Displaying 1,531 To 1,560 Of 19,504 Comments Weekend Music Thread – All Around the World Hi Fergie, sorry about that issue. Got PPO’s message about that and it is now fixed! » Posted By AdLib On September 20, 2015 @ 12:57 am The Planned Parenthood Videos: GOP Legislation Based On Major Misrepresentation Very well researched and written, Murph. The PR problem is that even the news networks refer to the videos, without qualifications in many cases, as videos of discussions about selling body parts from fetuses. A correct journalistic description might be “heavily edited and manipulated video that the makers claim shows…”. Instead, the propaganda that the videos are “of Planned Parenthood talking about selling fetal body parts”. The rush by Republicans to capitalize on this smear is also unprincipled and should be hammered hard, not one entity has found these lies to be true and yet even before any investigation that proves otherwise, they are trying to play judge, jury and executioner of Planned Parenthood. And what about the cowardly Dr. Ben Carson who has worked with fetal tissue standing up and admitting it is a standard and necessary research practice to use fetal tissue? Fortunately, this truly evil scheme to smear PP and get Repubs in Congress to slash funding for women’s health will fail because this scam has been tried and revealed as fraud before. But that won’t stop them from trying again. » Posted By AdLib On September 23, 2015 @ 2:55 pm Donald Trump – A Performance of Cowardice in Three Acts slm, yes, I saw Maddow expose that “group”…which is really just a front for one man and no one else, a Republican operative who used fraud to get the opponent of another Republican convicted of campaign violations so that Republican had a clear path to victory. Here’s the segment: Trump duped or worse in fundraiser speech to fake veterans group » Posted By AdLib On September 18, 2015 @ 3:45 pm Hmm…you begin by pronouncing yourself as superior to American voters and the media, what candidate reminds me of such humility? Nearly every point you represent isn’t well grounded. No, Americans don’t usually vote against something, they almost always vote for a candidate and the policies they represent. Those who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 were not simply voting against McCain and Romney and vice-versa. Obama voters believed in him and wanted him and his policies in the WH and McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan supporters were very convicted about wanting them and their policies in the Presidency. As to your proposition that the candidate who is leading the GOP primary by an unprecedented margin at this point in the race is irrelevant and that we should instead be talking about a candidate like Rand Paul who is polling in and around 1% and is practically out of the race, I am bewildered by the lack of logic. Like it or not, right now Donald Trump is far ahead of most of the pack and leading all others. Even his strongest critics allow for the possibility that he could maintain his lead by the time Iowa and New Hampshire vote…putting your punditry aside of course. So at this time, he is a legitimate possibility to win the Republican nomination in the minds of many and thus deserving of criticism. Wishing that wasn’t the case just doesn’t make it so. I would argue that it is important in a democracy that voters have the clearest picture of who each candidate is that could be a contender for President. What their true character is, what they believe in and how they would lead. And BTW, most Americans can carry more than one thought in their head, they can express reasons for opposing one candidate while also expressing reasons to support another, it is not a zero sum game for most people. Also, I’m not quite clear what your point is when you contradict yourself, after saying we shouldn’t be talking about Trump then saying we should be talking about him in comparison to Bernie Sanders. Comparing Trump and Sanders is like comparing apples and politicians. Trump has no serious proposals, just bigotry, vague but “huge” promises and personal attacks. Sanders is all about substance and concrete details on how he would accomplish his goals. It doesn’t take a genius to see the differences between the two. If you think such an article is needed and would be greatly enlightening, you’re welcome to write one. In the meantime, it is kind of ironic that you spend the majority of your comment writing about Trump while explaining why he shouldn’t be written about. I would suggest that if you don’t think he should be written about, don’t write about him. » Posted By AdLib On September 18, 2015 @ 3:33 pm Using Her SuperPAC to Attack Bernie May Hurt Hillary More Than Help Her Hey RSGmusic! Nice to see you! Can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to the first Dem debate. It will give Bernie his first chance to introduce himself to the nation and could really pump up his numbers. » Posted By AdLib On September 18, 2015 @ 2:47 pm Don’t want to say, “I told you so”….ah hell, sure I do! Bernie Sanders raised more than $1.2 million in less than 48 hours off a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC’s attack on the Vermont senator, his presidential