The Hate Blog hates kittens!!!!!

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/tv/Too-Cute!/175022/2215888360/Kittens-Befriend-German-Shepherd/videos?cmpid=FCST_hero_tv

In response to the anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills

....................................................................
These are NOT necessarily crazy.  It's the old "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" argument. -- Ed.
....................................................................
The War On Men: 7 Crazy Pieces Of Real Legislation
Rosie Gray, posted Mar 27, 2012

In response to the anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills floating around in state legislatures all over the country, some lawmakers are introducing bills in protest of the legislation. Here are the craziest.

1. The Spilled Semen Amendment

Oklahoma state senator Constance Johnson introduced an amendment to that state's Personhood bill, SB 1433, that would essentially outlaw masturbation for men. Johnson's amendment proposed that the legislation include a provision that men ejaculating anywhere outside a woman's vagina be considered "an action against an unborn child."

Johnson wrote about the amendment in the Guardian:

My action to amend the so-called "Personhood" bill – SB 1433, introduced by Senator Brian Crain (Republican, Tulsa) – represents the culmination of my and many other Oklahomans' frustration regarding the ridiculousness of our reproductive policy initiatives in Oklahoma. I have received overwhelmingly positive responses from men and women in Oklahoma – and worldwide. The Personhood bill would potentially allow governmental intrusion into families' personal lives by policing what happens to a woman's eggs without any similar thought to what happens to a man's sperm.

2. The Viagra Amendment

Illinois state Rep. Kelly Cassidy proposed an amendment to a bill including a provision for mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds that would require men trying to get a Viagra prescription to watch a graphic video about the dangers of the drug beforehand.

Cassidy told Huffington Post, "If they're serious about us not being about to make our own health care decisions, then I'm just as serious about them not being able to make theirs."

The amendment was attached to the "Ultrasound Opportunity Act," Illinois HB4085, which is still working its way through the Illinois legislature.

3. The Viagra Bill: Ohio SB 307

The best-known protest bill in the works is that of Nina Turner, an Ohio state senator. Turner has introduced a bill that would require men to, among other things, get an affidavit from a sexual partner affirming their impotency before they could get a prescription for Viagra. Men trying to get Viagra would also have to see a sex therapist and undergo a cardiac stress test.

And it doesn't end there. After being prescribed the drug, men would have to have a cardiac stress test every 90 days to affirm their fitness for sexual activity, plus do three sessions of outpatient counseling.

Turner got quite a bit of attention for the bill, including an appearance on MSNBC. It was intended to protest the Ohio "heartbeat bill" which would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. It's unlikely to pass.

4. Missouri HB1853: The Vasectomy Bill

This bill, introduced by Missouri State Rep. Stacey Newman, would stop men from getting vasectomies unless the procedure would prevent serious injury or death.

The bill's language is strong: "A vasectomy shall only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man. No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the man or that the man will purposefully engage in conduct which he intends to result in his death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

Newman said in a statement, “If we are going to seriously restrict access to birth control used by over 98 percent of Missouri women and widely used since 1960, then it’s only fair we legislate men’s access as well." Her bill was in response to the Missouri House's attempt to block the Obama administration's contraception mandate.

5. The Rectal Exam Amendment

Virginia state senator Janet Howell proposed an amendment to the state's anti-abortion bill (recently signed by Gov. Bob McDonnell but sans transvaginal ultrasound mandate) that would require men to undergo a rectal exam and cardiac stress test before being treated for erectile dysfunction.

The amendment didn't pass, but came close — it was narrowly defeated by a vote of 21 to 19. Six of the seven women in the Virginia State Senate voted in favor of the amendment.

6. Personhood Rights For Sperm

The Wilmington, Delaware City Council passed a resolution calling on the Delaware legislature to classify sperm as people. The logic: if personhood rights can be extended to fertilized eggs, then they should also be extended to sperm. The resolution calls them "egg people" and "sperm people."

If the resolution were to be turned into law, men would be legally barred from harming their sperm in any way. The councilwoman who introduced the resolution, Loretta Walsh, described it as tongue-in-cheek — which didn't stop Personhood USA from issuing a strongly-worded statement.

