbert Hoover (if you buy into the myth). But George W. Bush was re-elected rather easily in 2004. Thus, if he really was one of our worst Presidents, either the electorate was subject to mass hypnosis, or something must have gone seriously wrong in his second term.
Easily re-elected? If I remember correctly , if just a few thousand votes had gone the other way in Ohio then Kerry would have been president. That's "easily" for an incumbent president? What, pray tell, would have barely winning re-election looked like?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Rudolph the Jewish Reindeer
Some people really need to get a life:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/rudolph_the_jewishamerican_rei.php
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/rudolph_the_jewishamerican_rei.php
Monday, December 8, 2008
24 years old and as stupid as a brick
A full bore defense of genocidal war, torture and western principles from a dolt: http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro.html?columnsName=bsh
Thursday, November 20, 2008
More McCarthy foolishness
McCarthy admits the obvious, but then lapses into excuse-making again at The Corner:
It seems pretty clear that the Bush administration did not help matters here. Nearly seven years ago, the President publicly claimed the Algerians were planning a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Last month, however, the Justice Department suddenly informed the Court that it was no longer relying on that information. We've seen this sort of thing happen too many times over the last seven years, and the effect can only be to reduce the confidence of the court and the public that the government is in command of the relevant facts and can be trusted to make thoughtful decisions.
All that said, though, Judge Leon concluded that “[t]o rest [combatant detention] on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation.” That is puzzling. There is nothing in the training of a judge that makes him an expert in military matters. In our system of divided government, the question of who is an enemy combatant should be committed to the executive brach — specifically, to the military professionals waging the war. If there is any evidence supporting the military's wartime decision to detain (and, to reiterate, Judge Leon said there was sufficient evidence to hold these men for intelligence purposes), the court should defer to the military judgment.
It takes very little imagination to think of many ways in which evidence sufficient to detain someone for intelligence gathering purposes would be completely inadequate to justify indefinite detention. In a civilian context similar things happen with material witnesses, police investigations and even protective custody.
It seems pretty clear that the Bush administration did not help matters here. Nearly seven years ago, the President publicly claimed the Algerians were planning a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Last month, however, the Justice Department suddenly informed the Court that it was no longer relying on that information. We've seen this sort of thing happen too many times over the last seven years, and the effect can only be to reduce the confidence of the court and the public that the government is in command of the relevant facts and can be trusted to make thoughtful decisions.
All that said, though, Judge Leon concluded that “[t]o rest [combatant detention] on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation.” That is puzzling. There is nothing in the training of a judge that makes him an expert in military matters. In our system of divided government, the question of who is an enemy combatant should be committed to the executive brach — specifically, to the military professionals waging the war. If there is any evidence supporting the military's wartime decision to detain (and, to reiterate, Judge Leon said there was sufficient evidence to hold these men for intelligence purposes), the court should defer to the military judgment.
It takes very little imagination to think of many ways in which evidence sufficient to detain someone for intelligence gathering purposes would be completely inadequate to justify indefinite detention. In a civilian context similar things happen with material witnesses, police investigations and even protective custody.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
You have to hand it to the Bushies ...
... no matter how many times you think that "they can't top this!" -- they do:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf
The link is to the official DOJ report about how the Bush administration broke the law by using nakedly partisan considerations to fill career lawyer positions in DOJ. In one case a top anti-terror prosecutor didn't get hired because his wife was a Democrat.
Oh yeah, and Goodling asked some candidates "what is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" (Page 18) Gee, I thought career DOJ lawyers were serving the people of the United States.
Eerily similar to the hapless GOP flunky some months back who told Sen. Leahy about her oath to the president, provoking an impromptu civics lesson from the senator to the clueless lackey that her oath was to the Constitution!
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf
The link is to the official DOJ report about how the Bush administration broke the law by using nakedly partisan considerations to fill career lawyer positions in DOJ. In one case a top anti-terror prosecutor didn't get hired because his wife was a Democrat.
Oh yeah, and Goodling asked some candidates "what is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?" (Page 18) Gee, I thought career DOJ lawyers were serving the people of the United States.
Eerily similar to the hapless GOP flunky some months back who told Sen. Leahy about her oath to the president, provoking an impromptu civics lesson from the senator to the clueless lackey that her oath was to the Constitution!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
This is the kind of shit that makes me despise the current GOP
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyaMrS0hzk
The bottom line is that McCain operatives had the police eject a 61-year-old woman (a librarian) from public property outside a McCain event that was supposedly open to the public for holding a sign that read "McCain = Bush."
As the lady points out in the video, why would Republicans think this is offensive? Don't they think Bush was great?!!! It's not like she was even holding an antiwar sign or something.
This suppression of legitimate, mild dissent is disgusting, unAmerican and reinforces why the GOP simply has to be bounced out. Until these blockheads remember they are Americans they don't deserve positions of power.
The bottom line is that McCain operatives had the police eject a 61-year-old woman (a librarian) from public property outside a McCain event that was supposedly open to the public for holding a sign that read "McCain = Bush."
As the lady points out in the video, why would Republicans think this is offensive? Don't they think Bush was great?!!! It's not like she was even holding an antiwar sign or something.
This suppression of legitimate, mild dissent is disgusting, unAmerican and reinforces why the GOP simply has to be bounced out. Until these blockheads remember they are Americans they don't deserve positions of power.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