campaign said Thursday. “We’ve never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders’ campaign received on Tuesday,” said ActBlue Executive Director Erin Hill. “Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over 11,000 campaigns and committees – and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform.” http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-raises-1-million-clinton-super-pac-attack Mission accomplished, Correct The Record! Please proceed… » Posted By AdLib On September 18, 2015 @ 9:10 am True that both progressed in their lives following their values but Sanders definition of being a Democratic Socialist is a bit different that Corbyn’s. That said, there are some general similarities between them but they are two very different people. Corbyn’s views are seen by UK conservatives and some moderates as radical but Sanders views are very mainstream and populist, he even got grudging approvals on some views from some of the RW at Liberty University. The only reason I point out the differences is to affirm that it isn’t appropriate for CTR to attribute the more extreme things Corbyn has said to Sanders because he doesn’t share those beliefs. Meanwhile, I might also suggest that the citizens in the UK, after being under siege from a conservative plutocracy are similar to Americans who are tired of being under siege from a conservative plutocracy. The time may indeed be very ripe for more Progressive change in both countries, led by socialists who are in step with the majority of citizens. It sure doesn’t seem like there is a desire for a more expansive plutocracy, slashing of government services and going to war in numerous countries. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 5:56 pm CL, I posted this below, here’s another article from Salon on how this is an unfair attack by CTR and Hillary to demonize Sanders for being a socialist: I do think there is a preponderance of views at legit media sites and Progressive blogs that conclude that the only purpose of this email was to unfairly demonize Sanders as a socialist through guilt by association and by twisting various other information around. I really can’t imagine any other purpose for this email. Why did they list the worst and most offensive quotes from Corbyn and include them in an email about Sanders? And the thing is, he never held any of these views or expressed agreement with them ever. Let’s not forget, Hillary did this type of thing to Obama in 2008, tried to smear him with the harsh things that Rev. Wright said because Obama went to his church (but wasn’t there when the harsh things were said). She did the same thing again with attacking Obama for having his first fundraiser as a politician at Bill Ayers’ house, who had been a radical Weather Underground member when Obama was 8 years old but was then reformed and a university professor. Hillary has many strengths and detailed policies to stand on against Sanders, if she relies on that, I think she stands a far better chance of winning the primary and having more enthusiastic ex-Bernie supporters behind her if she wins the primary. But IMO, trying to poison Sanders in Dems minds by demonizing his being a socialist, using guilt by association again, will be a big mistake if she and CTR continue down that path. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 12:14 pm Have to second KT’s position, unless someone wants a Jeb or Trump in the WH, they need to vote for whoever the winner of the Dem primary is. A write in vote for Bernie in the GE, if he doesn’t win the primary, is one less vote Jeb or Trump would need to take the WH. For those people who don’t want to vote for the Dem nom if it’s not their choice, I’d suggest considering that they look at it instead as voting against the Repub candidate. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 11:28 am Agreed, monicaangela! I think the end result of this clumsy smear is to make Hillary and her SuperPAC look desperate and cynical about the intelligence of Americans (hence the title of my article). It has hurt their image, not Bernie’s. None of them considered the blowback from using such a Republican tactic, how it would reflect back on CTR and Hillary and undermine how honest their “correcting the record” would be seen subsequently by voters including Democrats. It is ironic that instead of attacking the greedy and powerful oil companies in the US for not providing discounted oil for the poor, CTR and Hillary attack Bernie for working with a foreign oil company to help Americans. The message is, it’s worse to help poor people via Hugo Chavez than to watch them freeze as US oil companies sit on their hands. Who in the Democratic Party do they think is going to buy into that? I feel similarly, the more we can have adult campaigns, where issues are discussed and debated in depth and detail, instead of mudslinging lies and personal insults (the GOP candidates are more similar to bratty kids in a food fight), the better it is for our democracy and government. Americans have been subjected to this cynical political game playing for so long, it seems that they’re sick and tired of it. But some candidates still haven’t gotten the memo yet. Jeb! does seem like the weak and confused