“This kind of political showboating has no place in government, at any level,” said Personhood USA spokeswoman Jennifer Mason in the statement.

7. The Pennsylvania Erectile Dysfunction Bill

Unlike the other protest bills, this one is the work of a man. Pennsylvania state senator Larry Farnese plans to introduce legislation this week that would, like Turner's, force men to undergo a battery of tests before being treated for erectile dysfunction. Under the legislation, men would have to watch a video on the side effects of Viagra, get a prostate exam, and receive cardiac stress tests and sex therapy.

The anti-abortion bill in the Pennsylvania legislature right now is thought to be one of the most restrictive in the country. Like Virginia's, it would require women to get an ultrasound before getting an abortion. Farnese released a statement saying "I’m submitting legislation that will require men to undergo a few similarly evasive [sic] tests in order to show that this effort is ridiculous and that we should be protecting and expanding, not watering down, health services for women.”

....................................................................

Scalia-- the funny man

........................................................
Scalia mocks health care law ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ provision—that no longer exists
By Olivier Knox, Wed, Mar 28, 2012

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia suggested on Wednesday that the Supreme Court could strike the "Cornhusker Kickback" from President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul without having to invalidate the whole law. He was right, in a way: The notorious provision isn't in the law.

The "Cornhusker Kickback" was the derogatory nickname of one of several sweetheart deals designed to ensure that the law had enough votes to pass. Amid a public uproar, lawmakers ultimately stripped the measure from the law.

But no one—not Scalia's eight colleagues on the highest court in the land, not Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, there to represent Obama, and not the superstar lawyer challenging the law on behalf of 26 states, Paul Clement—challenged his claim.

Scalia's quip came on the third and final day of oral arguments before the court on what has come to be known as "Obamacare," and specifically on whether the justices could rule that the requirement that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty was unconstitutional but not strike down the rest of the law.

Clement was arguing that the entire law had to go, and Scalia was gently challenging him.

"The consequence of your proposition, 'would Congress have enacted it without this provision,' OK, that's the consequence. That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the—what's it called, the 'Cornhusker Kickback'—OK, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, OK?" Scalia said, to guffaws from the audience.

Scalia went on: "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker Kickback is bad. That can't be right."

It isn't right.

Senate leaders had initially included about $100 million in federal Medicaid assistance for Nebraska as part of what aides said at the time was a plan to secure the support of one of the state's senators, Democrat Ben Nelson. But the ensuing controversy over the sweetheart deal—which saw Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office coin the term "Cornhusker Kickback"—led even Nelson himself to argue that it be removed. Lawmakers stripped the arrangement from the law, replacing it with a far broader measure helping all states to expand Medicaid.

Scalia's comments came after two years of charges from the Tea Party that few, if any, people are fully familiar with what the law actually says. "Read the bill!" was a frequent chant at rallies against the measure before it passed. And Republicans have often mocked then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's contention that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

Scalia is a fierce defender of a doctrine of legal thought called "textualism," which aims to interpret laws according to the plain meaning of the language they use. Scalia once wrote that "a text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

The "kickback" quip wasn't Scalia's only joke about the text of the law. At one point, the blunt-speaking justice scoffed at Kneedler's suggestion that the justices could go through the measure to decide which provisions to spare in the event that they ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional.

[snipped]
........................................................

We get letters....er uh, email

The latest email sent to me:

Wild_Child

You might want to ask yourself that question? On a daily basis, you have been very effective in shutting down the Voice of Conservatives on this site.

3 Likes 

 

aWomansRight

If your voice is being shut down, I'm not seeing it.

in reply to Wild_Child 

2 Likes

 

ALocalGuy

You poor victim, you've only been able to post 1,950 times on this site.

in reply to Wild_Child 

2 Likes

 

aWomansRight

and congratulate yourself over 6,000 times for doing so

in reply to ALocalGuy 

4 Likes 

 

Amber424

 Obviously not that effective since you keep talking :)

in reply to Wild_Child 

2 Likes

 

copied from you know who......

According to the Olympian, Inslee has changed parties!