errant prince who is trying to get onto the family throne. Hillary has more maturity than Jeb but the air of entitlement is inescapable. She believes it is her destiny to be President and she just needs to weave her way around the people to get to what she knows she deserves. Meanwhile, the people see her weaving around them and are becoming less and less pleased with her lack of genuine interest in them, she just wants to get past them to get into the WH however she can. No one believed a black man could become President in 2008, a majority of Americans would never vote for him. Now, no one (but Bernie supporters) believes a socialist who isn’t financed by corporations could become President in 2016. The status quo never sees the revolution coming, they rely on the comforting notion that whatever has been will always be. If Donald Trump hasn’t snapped them out of that mentality yet, they may indeed be gobsmacked when they see who’s taking the oath of office for President in January 2017. And I don’t mean Trump. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 11:24 am Very interesting, equating socialism and Christianity as similar systems with similar altruist goals…that can be realized or corrupted. America likes socialism, it’s the word that has the stigma, not what it represents. Social Security, Medicare, building roads and bridges, having firemen, police and public schools, all are provided for through socialism. Labels can be a trap. If Bernie just renamed his views as something else, say, “Altruist”, the stigma would disappear. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 10:59 am Thanks KT! For some background, here’s an article from Salon on Hillary’s SuperPAC and how they are directly coordinating with her: You nailed it, there is no other reason for grouping Bernie with Corbyn, Hezbolah, Chavez, etc. other than to demonize Sanders for being a socialist through guilt by association. It is the lowest form of attack and IMO, reveals just how panicked Hillary’s camp is becoming. Do they really think that Dems will become scared of Bernie Sanders because they try to equate all socialists? Especially when Hillary has co-opted all or most of Bernie’s core positions? Or that his supporters will be turned off when they find there are different people who are socialists who say things they don’t like? Hell, there are many Democrats who say things they don’t like and they still vote Democrat. As you say, I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee for President is including Hillary but like you, it won’t be with great enthusiasm if it is her. She is not genuine or trustworthy, who knows what she will actually do in the WH? I do know one thing though, at her worst, Hillary would be 1,000 times better than any of the Republicans. » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 10:53 am Hey CL! Using guilt by association to tie Bernie to offensive remarks by another unrelated person such as Jeremy Corbyn, only because they share the label “socialist” is dishonest and an attempted smear. As is trying to portray him as palling around with socialist dictators only because he helped poor Vermonters get discounted heating oil from CITGO. Trying to smear him for being a socialist and trying the nasty practice of guilt by association is flat out slimy, it’s what Republicans do and it’s very disappointing to see Hillary doing it through her SuperPAC. If they weren’t trying to smear Sanders with someone else’s offensive words, why did they include the quotes from Corbyn? Corbyn has literally nothing to do with Sanders or his campaign. And why did they exaggerate his relationship with Chavez? What points do you think they were trying to get across to voters about Sanders with this email? And wouldn’t you agree that it is only legit to attack someone for what they themselves actually do and say? Though I am usually loathe to post links to HP, here’s the link to their article which similarly describes this email as a dishonest attack on Sanders (and if The Planet and HP agree on this, I’d suggest that there may be something to it): » Posted By AdLib On September 17, 2015 @ 10:41 am slm, I was amazed at how Brock is competing against Trump for the title of “Least Sensible Hair”. Yep, true Americans support US oil companies that sit by and would watch poor people freeze to death. It’s unAmerican to thank other people who are socialists for helping poor people not freeze to death. » Posted By AdLib On September 16, 2015 @ 2:36 pm TheHandyman, you have some legit points to make but using such petty insults as “Obysmal” undercuts them. Your portrayal of Obama as single-handedly drafting and passing Obamacare just isn’t correct. If you delve into the news reports during that years-long process, you would see that it was Congress that was responsible for there not being a public option. The House had already passed such a bill but in the Senate, with all Repubs opposing it, it was the Blue Dog Dems including Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who prevented passage of a bill with a public option. Obama then had a choice of either proposing a new version that didn’t include a public option or not getting any health care reform. BTW, Obamacare was designed to allow states to create and collaborate in a public option down the line and of course, it would be easier now for a Dem Congress to pass changes to the ACA including a public option instead of having to pass an entire comprehensive program like the ACA. Something or nothing, that was the choice. The public option was a poison pill in the Senate and could never pass. From Wikipedia: Ultimately, the public option was removed from the final bill. While the United States House of Representatives passed a public option in their version of the bill, the public option was voted down in the Senate Finance Committee[6] and the public option was never included in the final Senate bill, instead opting for state-directed health insurance exchanges.[7] Critics of the removal of the public option accused President Obama of making an agreement to drop the public option from the final plan,[8] but other journalists pointed out that the agreement was probably based more on vote counts than backroom deals, as substantiated by the final vote in the Senate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option#History Though I prefer Bernie Sanders, I think it is far too early to declare that Hillary has permanently alienated voters. As much as I find her far more conservative than I would like a Dem nominee to be, it would be far worse to sit by and watch a Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Jeb Bush wint the White House. » Posted By AdLib On September 16, 2015 @ 2:32 pm TheHandyman, good points. Bernie’s positions are very much in the same vein as Dems from the 60’s-80’s. I’m still not aware of a single position he’s taken that would be considered not to be in sync with Progressive Dems. It’s just anecdotal but a Republican friend of mine said that Republican friends of his said that they do like some of what Bernie is saying. He does represent something almost unheard of, a potential Democratic nominee who is openly a socialist but could pull Republican voters over to him. » Posted By AdLib On September 16, 2015 @ 2:06 pm Hi TresL, I agree that Sanders was very critical and at times, harsh towards Obama in the past. However, I have been keeping up on Sanders’ campaign and I don’t hear him attacking Obama anymore. His speeches are consistently about social inequality and presenting proposals to address them. As for asking why he thinks Dems might prefer voting for him as their nominee, the polls in IA and NH both show him beating Hillary so it is de facto that Dems currently would indeed select him as their choice for the Dem nomination. I think most Dems put substance over labels. What does it matter if he calls himself a socialist, a Progressive or an Independent? All that matters is what he would do as President. What policies of his do you think would be problematic for Dems? As far as I can see, he is in step with many Democrats. And there are many Democrats who feel Hillary isn’t on the same page as them due to her aggressive views on war, refusing to say if she would or wouldn’t approve the Keystone pipeline and her close ties, huge contributions from and support for Wall Street. That’s not to say that if she was the Dem nominee, I wouldn’t vote for her, just saying that even though she uses the label “Democrat” and Sanders uses “Socialist”, his stands on the issues are more Progressive and closer to mine and many other Dems than Hillary’s. » Posted By AdLib On September 16, 2015 @ 1:56 pm Sure thing, S-Man! In politics, it’s hard for a leopard to change its spots. This style of politics worked so well for the Clintons, Bush’s, etc. for so many years, I don’t blame them for thinking that it would work again this time around. And it may be all they know when it comes to campaigning, I don’t expect any of the establishment candidates to change drastically. » Posted By AdLib On September 16, 2015 @ 1:39 pm Is There a Political Methadone to Wean Repubs Off of Their Trump Addiction? Thanks S-Man! Actually, I think historians will recognize that the election of Obama ignited the racist Tea Party movement that is comprised of hateful, fearful, paranoid, racist morons. So all the crazy actions of theirs, shutting down government, wanting to go to war in Iran, supporting lunatic candidates (including witches and federally indicted criminals), etc, will all make sense in the big picture. There has always been a percentage of Americans who are total nutjobs, the difference right now is that they’ve taken over one of our two political parties. » Posted By AdLib On September 11, 2015 @ 12:52 pm Thanks PPO! You beat me to it! Mentioned this below too. So, if someone tells you he’s just acting a role, then will Repubs finally figure out what simple English means? He’s playing them and he just told them! So funny! That is ironic, Trump The Entertainer (as opposed to Cedric) trying his own Sting. But he’s conning the rubes in his own party only. The rest of us have seen this movie and it was done much better and more convincingly by others. » Posted By AdLib On September 11, 2015 @ 12:41 pm Kalima, add to his baggage that Trump tried to play off his insult of Fiorina’s looks by saying that he was just acting as an entertainer. So he’s exposed himself as a fraud! I do think Trump has now