................................................................
Need I say more?  [snort]
................................................................
GOP governor hopeful Jay Inslee changes course, will now do business debate
By MIKE BAKER | The Associated Press. Published March 28, 2012
................................................................
THE COMMENTS:

TooMuchWhine4Me
Apparently Inslee will do anything to be governor, even switch parties.

Kat
The Olympian is the newspaper for the state capitol of the great State of Washington. Would you please find someone to write your webpage headlines who has taken at least a high school civics class and knows the difference between a Republican (ie., GOP) and a Democrat.

Anonymll
Olympian staffers don't read these comments very often, so it doesn't do any good to point out their errors.  Besides we've been told by Tammy that this isn't the forum for doing that-- we're supposed to contact the news desk.  Well, good luck with that.  I've tried that and nobody answers the phone!
in reply to Kat

Cheri
Seriously...I mean I just ignore the occasional typos, but that headline is ridiculous.
in reply to Kat

TooMuchWhine4Me
It appears that Inslee really has, "changes course"

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/28/2048478/inslee-changes-course-will-now.html#storylink=cpy
................................................................

"Liberal elites"? Or "conservative elites"?

..........................................................
About Those “Liberal Elites”
By Ed Kilgore, March 27. 2012

At Ten Miles Square, Andrew Gelman has some news for Sarah Palin and other Republicans in the habit of using “elite” as a synonym for Democrats or godless liberals: it actually is not true, if that matters.

Within any education category, richer people vote more Republican. In contrast, the pattern of education and voting is nonlinear. High school graduates are more Republican than non-HS grads, but after that, the groups with more education tend to vote more Democratic. At the very highest education level tabulated in the survey, voters with post-graduate degrees lean toward the Democrats. Except for the rich post-graduates; they are split 50-50 between the parties.

What does this say about America’s elites? If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican.

There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved social and financial success), and you have to go down to the below-$75,000 level of family income, which hardly seems like the American elites to me.

The patterns are consistent for all three of the past presidential elections.

I suppose someone like Palin, if she were actually interested in empirical data as opposed to agitprop, might argue that “elites” are precisely those overeducated pointy-heads who don’t make much money because they work in made-up government jobs (some at those “government schools” that are indoctrinating young Americans in secular socialism) and don’t have the earning power of the salt-of-the-earth job-creators at the top of the income ladder.

But any way you slice it, the word “elite” as used by conservatives these days has at best a casual connection to the dictionary meanings of the word. It was, of course, derived from the French language, so maybe that’s the problem!

..........................................................

Romney's lie wrapped in an absurdity swaddled in paranoia

.......................................................
Published in today's Olympian--  I can hardly wait to read the comments made by the "crazy-paranoid" right wingers who post their vitriol on articles printed in the "O".
.......................................................
Romney too comfy with the crazy-paranoid wing of the GOP
By Paul Krugman, March 26, 2012
.......................................................

Trayvon Martin-- not the exception but the rule?

......................................................
Unarmed And Dangerous?
By Cliff Schecter, March 23, 2012

In 2005, when Florida was considering its insane stand-your-ground-or-perhaps-chase-down-an-innocent-black-teenager-and-shoot-him law, state senator Dan Gelber was a voice of reason. Gelber, when asked what he thought of legislation that would transmogrify many a heat-packing Floridian into a juiced-up Judge Dredd, posed some questions of his own.

When you think someone “looks at your wife” the wrong way or “spills coffee on you,” should the message be “to walk away or do we tell them that you’re supposed to stand your ground and fight to the death?” According to NRA troll/super-lobbyist Marion Hammer, the supposedly smart Bush who was governor at the time (Jeb) and state senator Dennis Baxley–a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who likes racial slurs in state songs and wants to remember The great Lost Cause on license plates–the answer was of course shoot. To kill.

But the bigger story here is the alliance of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)–a secretive, corporate-sponsored clearing house for ideas that are dopey enough to be purchased by the pound–and the arms-dealer front group known as the National Rifle Association (NRA). A marriage made in Hades to pass legislation that seemingly anyone with any background in law enforcement or understanding of this nation’s history knew would lead to a predictable outcome: “racially motivated killings.”

Because, you see, this is not a bug, but a feature. Both ALEC and the NRA exist to support the whims and wants of privileged and largely white members of society, while disenfranchising, impoverishing and even allowing the Trayvon Martins of our society to be gunned down in cold blood. Racism is at their very core.

ALEC is behind a nationwide push to take voting rights away from African Americans and any other group that doesn’t largely vote for creepily religious, corporate Republicans advocating wish-list items such as a Creationist, Halliburton-constructed lunar colony or the deregulation of melamine and morphine-based infant formula.

As writer Ari Berman pointed out in a piece called “The GOP’s War On Voting,” there’s been “a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states…this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.” Who are we talking about here? “Millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly,” according to Berman, or people you might hesitate to call the “Santorum demographic.”

These very same ALECites have been (coincidentally, or course), pushing for tort reform bills in states throughout the country, which have been proven again and again to disproportionately hurt the poor and minorities while protecting corporate bottom lines. Meanwhile, “racial issues” and stereotyping have been used by ALEC to push for tort reform, the very same play on white fear that is the literal pitch of the NRA to convince anyone, no matter how unstable or criminally-inclined, to buy more guns.

Part of this pitch has used the first black President (“Communist trained!”) to inform their most ardent and paranoid members of secret plots (“massive Obama conspiracy!”) to take away their guns (the ones they can now take into National Parks and in luggage on Amtrak because of bills President Obama signed into law) Their day-to-day coded language about protecting “your way of life” or property from invading hordes has obvious connotations to anyone with a few neurons still firing.

NRA Board meetings, meanwhile, could potentially double as klaverns. There’s intellectual retch Ted Nugent who has problems with the “Dark Continent” of Africa because no country there “truly respects freedom or the rule of law.”

Then there’s board member Wayne Anthony Ross, who awarded an art student an “’A’ for courage” for a project that included “a hooded and robed stick figure of a KKK member, bearing a cross in one hand and a flag in the other.” Perhaps most impressive, is John Sigler, who accused President Obama’s mother of traveling the world “to meet up with ‘savages’ and civilizing them in the sack! Her efforts even created a President of the United States.” These are not the exception, as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has made abundantly clear on their “Who Is The NRA Leadership” site.

Trayvon Martin is not the exception. He is the rule. The collateral damage of a quite open and obvious agenda for anyone willing to take a look.
......................................................

Freedom of speech is sacrificed at the altar of manufactured rage

..............................................................
I'm sorry but this constant demand for public apologies really offends me
David Mitchell, March 24, 2012
Newt Gingrich's faux outrage at a joke made by Robert De Niro is the latest evidence of a thriving apology extortion racket in public life 

Robert De Niro got into trouble last week for telling a joke. When introducing Michelle Obama at a Democratic fundraiser, he said: "Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?" It went down well at the time but the next day Newt Gingrichseemed unamused: "What De Niro said last night was inexcusable and the president should apologise for him. It was… beyond the pale and he should be ashamed of himself."

That's a tough response. Gingrich reckons that De Niro's remark is so offensive that he can't even apologise for it himself. The apology has to come from the head of state. Not even Russell Brand ever went so far that Her Majesty was called upon publicly to atone. So I doubt that De Niro's half-hearted attempt to say sorry will have quite slaked Newt's thirst for contrition: "My remarks, although spoken with satirical jest, were not meant to offend or embarrass anyone – especially the first lady," the actor said.

Gingrich is attempting a particularly ambitious scam here, but it comes amid a thriving apology extortion racket in public life. Those who wish to silence others have noticed that expressions of offence and demands that people say sorry are the best way of doing it. Once you've demanded an apology, you can logically continue to demand it until you receive it. Often those called upon to apologise will do so just to silence the clamour – they can't match the complainants for bloody-mindedness.

Not even Jeremy Clarkson can. He's a man accustomed to causing offence and yet last year even he said sorry for a remark he'd made on The One Showpurely to silence apology-extortionists' demands. I say "purely" because, when seen in context – even a tiny bit of context – there was nothing offensive about what he said. On the subject of public sector strikers, he spoke the words: "I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families", but he was clearly not advocating any such thing, or even using it as an off-colour superlative of disapproval. It was a comedic dig at the BBC's requirement to represent all opinions. I'd be surprised if I agreed with Jeremy Clarkson's views on the trade union movement, but not as surprised as if I discovered that they were that strikers should be shot. He's a Tory, not a Nazi.

But we live in such lamentably literal times that those who understood the joke were shouted down by an alliance of the stupid and the opportunistic – which meant the government called for an apology, and so did the opposition; the BBC gave way and then Clarkson also caved, saying: "If the BBC and I have caused any offence, I'm quite happy to apologise for it alongside them." Like De Niro, he's covered his pride by saying sorry for the offence caused rather than the remark itself – but you can feel the frustration, the shrug: "So we surrender to stupidity, do we?" Freedom of speech is sacrificed at the altar of manufactured rage.

[snipped]

The same cannot be said for Newt Gingrich. If he were acting honourably in this case then an extorted apology, one that he'd demanded, whether it came from De Niro or Obama, would have no value for him. If he or his wife were really hurt, or if he felt genuine concern that the joke, as he complained, "divides the country", then he should say only that. And if, in consequence, Robert De Niro felt sorry and said so, then it would mean something. Or if, bizarre though it would be, Barack Obama felt guilty that this epoch-endangering quip had been made at an event in aid of his cause and was moved to express contrition at having been so thoughtless as to allow an Oscar-winning actor to make an unvetted remark at a dinner, then that would have some power to soothe poor Newt's bruised soul.

But that's not the situation. Clearly Gingrich isn't hurt. Neither is he worried that a gag at a fundraiser will have any negative impact on American racial harmony. It would take a bigger fool than him to think any such thing. He merely sees this as an opportunity to humiliate an opponent and boost his fading chances of the Republican nomination in the process. That's how politics is played these days, both in Britain and America.

Such vindictiveness offends me and I demand an apology. Also, as a pale person, I consider Gingrich's phrase "beyond the pale" to be deeply racist. It's inexcusable, in fact. The least Newt could do is get down on his knees and pray for forgiveness – preferably to Allah. And I want Robert De Niro to say sorry too, just for being in the same sentence. And I want an autograph. Anything less would be disgraceful. I mean it. I'm as genuinely upset as Newt.

..............................................................

I'm not a fan of the man

but in deference to those who like to call us a "hate blog", my best wishes and prayers go out to the former Veep

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/dick-cheney-heart-transplant_n_1377487.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D146338

Caturday

Newt the bigot is back

................................................................
Might As Well Be Wearing a Hoodie
By Ed Kilgore

After tomorrow, any pretense Newt Gingrich has of running for president will be pretty much laughable. Perhaps he’s already making the transition back to his old game of attracting attention by lending his fading intellectual credibility to outright bigotry. Check out this special moment from the Louisiana campaign trail, reported by Politico’s Ginger Gibson:

Asked about polls suggesting many in the public continue to think Obama is a Muslim, Gingrich said in Louisiana that he takes Obama “at his word” that he believes in Christianity.

Then he launched into a riff on how Obama’s policies are excessively sensitive to non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths, suggesting it could raise doubts for some about where the president’s impulses come from.

“Why does the president behave the way that people would think that [he’s Muslim]?” Gingrich said. “You have to ask, why would they believe that? It’s not cause they’re stupid. It’s because they watch the kind of things I just described to you.”

Guess Obama’s like Trayvon Martin. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t wear a hoodie, right?

................................................................

Now five members of SCOTUS are waging war on women!

.....................................................................
Supreme Court Voids Part of Family Leave Act
By Nicole Belle, March 22, 2012

I'll be damned if the conservatives on the Supreme Court weren't getting jealous of all the congressional and state-level battles in the war on women and decide that they needed to take up arms themselves. Is there no area that these conservatives won't try to mess up for most Americans?

State workers who are denied unpaid sick leave required by federal law cannot sue the states, the Supreme Court said in a victory for states' rights that some liberal advocates saw as a bad omen for President Obama's healthcare law.
The 5-4 decision is a setback for millions of employees of state agencies and state colleges, and it voided in part a provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Among other things the act said that employees had a right to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to recover from an illness or childbirth.
The rights of employees of private companies are unchanged by the ruling.

So let me see if I have this straight: first, conservatives want to make sure you get pregnant by limiting access to birth control, then force you to have the baby by limiting access to abortions, then if you get fired for taking time off to have the baby, you have no right to recourse for being fired. Great. All these things that have been litigated decades ago and established as basic rights have been inverted. The very notion upset Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg enough for her to make an unusual step:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, on behalf of Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, took the rare step of reading her dissent aloud in court. She called the result “regrettable” and observed that the Kennedy opinion “pays scant attention to the overarching aim” of the law, which was “to make it feasible for women to work while sustaining family life.” Ginsburg said that the law was a reasonable effort by congress to ensure the equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment for public employees facing discrimination.

.....................................................................

News that the media missed...

OLYMPIA – The Washington State Department of Health and the state Board of Pharmacy have filed an appeal, challenging portions of the February federal court ruling on access to medications. The state specifically asks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the trial court’s ruling that Washington’s access to medication rules target religious opposition to certain medications.

Attorneys for the state emphasize that the Board of Pharmacy rules apply to all valid prescriptions and behind-the-counter medications in stock. Under the rules, pharmacies must deliver these medications in a timely fashion. The plaintiffs in the suit cited religious opposition to emergency contraceptive products such as Plan B and ella.

The appeal challenges the trial court’s conclusion that the board’s rules single out emergency contraceptives and target only licensees with religious objections to delivering those products.

The Board of Pharmacy approved the rules in 2007 in an attempt to ensure all Washington residents have timely access to the medications they need when they need them. The board’s rule requiring pharmacies to stock a representative assortment of medications necessary to meet the needs of the pharmacy’s patients has been in effect for more than 40 years. Pharmacies are responsible for ensuring timely delivery of the medications for their patients. If an individual pharmacist will not fill a prescription, the pharmacy owner must have a plan to assure that the patient has timely access to the medication on-site.

Nothing like 12 Steps and Internet Therapy

Molon_Labe

If you didn't have a hate blog and 27 identities here, you'd be back on the bottle.

Republican cave men and Puritans

.............................................................

Leave it to Newt....

WASHINGTON — Robert De Niro says he meant no offense when he joked at a presidential fundraiser featuring Michelle Obama that America might not be ready for a white first lady.

"My remarks, although spoken with satirical jest, were not meant to offend or embarrass anyone — especially the first lady," De Niro said in a statement.

The joke drew criticism Tuesday from Newt Gingrich, who said the racial reference to the Republican candidates' wives was "inexcusable" and demanded an apology from President Barack Obama.

"MrsWright"... er... "MrsRight" blesses us again with her wisdom!

.................................................................
The Mrs. is back!  Let's hope that the Zero allows her to continue to post....
.................................................................

MrsRight

Pray for us all!  The Devil is afoot in Olympia!  Everyone knows that women love babies and hate sex. That's the way Jesus made us. It's downright unnatural for a woman to notice that a man is tall, that he has thick salt and pepper hair, and a rugged jaw, that he has sparkling eyes and a cute little half-smile curving across his full lips. JESUS DOESN'T APPROVE!  It's the Devil putting those wicked thoughts into women when a handsome man walks in the room! The only road to salvation is to vote for someone pious and ugly, who will allow no wickedness and sternly enforce the Bible and the U.S. Constitution, in that order.

in reply to WorkerBea

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/19/2036075/high-court-races-shaping-up.html

• 
  Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/19/2036075/high-court-races-shaping-up.html#storylink=cpy

.................................................................

Another comment on a Zero LTE that should not be allowed to disappear into the ether

......................................................................

octopus

What you say is true.....a 2 year old does not have the capacity to know the results.....however, and please sit down for this, the parents have the capacity!!!!  No one needs a magic touch!  If your child cannot travel without disrupting the whole plane, don't go!  If your child cannot eat out without disrupting the whole place or those around you.....you got it....don't go out to eat. You are just going to have stop doing some things when you have kids!!! Children are a choice you make, they are not a surprise that we come home from work one day and bam there they are!!!!! Children do not run the world, or the show and I should not have to be a victim of any ones kids and their bad behavior.  Parents need to remember that they are in charge not the other way around.  And yes I love kids,  however, it does not take a village, it takes parents that understand that they are the parents not those around them.  I don't go out to eat to be subject to screaming, running around, disruptive kids!  Please, you created that child, be the parent, no one loves your kids like you do.....really, that is a fact.  The rest of us just tolerate them!  Great letter Millie!!!! Oh.....when I pay $15 to go to an adult type movie, leave the your kids at home!!!!

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/19/2036089/dont-let-kids-rule-the-roost.html#storylink=cpy

......................................................................

"Non-humans" making comments on the Zero?

.......................................................
Hmmmph, we here could have predicted that without any prompting!
.......................................................
'Non-Humans' Account for 51% of All Internet Traffic

DINO GRANDON, MAR 15, 2012

By one study's measure, slightly more than half of all the Internet's traffic comes from computers not being used by fleshy humans that might actually purchase products.

That's according to study released today by Incapsula, an Internet security firm, begging the question: What exactly does Internet traffic from a "non-human" look like? Incapsula is here to explain: "hackers, spambots, scrapers and spies of sorts collecting proprietary business information and customer data from unsuspecting websites." "Hackers" (5 percent) refers to hacking software that visits site to swipe credit-card information or crash sites (think of the ubiquitous DDoS attacks). "Scrapers" (another 5 percent) refer to bots that copy content from other sites and post it on their own, to get search-engine traffic. Altogether, the robotic ne'er-do-wells cited above constitutes 31 percent of all web traffic. The other 20 percent is the search engines themselves, the Googles and Bings of the Interwebbed world, whose servers work 'round-the-clock to index the Internet for our browsing pleasure.

And sorry to scare you up there, advertisers. "The company says that typically, only 49 percent of a web site’s visitors are actual humans and that the non-human traffic is mostly invisible because it is not shown by analytics software," reports ZDNet. Traffic numbers apparently are only slightly inflated by non-human hits. The comment sections, however, may be more affected: 2 percent of all Internet traffic is from comment spammers. Which is actually sort of gratifying for anyone who's had to deal with angry commenters: dismissing them as just cranky robots isn't the worst coping strategy.

.......................................................

Doonesbury strips on abortion. Part 6

..............................................................................
The Zero and the Trib wimped out on us, refusing to run the Doonesbury strips on abortion, so we'll step up.........
[BTW, use Ctrl + to enlarge the strip so that it's more readable.]
..............................................................................

Just today's episode of blather from InDependsVoter

..........................................................
Looks like Tammy has her work cut out for her again!
..........................................................

Showing 141-141 of 142 comments

• 
  Molon_LabeCollapse

  Nothing to see here, folks, just today's episode of "Hate Conservatives", brought to you by The Olympian editorial staff, incapable of writing their own opinion.

ALocalGuy

Do you understand how newspaper syndication works?

And would you prefer that only Cal Thomas columns run in the Olympian?

• in reply to Molon_Labe
  
  Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/16/2032317/gop-misogyny-good-for-obama-2012.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/16/2032317/gop-misogyny-good-for-obama-2012.html 
..........................................................

Do tell.....

Molon_Labe:  "They consume human feces as part of their sexual rituals."

Never a day when IndependsVoter ceases to educate, whether we like it or not.

TMI.

"This big"

Doonesbury strips on abortion. Part 5

...........................................................
The Zero and the Trib wimped out on us, refusing to run the Doonesbury strips on abortion, so we'll step up.........
[BTW, use Ctrl + to enlarge the strip so that it's more readable.]
...........................................................

...........................................................

And just because we need a little humor

Gee, I wonder why...

The Zero isn't allowing comments on this article

http://www.theolympian.com/2012/03/15/2031920/south-sound-natives-hate-religion.html

..Maybe Tammy has a headache today

What has REALLY occurred with the budget deficit during Obama’s term of office?

.............................................................
Thanks to blogger WCG, we have an in-depth comparison between what the Republicans have claimed and what the truth is.  
See Obama's "unprecedented massive deficits" in which WCG dissects the Republican claims:
............................................................. 

I [WCG] received the link to the above graph, which is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think-tank, from a commenter on a previous post, where I'd discussed the consequences of the Republicans' "Southern strategy" of deliberately wooing white racists.

We had an interesting discussion there, so I thought I'd take this link and his argument seriously and write a follow-up post. His idea, much of which is taken from that Heritage Foundation post, is that Barack Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, instead quadrupled it, that he's vastly increased spending, and that, basically, "it really comes down to Republicans wanting small government and Democrats wanting large government."

OK, that's a lot to investigate. I'm no expert, and I'm particularly short of time right now. Plus, it's hard - without making this my life's work - to find exactly comparable data online. But I think I can at least raise a few questions about this.

First, let's look at that Heritage Foundation article, Bush Deficit vs Obama Deficit in Pictures. The article was published March 24, 2009. Barack Obama had been in office two months. Yes, two months! And the Heritage Foundation was already complaining about "Obama's unprecedented massive deficits."

You don't think this was all about politics? We weren't even halfway through fiscal year 2009 yet, the year which started before Obama took office, the last year budgeted by Bush. Barack Obama's first budget was for FY 2010. That graph above (which is three years old now) was deliberately misleading. It was partisan politics and nothing but partisan politics.

[snipped.  Please see the blog item at the link above for all the supporting information and graphs.]

But the right-wing loons who are willing to bankrupt America, just to force smaller government on us, well, I think that's treason. Grover Norquist and his pals may want to drown America in a bathtub, but I'll defend my country from fanatics like that. And so should any reasonable person.

Unfortunately, ill-informed people listen to Fox "News" and believe whatever they hear. I hate to break it to you, but Fox lies. Republican leaders lie. They may think they have a good reason to lie, because they really, really want to put Republicans back in power again, but it's still a lie. (This is that whole idea that the end justifies the means. Well, it doesn't. Most of the time, in fact, the means is far more important than the end.)

And these are the same people who have nearly destroyed our country in recent years. They're the same people who got us into two unnecessary wars, one against a completely innocent country, for no reason whatsoever. (Barack Obama showed us how we should have gone after Osama bin Laden in the first place.)

They're the same people who gave us record-breaking budget deficits, not to invest in America, not to invest in education, research and development, or infrastructure, but simply to give tax cuts to the wealthy. They're the reason why American workers had it better in the 1970s than today. They're the reason why wealth and income inequality have skyrocketed. They're anti-science. Heck, they're anti-education.

Don't get me started. :)  Listen to them if you wish. But for chrissake, don't listen just to them, no matter how plausible they sound.

.............................................................

Santorum foot in mouth disease

Ricky did it up good this time.

Nope, nothing about man on dog.  This time he is in Puerto Rico, hunting for votes and telling them that in order to become a state, they must adopt English as their "main language".  Not only is there no law to support him on this stupidity, most Puerto Ricans already are bi-lingual to survive in a place where both English and Spanish are used.

Hey Rick, have a talk with the Texans, Mississipians, and Alabamans.  They haven't spoken English in years.  Louisianans get an exclusion because they are so cool to listen to.

Doonesbury strips on abortion. Part 4

.............................................................
The Zero and the Trib wimped out on us, refusing to run the Doonesbury strips on abortion, so we'll step up.........
[BTW, use Ctrl + to enlarge the strip so that it's more readable.]
.............................................................

Nuff said

......................................................

......................................................

A dog has to do what a dog has to do

Doonesbury strips on abortion. Part 3

..............................................................
The Zero and the Trib wimped out on us, refusing to run the Doonesbury strips on abortion, so we'll step up.........
[BTW, use Ctrl + to enlarge the strip so that it's more readable.]
..............................................................

Help has arrived!!!

Come on, IndependsVoter!  We'll help you find that Larry guy!

Indy and the boys engage in a little game of Hidey the Didey to find Larry on The Olympian.

Strangely enough, Larry_phill has disappeared from site....or is it "sight"?

He probably didn't want to play with the Diaper Dudes

Molon_Labe

 Hi Larry, have you still got plenty of Pampers?