peaked, he is dancing as fast as he can after the roof fell in on him from this insult. He’s insulting Carson now too and it sure feels like he’s jumped the shark now. No matter how long it takes for Repubs to smarten up, the public at large has been so soured on Trump he is dead in the water as a legit Presidential candidate…but that won’t stop the GOP from nominating him…which sure works for me! » Posted By AdLib On September 11, 2015 @ 12:37 pm slm, exactly, I completely agree. The MSM keeps touting his poll numbers as if his percentage is amongst all voters but using your legit numbers, he only has 12% of voters supporting him right now. He won’t be President but I sure hope he wins the GOP nom! » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 9:28 pm KT, absolutely! I can only imagine what the look on Jebby’s face will be when he’s having to face Trump in next week’s debate! » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 9:24 pm Jeb! was on Colbert and even said that’s why he uses the exclamation point, “Because it connotes excitement.” How pathetic. If you need and think an exclamation point after your first name will make a dull politician exciting to voters, you’re a clueless moron named Bush. Sincerely, Adlib! » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 9:22 pm KT, what about Jebby Bush? I think he’s more like political Ambien? » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 6:23 pm KT, yep, I’ll agree with that, Trump could be crack…or maybe he’s meth? A rabid high that eventually makes its users crazy and rots them inside-out? » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 6:01 pm Thanks so much, monicaangela! » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 5:56 pm Trump Proposes Maximum Wage for Employees Fergie, it is a travesty, what you went through after contributing so much to that corporation which meanwhile showers wealth upon the criminal who was their CEO. As for him, I hope that the story yesterday that the DoJ would aggressively pursue white collar crime is legit and they put this slimy crook in prison. As for the cowardly and nasty treatment UA unleashed on you and the other employees, being so greedy as to force you out through abusive treatment, it’s just disgusting. In the old days, when substantially cutting jobs, companies would offer employees a buyout, treating them like human beings and showing a modicum of respect for the years they worked and contributed to the success of the company. Nowadays, being so greedy and almost psychotically insisting that only execs and stockholders are entitled to benefiting from their profits, it isn’t uncommon for companies to intentionally use abuse to drive employees out so they don’t have to pay unemployment or any type of compensation. What you point out is our modern day Tale of Two Cities, where executives like Smisek and Carly Fiorina who damage a company are paid millions for doing so and upon their departure because they are in the “upper class” but for example, the tens of thousands of employees Fiorina terminated, who were there making the company a success until she arrived, are tossed away like garbage. And UA is as disgusting. They did not have to pay Smisek his golden parachute since he violated the terms of his contract when he committed criminal acts. But he’s an upper class exec, immune to being treated as he deserves to be (none of these CEOs deserve the obscene amount of money they’re paid). You describe a career of true accomplishment and success, it is a shame that UA disrespected that. It doesn’t assuage the hardship they unfairly caused you but at the same time, companies don’t have the power to define who we really are and what we truly accomplish in our lives. In fact, they often seem more ignorant about it than not. Your achievements are real and reflective of who you are, their disrespect of you and them is reflective of who they are. » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 1:08 pm Kes, now that is the case of reality being more ridiculous (or outrageous) than fiction. China outsourcing to the US? That is exactly the Trump plan for the future of America. » Posted By AdLib On September 10, 2015 @ 12:39 pm Hey monicaangela, so true about the many profound rights American workers gained from unions then as forgetful as they are, instead look at unions as archaic. Well, as the gains of vacation days, sick days, weekends off, decent working conditions and fair wages fall away along with the strength of unions, maybe it’s time for people to wake up to how unions are even more needed today. Perhaps a big PR campaign during the election season would help? And though I too flirt with the ignorant supporting Trump,learning just how disastrous and betraying his Presidency would be, I think the primary and/or GE will be instructive enough and a Dem winning the WH will be best all the way around. If Trump got to replace a SCOTUS judge from the left with…Sarah Palin for example, it would be a disaster that lasts far into the future. He can’t win a GE in any case but even imagining Trump in the WH is disaster enough for me. » Posted By AdLib On September 8, 2015 @ 10:09 amComments Posted By AdLib
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats