...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Both trump and carson are egomaniacal narcissists, and their weak minded followers pump themselves up vicariously watching these clowns in their antics. All the while spouting mindless John Birch bumper sticker philosophy or some kind of Christian non-sequiturs.
* And here we thought Trump was the egomaniac of the bunch!
* This guy is a massive ego maniac with a huge penchant for lying and deceit..Perfect GOP candidate.
* its one thing to be proud of your accomplishments . But i think having a shrine built to hold them and have paintings of you and Christ together is kinda creepy
* It just like Ted Baxter's dressing room!!!!!!
* Am a Christian, however this is just a little to much for me. I for one will question his sincerity.
* The most frightening thing about Dr. Carson is that he has this carefully tailored presentation of a humble thoughtful honest person....but the more he says and the more I learn about him, I am starting to think it is all an act designed to sell the image (and book) of Ben Carson more then anything else.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson's Home Is an Eerie Homage to Ben Carson
By Tom McKay, November 7, 2015
Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, who continues to rank in first or second place in polls for the Republican presidential primary race, has what could charitably be called an eccentric taste in home decor.
A recent profile in the Guardian took a photo tour of Carson's home in Upperco, Maryland, and dubbed what it documented as an "homage to himself."
Carson's walls are covered with dozens of news clippings, honorary degrees and photos of him alongside various celebrities, dignitaries and world leaders — as well as full-size paintings featuring Carson proudly posing in his white coat alongside the lord Jesus Christ.
No, really:
Ben Carson and Klingon Jesus: A Portrait - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/nov/07/ben-carson-house-homage-to-himself-in-pictures#img-4 ... pic.twitter.com/Pa7ShzGBrW
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTOQZ_oWwAAiNpc.png:large " id="embeddable-a3t6io" data-type="twitter">
[snipped]
A pretty large portrait of Carson rests above his fireplace.
Ben Carson's house: a homage to himself - in pictures http://trib.al/k3BH1yp pic.twitter.com/C2v06QkIqV
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTOBz86UwAAqwtX.jpg:large " id="embeddable-oblliko" data-type="twitter">
[snipped]
Here are some other shots of all the strange memorabilia one finds in Casa de Carson:
worst thing in Carson's house isn't the painting of him with Jesus, it's this inscription with "Proverbs" misspelled pic.twitter.com/KhvLvAcEfh
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTOKyHwUEAEdmr7.jpg:large " id="embeddable-qngkopg" data-type="twitter">
[snipped]
To those not inclined to find Carson's political views particularly compelling, this choice of furnishings will doubtless seem as weird as the candidate's consistently bizarre public pronouncements. Just recently, those include his alternate explanation for who really built the pyramids, his shifting narrative on his violent past as a teenager, inconsistencies in the story of his supposed full scholarship to West Point, and his theory that Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had just owned more firearms.
On the other hand, Carson's supporters will probably see the photos as more evidence that the legendary neurosurgeon is a very accomplished person and dedicated Christian.
Strangely enough, Carson isn't the only presidential candidate to prominently display paintings of himself. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is currently ranked well behind Carson in an average of polls kept by Real Clear Politics, has long kept a massive portrait of himself arguing before the United States Supreme Court in his office.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Sic 'em, ladies, especially Rep. DelBene!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* More taxpayers money spent on stupid wasteful inquisitions by the GOP.
* Imagine if they directed that money toward helping some actual children.
* Don´t like abortion? Don´t have an abortion. It is the law of the land.
* For people who are sooooo against Big Government and reigning in spending, they sure know how to waste your money. As the government gets closer to being broke and regular, hard working folks will begin to see another recession, none of them will lose their paychecks. But hey, this is very, very important and if necessary they can always have 8 more investigation's.
* The obvious answer is the Coat Hanger Committee.
* Are Dems finally growing a pair? Of course it takes the women to take the lead. Go get them and do us proud
* Get use to it, If the republicans take over the "White House" you can expect you tax dollars to be wasted on thing like this. They talk about freedom but just about everything they do and believe in is to limit non believers their rights and freedom.
* Despite numerous State AG's and a House Select Committee EXONERATING Planned Parenthood - the Party that cannot govern or ever tell the truth - continues down its path of spending tax dollars on problems that do not exist.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Coin A More Accurate Name For House Committee Probing Planned Parenthood
House Republicans have convened a Select Investigative Panel to investigate "the grisly practices of big abortion providers." But Democrats, who considered boycotting the committee because they think it will target Planned Parenthood exclusively, on Wednesday unveiled their preferred name: the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement, also named Democrats to sit on the committee.
“I am proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health,” Pelosi said. “Hard-working families deserve better than a taxpayer-funded Republican Select Committee fixated on dismantling women’s health. As Republicans try to take affordable family planning and lifesaving preventive care away from millions of American women, Democrats will be in the room to fight for the truth.”
The Democrats on the committee are Reps. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), who will be the ranking member; Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.); Diana DeGette (Colo.); Jackie Speier (Calif.); Suzan DelBene (Wash.); and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.). Statements from the members used Pelosi's name for the committee, rather than the GOP's designated title.
Eight Republicans have been named to the panel.
Republicans convened the committee to capitalize on sting videos made by an anti-abortion group that show Planned Parenthood staff members discussing fetal tissue donations for research. Federal law allows the organization to accept reimbursements to cover the processing and transfer of the tissues, but anti-abortion advocates have claimed the provider profited from the donations. Planned Parenthood has insisted it has done nothing illegal and various state and federal investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Republicans say a special committee is necessary to it can find "the truth" and "build on our work to protect the sanctity of all human life.” But Democrats say the panel will waste taxpayer dollars and is redundant, since other committees are already investigating Planned Parenthood.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* More taxpayers money spent on stupid wasteful inquisitions by the GOP.
* Imagine if they directed that money toward helping some actual children.
* Don´t like abortion? Don´t have an abortion. It is the law of the land.
* For people who are sooooo against Big Government and reigning in spending, they sure know how to waste your money. As the government gets closer to being broke and regular, hard working folks will begin to see another recession, none of them will lose their paychecks. But hey, this is very, very important and if necessary they can always have 8 more investigation's.
* The obvious answer is the Coat Hanger Committee.
* Are Dems finally growing a pair? Of course it takes the women to take the lead. Go get them and do us proud
* Get use to it, If the republicans take over the "White House" you can expect you tax dollars to be wasted on thing like this. They talk about freedom but just about everything they do and believe in is to limit non believers their rights and freedom.
* Despite numerous State AG's and a House Select Committee EXONERATING Planned Parenthood - the Party that cannot govern or ever tell the truth - continues down its path of spending tax dollars on problems that do not exist.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Coin A More Accurate Name For House Committee Probing Planned Parenthood
Six Dems will serve on what they call the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
By Samantha Lachman, November 4, 2015House Republicans have convened a Select Investigative Panel to investigate "the grisly practices of big abortion providers." But Democrats, who considered boycotting the committee because they think it will target Planned Parenthood exclusively, on Wednesday unveiled their preferred name: the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement, also named Democrats to sit on the committee.
“I am proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health,” Pelosi said. “Hard-working families deserve better than a taxpayer-funded Republican Select Committee fixated on dismantling women’s health. As Republicans try to take affordable family planning and lifesaving preventive care away from millions of American women, Democrats will be in the room to fight for the truth.”
The Democrats on the committee are Reps. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), who will be the ranking member; Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.); Diana DeGette (Colo.); Jackie Speier (Calif.); Suzan DelBene (Wash.); and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.). Statements from the members used Pelosi's name for the committee, rather than the GOP's designated title.
Eight Republicans have been named to the panel.
Republicans convened the committee to capitalize on sting videos made by an anti-abortion group that show Planned Parenthood staff members discussing fetal tissue donations for research. Federal law allows the organization to accept reimbursements to cover the processing and transfer of the tissues, but anti-abortion advocates have claimed the provider profited from the donations. Planned Parenthood has insisted it has done nothing illegal and various state and federal investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Republicans say a special committee is necessary to it can find "the truth" and "build on our work to protect the sanctity of all human life.” But Democrats say the panel will waste taxpayer dollars and is redundant, since other committees are already investigating Planned Parenthood.
...................................................................................................................................................................
And they grow up to be adult jerks!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Religious Kids Are Jerks
A study published in the journal Current Biology testing the behavior of Christian, Muslim, and atheist children has found that religious kids are meaner and less generous.
By Bobby Azarian, November 6, 2015
For many, organized religions like Christianity provide a moral compass. Holy books serve as guides that hold strict rules about what is right and wrong. It is only common sense to think that those who have religion in their lives are the ones with a strong sense of morals, while those who lack religious belief are left wandering in the dark, with no light to show them the right path from the wrong one. But as we have seen time and time again, common sense can be dead wrong. According to a new study published in the journal Current Biology, children that come from non-religious households behave significantly more altruistically than those from religious households, as measured by greater acts of generosity towards others.
At present, 5.8 billion people around the world identify as religious. That’s 84 percent of the total population who hold a system of beliefs that provides them with moral instructions. It is safe to say that for many of these people, religion—at least in part—shapes their behavior and general outlook on life. Religious parents teach their children scriptures as moral lessons, hoping to instill values that will cause them to be honest, just, fair, and for just about every major religion, compassionate human beings. However, somewhat ironically, the world’s foremost religions also teach these children that if they fail to behave in the instructed way, they shall receive punishment from an all-powerful being—and in some cases, eternal damnation. Some pretty heavy stuff, right?
So the question is, do religions really cause individuals to behave more morally? What about children brought up in atheist households, who have no metaphysical motivation to do good? Would they act kindly to others when there are no direct benefits to them, or will they behave like “godless heathens”? A team of scientists decided to experimentally test these intriguing questions directly under controlled laboratory conditions.
Over 1,100 children, aged 5 to 12, from the United States, China, Canada, Jordan, Turkey, and South Africa were chosen to participate in the study. Most of the children came from Christian, Muslim, or non-religious households. To test whether children raised on religion would behave more morally than non-religious children, they were asked to play what’s called a “dictator game.” In this game, children were shown 30 stickers and told that they could pick their favorite 10 to keep for themselves. The children were then each told that the experimenter didn’t have enough time to play this game with everyone, so some of the children at their school wouldn’t get any stickers. What the results showed was that children from Christian and Muslim households were both significantly less generous than children from non-religious households when it came to sharing their stickers with anonymous peers.
The findings not only show that religious kids aren’t more altruistic than non-religious kids; it suggests that not being religious may actually increase moral behavior. To most this would seem counterintuitive. The authors of the study have an explanation that involves an interesting phenomenon called moral licensing. The term refers to a sort of mental glitch—whereby doing something that enhances one’s positive self-image makes them less worried about the consequences of immoral behavior. For instance, research has shown that men who report being very opposed to sexism later go on to hire men for what would traditionally be considered a man’s job. They do this because they feel that since they are not sexist—at least, in their own minds—a decision to choose a male over a female can’t be immoral.
Similarly, someone that sees him or herself as being a moral person for devoutly practicing a religion might be less concerned about their actual behavior. In light of this, it is not so surprising that children who identified as religious did not feel as compelled to share stickers, since they believed themselves to be a good person independent of their behavior. On the other hand, an atheist child might be more concerned about the morality of their acts, since it is their behavior that tells them they are a good person, and not the following of rituals or prayer.
The study also showed that children from religious households were more willing to give harsher punishments to people who committed acts that harmed others, like pushing or bumping into another. Although this could be interpreted as showing that religious children are more concerned with justice, it may also demonstrate that non-religious children are more tolerant of others’ behavior, and more willing to forgive.
What this study makes strikingly clear is that religion and morality are not one and the same. In fact, in some instances those who don’t believe in god might actually behave more altruistically. And since they wouldn’t be doing it out of a fear of being punished, but instead out of what some might call “the goodness of their hearts,” one could argue that they in fact have higher moral standards.
Hopefully such findings will help dispel the widely accepted myth that atheists don’t have strong values, or that an atheist president would lack the compassion and ethical code that world leaders require. The truth of the matter is that as science awareness continues to expand, we will see a progressively secular society. As such, it is important that both religious and non-religious people learn to understand each other better and be more tolerant of one another, so that they may work together to achieve common goals.
But perhaps the best lesson of the study is that it should be your actions that define your morality, and not simply your beliefs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Religious Kids Are Jerks
A study published in the journal Current Biology testing the behavior of Christian, Muslim, and atheist children has found that religious kids are meaner and less generous.
By Bobby Azarian, November 6, 2015
For many, organized religions like Christianity provide a moral compass. Holy books serve as guides that hold strict rules about what is right and wrong. It is only common sense to think that those who have religion in their lives are the ones with a strong sense of morals, while those who lack religious belief are left wandering in the dark, with no light to show them the right path from the wrong one. But as we have seen time and time again, common sense can be dead wrong. According to a new study published in the journal Current Biology, children that come from non-religious households behave significantly more altruistically than those from religious households, as measured by greater acts of generosity towards others.
At present, 5.8 billion people around the world identify as religious. That’s 84 percent of the total population who hold a system of beliefs that provides them with moral instructions. It is safe to say that for many of these people, religion—at least in part—shapes their behavior and general outlook on life. Religious parents teach their children scriptures as moral lessons, hoping to instill values that will cause them to be honest, just, fair, and for just about every major religion, compassionate human beings. However, somewhat ironically, the world’s foremost religions also teach these children that if they fail to behave in the instructed way, they shall receive punishment from an all-powerful being—and in some cases, eternal damnation. Some pretty heavy stuff, right?
So the question is, do religions really cause individuals to behave more morally? What about children brought up in atheist households, who have no metaphysical motivation to do good? Would they act kindly to others when there are no direct benefits to them, or will they behave like “godless heathens”? A team of scientists decided to experimentally test these intriguing questions directly under controlled laboratory conditions.
Over 1,100 children, aged 5 to 12, from the United States, China, Canada, Jordan, Turkey, and South Africa were chosen to participate in the study. Most of the children came from Christian, Muslim, or non-religious households. To test whether children raised on religion would behave more morally than non-religious children, they were asked to play what’s called a “dictator game.” In this game, children were shown 30 stickers and told that they could pick their favorite 10 to keep for themselves. The children were then each told that the experimenter didn’t have enough time to play this game with everyone, so some of the children at their school wouldn’t get any stickers. What the results showed was that children from Christian and Muslim households were both significantly less generous than children from non-religious households when it came to sharing their stickers with anonymous peers.
The findings not only show that religious kids aren’t more altruistic than non-religious kids; it suggests that not being religious may actually increase moral behavior. To most this would seem counterintuitive. The authors of the study have an explanation that involves an interesting phenomenon called moral licensing. The term refers to a sort of mental glitch—whereby doing something that enhances one’s positive self-image makes them less worried about the consequences of immoral behavior. For instance, research has shown that men who report being very opposed to sexism later go on to hire men for what would traditionally be considered a man’s job. They do this because they feel that since they are not sexist—at least, in their own minds—a decision to choose a male over a female can’t be immoral.
Similarly, someone that sees him or herself as being a moral person for devoutly practicing a religion might be less concerned about their actual behavior. In light of this, it is not so surprising that children who identified as religious did not feel as compelled to share stickers, since they believed themselves to be a good person independent of their behavior. On the other hand, an atheist child might be more concerned about the morality of their acts, since it is their behavior that tells them they are a good person, and not the following of rituals or prayer.
The study also showed that children from religious households were more willing to give harsher punishments to people who committed acts that harmed others, like pushing or bumping into another. Although this could be interpreted as showing that religious children are more concerned with justice, it may also demonstrate that non-religious children are more tolerant of others’ behavior, and more willing to forgive.
What this study makes strikingly clear is that religion and morality are not one and the same. In fact, in some instances those who don’t believe in god might actually behave more altruistically. And since they wouldn’t be doing it out of a fear of being punished, but instead out of what some might call “the goodness of their hearts,” one could argue that they in fact have higher moral standards.
Hopefully such findings will help dispel the widely accepted myth that atheists don’t have strong values, or that an atheist president would lack the compassion and ethical code that world leaders require. The truth of the matter is that as science awareness continues to expand, we will see a progressively secular society. As such, it is important that both religious and non-religious people learn to understand each other better and be more tolerant of one another, so that they may work together to achieve common goals.
But perhaps the best lesson of the study is that it should be your actions that define your morality, and not simply your beliefs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, November 6, 2015
"... if a media organization allows interviewees to control the message, well that's -- un-American." Seems to me that the GOP candidates are bordering on being un-American in the first place.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* There is no such thing as a "gotcha question" in a presidential race. Those seeking the highest office should be able to answer any question given to them and defend their answers as they see fit. If a candidate cannot handle that, then they should not be even remotely considered for the office.
* All of the GOP loved that debate! They got to not talk about the issues, complain about CNBC while pretending they wanted to talk about the issues. Then they got to milk it for another week, have FOX NEWS doggy pile on for a week, and still not talk about the issues. What a load.
* The debates are supposed to be one way that the public can see what each of these candidates positions are. If the candidates won't answer the question about policy or position then that candidate won't get the public's vote. I have no idea where Ben Carson stands on most things because he doesn't really talk about specifics and just because Trump says things like, "Because I say so." is just as bad. Moderators asking about fantasy football is a waste of everyone's time. Where are the foreign policy, domestic policy and the what makes you qualified to be the president questions?
* Like I have often said, they were asked questions about the stuff that they talk about in their stump speeches. You cannot just simply dodge questions about your own remarks, which is probably why they're all complaining about gotcha questions.
* If these people can not answer questions from a moderator, what makes any of us think they can handle a question say... from a foreign leader!
* Gotcha questions are named just so because they point out something potentially bad about candidates and the only real way out of them is to fall back on substance. If you're a GOP candidate, at least this year, then those questions can really throw you for a loop as there's clearly no logic or facts to fall back on for many of their stances.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is the 'gotcha' question debate going too far?
By Carol Costello, November 3, 2015
Is the "gotcha" game becoming a tad un-American?
Who would have thought that, in 2015 when there is a Freedom Caucus in our House of Representatives, some politicians would balk at answering questions?
Yes, sometimes journalists ask dumb questions -- they certainly did during CNBC's debate -- but when a presidential candidate suggests a debate format that allows no time for candidates to debate any questions, I pause.
"There's a time and place for that," presidential candidate Ben Carson told ABC. "But as far as I'm concerned, these debates are to highlight the differences in philosophy between the candidates."
According to Carson's campaign manager, a better debate format would place all 14 candidates on stage, together, for two hours. During that time, each candidate would be granted up to five minutes for opening and closing statements.
That could chew up much, if not all, of the two-hour debate.
Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host, who questioned candidates during CNN's first GOP debate, thinks that would be a bad idea.
"We had a Hindenburg debate last week, but we shouldn't change the good that's been done," he told me. "The CNN debate had 23 million watching ... nobody wants to watch a series of talking points delivered robotically, without any emotion. They need tension."
Carson is trying to put an end to gotcha questions, and I can understand why. Who wants to answer a question about their worst quality, or biggest weakness? Or defend themselves against running a "comic-book campaign?"
The problem is, not everyone agrees what exactly a "gotcha question" is. Yes, sometimes it's obvious, but often it's not so cut-and-dried. If you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers. I know, I put it to the test on my Facebook page. I asked, "What, in your mind, constitutes a gotcha question?"
Nancy wrote: "A gotcha question seems to be a question that the person being questioned either does not want to answer or doesn't know the answer."
Robin wrote: "I believe a 'gotcha' question ... is going to get you in trouble with people no matter what you say or how you answer it."
And Carl wrote: "A 'gotcha' question is one which is asked with a preconceived motive, for the purpose of inciting a predictable response."
Whatever the definition, the "gotcha" question is so odious that representatives for the Republican candidates drafted a letter to all future debate sponsors. They're demanding to know whether sponsors will "provide equal time ... and an equal number of questions of equal quality (substance as opposed to 'gotcha' or frivolous) to each candidate."
The candidates also want to know if there will be questions from the audience or social media, and if so, how those questions will be presented. And they want debate sponsors to "acknowledge that [they], as the sponsor, take responsibility for all questions asked, even if not asked by [their] personnel."
Oh, one more thing: The campaigns want to know who will moderate the debate. Carson has already suggested "nonjournalists," and Sen. Ted Cruz suggested a panel consisting of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, so they can ask questions "Republicans care about."
Donald Trump might disagree with Cruz's idea, given that a panel of moderators from Fox News still drew the Republican front-runner's ire. Megyn Kelly's excellent question to Trump on the night of the FOX debate angered the billionaire.
"Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks," Kelly said to Trump. "You once told a contestant on 'The Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a 'pretty picture' to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the 'war on women'?"
Trump later tweeted Kelly was "not very good or professional." He later re-tweeted she was a "bimbo."
See, that's the thing about gotcha questions -- and the danger in allowing politicians to design what questions they'll answer. We believe in free speech and a free press in this country. Sadly, for politicians who loathe gotcha questions, that means the American press can ask whatever it wants.
As a journalist, I'm not saying reporters should ask pointless questions, I'm just saying that if a media organization allows interviewees to control the message, well that's -- un-American.
Besides, as a voter, I want my President to show me he or she can think quickly -- even when it comes to answering a dumb question. As Gov. Chris Christie told CNN: "The presidency is almost never scripted, so we shouldn't have those debates scripted either."
So, he, along with Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, will not sign that letter to the sponsors of the debates. Other candidates appear to be wavering as well.
"Stop complaining," Christie said of his rivals. "Do me a favor, set up a stage, put podiums up there and let's just go."
Amen, Governor.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* There is no such thing as a "gotcha question" in a presidential race. Those seeking the highest office should be able to answer any question given to them and defend their answers as they see fit. If a candidate cannot handle that, then they should not be even remotely considered for the office.
* All of the GOP loved that debate! They got to not talk about the issues, complain about CNBC while pretending they wanted to talk about the issues. Then they got to milk it for another week, have FOX NEWS doggy pile on for a week, and still not talk about the issues. What a load.
* The debates are supposed to be one way that the public can see what each of these candidates positions are. If the candidates won't answer the question about policy or position then that candidate won't get the public's vote. I have no idea where Ben Carson stands on most things because he doesn't really talk about specifics and just because Trump says things like, "Because I say so." is just as bad. Moderators asking about fantasy football is a waste of everyone's time. Where are the foreign policy, domestic policy and the what makes you qualified to be the president questions?
* Like I have often said, they were asked questions about the stuff that they talk about in their stump speeches. You cannot just simply dodge questions about your own remarks, which is probably why they're all complaining about gotcha questions.
* If these people can not answer questions from a moderator, what makes any of us think they can handle a question say... from a foreign leader!
* Gotcha questions are named just so because they point out something potentially bad about candidates and the only real way out of them is to fall back on substance. If you're a GOP candidate, at least this year, then those questions can really throw you for a loop as there's clearly no logic or facts to fall back on for many of their stances.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is the 'gotcha' question debate going too far?
By Carol Costello, November 3, 2015
Is the "gotcha" game becoming a tad un-American?
Who would have thought that, in 2015 when there is a Freedom Caucus in our House of Representatives, some politicians would balk at answering questions?
Yes, sometimes journalists ask dumb questions -- they certainly did during CNBC's debate -- but when a presidential candidate suggests a debate format that allows no time for candidates to debate any questions, I pause.
"There's a time and place for that," presidential candidate Ben Carson told ABC. "But as far as I'm concerned, these debates are to highlight the differences in philosophy between the candidates."
According to Carson's campaign manager, a better debate format would place all 14 candidates on stage, together, for two hours. During that time, each candidate would be granted up to five minutes for opening and closing statements.
That could chew up much, if not all, of the two-hour debate.
Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host, who questioned candidates during CNN's first GOP debate, thinks that would be a bad idea.
"We had a Hindenburg debate last week, but we shouldn't change the good that's been done," he told me. "The CNN debate had 23 million watching ... nobody wants to watch a series of talking points delivered robotically, without any emotion. They need tension."
Carson is trying to put an end to gotcha questions, and I can understand why. Who wants to answer a question about their worst quality, or biggest weakness? Or defend themselves against running a "comic-book campaign?"
The problem is, not everyone agrees what exactly a "gotcha question" is. Yes, sometimes it's obvious, but often it's not so cut-and-dried. If you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers. I know, I put it to the test on my Facebook page. I asked, "What, in your mind, constitutes a gotcha question?"
Nancy wrote: "A gotcha question seems to be a question that the person being questioned either does not want to answer or doesn't know the answer."
Robin wrote: "I believe a 'gotcha' question ... is going to get you in trouble with people no matter what you say or how you answer it."
And Carl wrote: "A 'gotcha' question is one which is asked with a preconceived motive, for the purpose of inciting a predictable response."
Whatever the definition, the "gotcha" question is so odious that representatives for the Republican candidates drafted a letter to all future debate sponsors. They're demanding to know whether sponsors will "provide equal time ... and an equal number of questions of equal quality (substance as opposed to 'gotcha' or frivolous) to each candidate."
The candidates also want to know if there will be questions from the audience or social media, and if so, how those questions will be presented. And they want debate sponsors to "acknowledge that [they], as the sponsor, take responsibility for all questions asked, even if not asked by [their] personnel."
Oh, one more thing: The campaigns want to know who will moderate the debate. Carson has already suggested "nonjournalists," and Sen. Ted Cruz suggested a panel consisting of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, so they can ask questions "Republicans care about."
Donald Trump might disagree with Cruz's idea, given that a panel of moderators from Fox News still drew the Republican front-runner's ire. Megyn Kelly's excellent question to Trump on the night of the FOX debate angered the billionaire.
"Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks," Kelly said to Trump. "You once told a contestant on 'The Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a 'pretty picture' to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the 'war on women'?"
Trump later tweeted Kelly was "not very good or professional." He later re-tweeted she was a "bimbo."
See, that's the thing about gotcha questions -- and the danger in allowing politicians to design what questions they'll answer. We believe in free speech and a free press in this country. Sadly, for politicians who loathe gotcha questions, that means the American press can ask whatever it wants.
As a journalist, I'm not saying reporters should ask pointless questions, I'm just saying that if a media organization allows interviewees to control the message, well that's -- un-American.
Besides, as a voter, I want my President to show me he or she can think quickly -- even when it comes to answering a dumb question. As Gov. Chris Christie told CNN: "The presidency is almost never scripted, so we shouldn't have those debates scripted either."
So, he, along with Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, will not sign that letter to the sponsors of the debates. Other candidates appear to be wavering as well.
"Stop complaining," Christie said of his rivals. "Do me a favor, set up a stage, put podiums up there and let's just go."
Amen, Governor.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"They're afraid of a fair election." So true!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* There really is no other word or phrase to describe the Republicans' actions today with regards to voting rights, gerrymandering, etc. Sanders is spot-on with this observation.
* It's really amazing when you look at it from an historical basis. The Republicans have had to cater more and more to the Birchers, Fundies and fringe nuts as the demographics have changed and continue to do so. Then they went to state and local on these same hot button issues like abortion, guns and "values" and gerrymandered the districts. Now they need to play the last card in the deck and outright disenfranchise voters through whatever means necessary in order to cobble together any monstrosity that might win a national. Toss in a ridiculous propaganda channel or two and slather a boatload of money on top and still they have nothing but a scary, dysfunctional, barely cohesive party to present to the nation. None of this can hold; it's just desperate last gasps which is why it's all about GOTV.
* Political cowards --- possibly. political criminals --- DEFINITELY
* This was my favorite moment tonight. Bernie Sanders saying, "It has never occurred to me as a candidate to figure out a way to deny the vote to people because they might vote against me." One could tell what a low opinion he has of Republicans who undermine voting rights.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bernie Sanders Slams GOP On Voting Rights: 'They're Political Cowards!'
By Tierney Sneed, November 6, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called Republicans "political cowards" for their efforts to restrict voting rights and suggested a constitutional amendment might be necessary to protect the franchise.
"Maybe this is personal because I run for office. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win," Sanders said, when Rachel Maddow brought the topic up at Friday's MSNBC Democratic 2016 Forum."It has never occurred to me as a candidate to figure out a way to deny the vote to people because they might vote against me. People who do that are political cowards. They're afraid of a fair election."
He said the push for voting restrictions was a "a real crisis in this country" and said legislation or "maybe a constitutional amendment" was needed to guarentee that everyone 18 years of age is registered to vote.
"What Republican are doing is so un-American, so outrageous. It is literally beyond belief," Sanders said. "They're political cowards and if they can't face a free election, they should get another job."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* There really is no other word or phrase to describe the Republicans' actions today with regards to voting rights, gerrymandering, etc. Sanders is spot-on with this observation.
* It's really amazing when you look at it from an historical basis. The Republicans have had to cater more and more to the Birchers, Fundies and fringe nuts as the demographics have changed and continue to do so. Then they went to state and local on these same hot button issues like abortion, guns and "values" and gerrymandered the districts. Now they need to play the last card in the deck and outright disenfranchise voters through whatever means necessary in order to cobble together any monstrosity that might win a national. Toss in a ridiculous propaganda channel or two and slather a boatload of money on top and still they have nothing but a scary, dysfunctional, barely cohesive party to present to the nation. None of this can hold; it's just desperate last gasps which is why it's all about GOTV.
* Political cowards --- possibly. political criminals --- DEFINITELY
* This was my favorite moment tonight. Bernie Sanders saying, "It has never occurred to me as a candidate to figure out a way to deny the vote to people because they might vote against me." One could tell what a low opinion he has of Republicans who undermine voting rights.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bernie Sanders Slams GOP On Voting Rights: 'They're Political Cowards!'
By Tierney Sneed, November 6, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called Republicans "political cowards" for their efforts to restrict voting rights and suggested a constitutional amendment might be necessary to protect the franchise.
"Maybe this is personal because I run for office. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win," Sanders said, when Rachel Maddow brought the topic up at Friday's MSNBC Democratic 2016 Forum."It has never occurred to me as a candidate to figure out a way to deny the vote to people because they might vote against me. People who do that are political cowards. They're afraid of a fair election."
He said the push for voting restrictions was a "a real crisis in this country" and said legislation or "maybe a constitutional amendment" was needed to guarentee that everyone 18 years of age is registered to vote.
"What Republican are doing is so un-American, so outrageous. It is literally beyond belief," Sanders said. "They're political cowards and if they can't face a free election, they should get another job."
...................................................................................................................................................................
So what else is new?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* She has a point. The $900+ million they're coordinating on this election cycle could have been used to alleviate a lot of suffering in this world. But, I don't know, maybe they think people who aren't born into wealth or don't know how to pull strings should just be doomed to suffer whatever fate has in store for them.
* They back who they think will win, don't fool yourself, if Bernie was the clear likely winner, they'd find a way to send him money. It's all they know.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clinton Calls Koch Brothers 'Some Of The Biggest Deck Stackers You Can Find'
By Tierney Sneed, November 6, 2015
Democratic 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton used a question about Wall Street at Friday's MSNBC Democratic Candidates Forum to call the Koch brothers "some of the biggest deck stackers you can find."
"They are protecting their corporate interest, the fossil fuel industry. They're protecting the continuation of pumping carbon into the atmosphere," she said.
Host Rachel Maddow had asked Clinton about her relationship with Wall Street. She defended her record, pointing to her call for the end of a special tax break for hedge fund managers.
"I think it's a bigger issue. I do think people rightly believed that corporations and the powerful have stacked the deck in their favor and against everyone else," she said. "That's not just what happens on Wall Street. The Koch brothers are some of the biggest deck stackers you can find. And that has nothing to do about the financial market."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* She has a point. The $900+ million they're coordinating on this election cycle could have been used to alleviate a lot of suffering in this world. But, I don't know, maybe they think people who aren't born into wealth or don't know how to pull strings should just be doomed to suffer whatever fate has in store for them.
* They back who they think will win, don't fool yourself, if Bernie was the clear likely winner, they'd find a way to send him money. It's all they know.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Clinton Calls Koch Brothers 'Some Of The Biggest Deck Stackers You Can Find'
By Tierney Sneed, November 6, 2015
Democratic 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton used a question about Wall Street at Friday's MSNBC Democratic Candidates Forum to call the Koch brothers "some of the biggest deck stackers you can find."
"They are protecting their corporate interest, the fossil fuel industry. They're protecting the continuation of pumping carbon into the atmosphere," she said.
Host Rachel Maddow had asked Clinton about her relationship with Wall Street. She defended her record, pointing to her call for the end of a special tax break for hedge fund managers.
"I think it's a bigger issue. I do think people rightly believed that corporations and the powerful have stacked the deck in their favor and against everyone else," she said. "That's not just what happens on Wall Street. The Koch brothers are some of the biggest deck stackers you can find. And that has nothing to do about the financial market."
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Oh, Pat. You're nothing if not incredibly predictable." Especially when you make one of your fake predictions.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* What Pat needs to do is get together with Ben Carson and build some monumental pyramids (we can make Mexico pay for them AND supply the labor) and fill them with grain for the hard times ahead.
* Maybe...but it's equally likely that God will visit financial ruin on Pat Robertson for being arrogant enough to think he speaks for God! I'm pretty sure that God doesn't need your help, Pat. Now sit down, be quiet and try to develop some humility.
* And all this time I thought it was greed and corruption that was going to tank our economy
* Ahhh! You describe religion exactly!
* Who needs brains when ya got Jeebus?
* In Pat's long, long, way too long, career he has made many predicitions on behalf of God. He's been wrong every single time. If he were a weatherman, he would've been fired decades ago. Apparently, God's a lot less picky in who speaks for him.
* Who besides Pat himself said God appointed him as God's spokesperson?
* A significant clue to Pat's belief system is that his God seems always to hate
the same things he does.
COMMENTS:
* What Pat needs to do is get together with Ben Carson and build some monumental pyramids (we can make Mexico pay for them AND supply the labor) and fill them with grain for the hard times ahead.
* Maybe...but it's equally likely that God will visit financial ruin on Pat Robertson for being arrogant enough to think he speaks for God! I'm pretty sure that God doesn't need your help, Pat. Now sit down, be quiet and try to develop some humility.
* And all this time I thought it was greed and corruption that was going to tank our economy
* Ahhh! You describe religion exactly!
* Who needs brains when ya got Jeebus?
* In Pat's long, long, way too long, career he has made many predicitions on behalf of God. He's been wrong every single time. If he were a weatherman, he would've been fired decades ago. Apparently, God's a lot less picky in who speaks for him.
* Who besides Pat himself said God appointed him as God's spokesperson?
* A significant clue to Pat's belief system is that his God seems always to hate
the same things he does.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pat Robertson Says God Will Hit U.S. With 'Financial Collapse' Because Of LGBT Rights
As it turns out, no lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights milestone goes unnoticed by Pat Robertson.
The conservative televangelist, once again, predicted that God will destroy America's financial markets on "The 700 Club" this week, Right Wing Watch reports, as punishment for recent anti-LGBT discrimination victories, the national legalization of same-sex marriage and other recent community strides.
"We're going to force bakers to bake homosexual wedding cakes," he said. "We're gonna force photographers to take pictures, and we're gonna force women to go into men's bathrooms and men to go into women's bathrooms, and we're going to blur the identity of the sexes because of this stuff. It's insanity!"
Those developments, he claimed, could prompt a "massive financial collapse."
"I think if God is going to hurt this country, that’s probably the way he’d do it," he said.
Of course, this isn't the first time that Robertson has linked financial strife to the LGBT community. In September, he suggested that same-sex marriage was to blame for recent turmoil in the global stock market.
"Our finances right now are hanging by a thread," he said. "If there is was ever a time that we need the grace of God, it is now, and unless something is done to change the courts and to change the way this country is going, it is just a question of time before the fabric ruptures, and we’ll all suffer because of it."
Oh, Pat. You're nothing if not incredibly predictable.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Pat Robertson Says God Will Hit U.S. With 'Financial Collapse' Because Of LGBT Rights
The televangelist's arguments are getting more and more anti-gay -- and predictable -- by the day.
By Curtis M. Wong, November 6, 2015As it turns out, no lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights milestone goes unnoticed by Pat Robertson.
The conservative televangelist, once again, predicted that God will destroy America's financial markets on "The 700 Club" this week, Right Wing Watch reports, as punishment for recent anti-LGBT discrimination victories, the national legalization of same-sex marriage and other recent community strides.
"We're going to force bakers to bake homosexual wedding cakes," he said. "We're gonna force photographers to take pictures, and we're gonna force women to go into men's bathrooms and men to go into women's bathrooms, and we're going to blur the identity of the sexes because of this stuff. It's insanity!"
Those developments, he claimed, could prompt a "massive financial collapse."
"I think if God is going to hurt this country, that’s probably the way he’d do it," he said.
Of course, this isn't the first time that Robertson has linked financial strife to the LGBT community. In September, he suggested that same-sex marriage was to blame for recent turmoil in the global stock market.
"Our finances right now are hanging by a thread," he said. "If there is was ever a time that we need the grace of God, it is now, and unless something is done to change the courts and to change the way this country is going, it is just a question of time before the fabric ruptures, and we’ll all suffer because of it."
Oh, Pat. You're nothing if not incredibly predictable.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, November 5, 2015
"... mum’s the word from the professional bloviators." What else would we expect?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fox Newsers Suddenly Quiet When Their ‘Hero Cop’ Revealed to Be Fraudster
Several of the cable net’s conservative commentators were quick to tie a cop’s death to ‘anti-cop violence,’ but they’ve gone silent now that it’s been proven otherwise.
By Andrew Kirell, November 5, 2015
It was a narrative perfectly suited for Fox News’s conservative commentariat. Too bad it was total bullshit.
Three assailants allegedly shot and killed Lt. Joe Gliniewicz, a wholesome small-town cop and Army vet known locally as “GI Joe”; a 30-year veteran of the force; a married father of four; a local hero.
His death had to be part of an ominous trend of societal menaces murdering law officers in cold blood, supposedly fueled by President Obama’s “anti-cop” rhetoric and the Black Lives Matter movement. Several Fox Newsers were quick to make that connection just as Fox Lake, Illinois, police set out to find the three perpetrators Gliniewicz mentioned over the radio just before he died.
While the news of GI Joe’s death broke nationwide on Tuesday, Sept. 1, Fox’s resident quack doctor Keith Ablow sat on the set of the network’s Outnumbered show and lamented how the president has “inflamed racial discord in this country and put a target on the backs of American police officers,” using the recent murder of a Texas deputy at a gas station as a jumping-off point.
“This is not the only incident of this,” conservative firebrand Andrea Tantaros interrupted, teeing up co-host Sandra Smith to introduce the Fox Lake incident. “This is happening time and time again,” Fox & Friends First’s Ainsley Earhardt chimed in. “This is a dangerous place for the country to be,” Liz MacDonald fretted before Tantaros pivoted back to the role of Black Lives Matter rhetoric in cop slayings.
Hours later, primetime star anchor Megyn Kelly interviewed Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke—an all-too-frequent Fox guest who seems to spend more time bashing black activists on TV than actually, you know… sheriffing. Clarke willfully linked Gliniewicz’s death to how President Obama has “breathed life into this anti-cop sentiment” with his “inflammatory rhetoric.”
That same evening, a cocksure Clarke told Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs that he has been to Fox Lake and knows that Gliniewicz is one of the town’s “finest,” gunned down while “engaged in self-initiative policing, the best policing there is.” He added: “War has been declared on the American police officer.” On Twitter, the lawman continued: “Time to take to the streets to counter Black LIES Matter. Fox Lake, Illinois.”
And on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 5, Eric Bolling used his weekly Cashin’ In monologue (titled “Wake Up, America!”) to connect Gliniewicz being “blown away in cold blood” to a “crisis” of law enforcement officers being killed, in part because President Obama has failed to publicly state that “Blue Lives Matter.”
Flash-forward to this Wednesday when Fox Lake police officials revealed that Gliniewicz’s death was actually a “carefully staged suicide.” As it turns out, the longtime lieutenant had been laundering thousands of dollars from his department’s youth program for his own personal spending on gym memberships, porn websites, and mortgage payments. There were no assailants; GI Joe shot himself rather than face the consequences.
Have any of these Fox pundits corrected the record or issued mea culpas for their rush to connect this twisted story to their political narrative? Wednesday’s edition of Outnumbered, with Tantaros among its hosts, went without a single mention of the news their own network aired just an hour before. (The show did, however, spend an entire segment bashing film director Quentin Tarantino for his remarks against police brutality.)
As for Sheriff Clarke, he spent all day Wednesday tweeting not about “best policing” Gliniewicz’s complete betrayal of his peers, but instead about, yep, “cop-hating” “prick” Quentin Tarantino.
And Eric Bolling? His daily talk show The Five—which frequently gripes about Black Lives Matter—made no mention of Gliniewicz. Don’t hold your breath for a correct-the-record monologue from him this Saturday either.
Of course, it should be noted that Fox’s straight-news reporters—namely Mike Tobin, Shepard Smith, Happening Now, and the network’s cut-in anchors—reported the story, from the start, as a continuing investigation, without tying it to racial tensions or anti-police violence. The way it should be done.
And when they reported the story’s bizarre developments on Wednesday morning, they did so with entirely straight language. But mum’s the word from the professional bloviators.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fox Newsers Suddenly Quiet When Their ‘Hero Cop’ Revealed to Be Fraudster
Several of the cable net’s conservative commentators were quick to tie a cop’s death to ‘anti-cop violence,’ but they’ve gone silent now that it’s been proven otherwise.
By Andrew Kirell, November 5, 2015
It was a narrative perfectly suited for Fox News’s conservative commentariat. Too bad it was total bullshit.
Three assailants allegedly shot and killed Lt. Joe Gliniewicz, a wholesome small-town cop and Army vet known locally as “GI Joe”; a 30-year veteran of the force; a married father of four; a local hero.
His death had to be part of an ominous trend of societal menaces murdering law officers in cold blood, supposedly fueled by President Obama’s “anti-cop” rhetoric and the Black Lives Matter movement. Several Fox Newsers were quick to make that connection just as Fox Lake, Illinois, police set out to find the three perpetrators Gliniewicz mentioned over the radio just before he died.
While the news of GI Joe’s death broke nationwide on Tuesday, Sept. 1, Fox’s resident quack doctor Keith Ablow sat on the set of the network’s Outnumbered show and lamented how the president has “inflamed racial discord in this country and put a target on the backs of American police officers,” using the recent murder of a Texas deputy at a gas station as a jumping-off point.
“This is not the only incident of this,” conservative firebrand Andrea Tantaros interrupted, teeing up co-host Sandra Smith to introduce the Fox Lake incident. “This is happening time and time again,” Fox & Friends First’s Ainsley Earhardt chimed in. “This is a dangerous place for the country to be,” Liz MacDonald fretted before Tantaros pivoted back to the role of Black Lives Matter rhetoric in cop slayings.
Hours later, primetime star anchor Megyn Kelly interviewed Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke—an all-too-frequent Fox guest who seems to spend more time bashing black activists on TV than actually, you know… sheriffing. Clarke willfully linked Gliniewicz’s death to how President Obama has “breathed life into this anti-cop sentiment” with his “inflammatory rhetoric.”
That same evening, a cocksure Clarke told Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs that he has been to Fox Lake and knows that Gliniewicz is one of the town’s “finest,” gunned down while “engaged in self-initiative policing, the best policing there is.” He added: “War has been declared on the American police officer.” On Twitter, the lawman continued: “Time to take to the streets to counter Black LIES Matter. Fox Lake, Illinois.”
And on the morning of Saturday, Sept. 5, Eric Bolling used his weekly Cashin’ In monologue (titled “Wake Up, America!”) to connect Gliniewicz being “blown away in cold blood” to a “crisis” of law enforcement officers being killed, in part because President Obama has failed to publicly state that “Blue Lives Matter.”
Flash-forward to this Wednesday when Fox Lake police officials revealed that Gliniewicz’s death was actually a “carefully staged suicide.” As it turns out, the longtime lieutenant had been laundering thousands of dollars from his department’s youth program for his own personal spending on gym memberships, porn websites, and mortgage payments. There were no assailants; GI Joe shot himself rather than face the consequences.
Have any of these Fox pundits corrected the record or issued mea culpas for their rush to connect this twisted story to their political narrative? Wednesday’s edition of Outnumbered, with Tantaros among its hosts, went without a single mention of the news their own network aired just an hour before. (The show did, however, spend an entire segment bashing film director Quentin Tarantino for his remarks against police brutality.)
As for Sheriff Clarke, he spent all day Wednesday tweeting not about “best policing” Gliniewicz’s complete betrayal of his peers, but instead about, yep, “cop-hating” “prick” Quentin Tarantino.
And Eric Bolling? His daily talk show The Five—which frequently gripes about Black Lives Matter—made no mention of Gliniewicz. Don’t hold your breath for a correct-the-record monologue from him this Saturday either.
Of course, it should be noted that Fox’s straight-news reporters—namely Mike Tobin, Shepard Smith, Happening Now, and the network’s cut-in anchors—reported the story, from the start, as a continuing investigation, without tying it to racial tensions or anti-police violence. The way it should be done.
And when they reported the story’s bizarre developments on Wednesday morning, they did so with entirely straight language. But mum’s the word from the professional bloviators.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Who really cares?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* it seems to me that when a person chooses to run for public office, he or she is knowingly exposing themself to the prying eyes of the media. I'm not defending the silliness of CNN's story but I am suggesting that it goes to the veracity and judgement and inherent shortsightedness of a candidate if he chooses to lie about any part of his background. Clinton may have transgressed in the past and her transgressions have been duly noted by the media. It seems that politicians as a lot are a lying lot. It's just not fair to us being forced to choose the candidate who hasn't been caught yet....a pax on all of their houses
* This is what happens when a political party consumed by hatred open their door to the right wing lunatics. The GOP is now one big asylum, with inmates running the daily operation on the asylum.
* Grain storage 'eh? Why then grain stored in jars alongside tombs? Are we really going to start going backwards? The earth isn't just a few thousands years old-even God said a thousand years is but a blink and it took him 7 days of blinking to make earth; who are the mathematicians running the numbers here? Joseph built the Pyramids now? Pyramids built over many centuries, average life span then, except for like Moses, was under 35. Even if joseph had lived to 75, unheard of then, would have had tough time finishing just one.
* Candidates frequently make their past look BETTER than it actually was, Dr. Carson is breaking New Ground painting his youth as more troubled and violent than it truly was. How can you make wise decisions in the future if you have falsified in serious ways your past? I suggest Ben Carson has to give chapter and verse to his "fallen Angel" narrative or apologize.
* He's just another republican lying unnecessarily to his low information base.
* It wouldn't surprise me if he fabricated that background. If he was such a "hothead" as he says (beating people with baseball bats), it's hard to believe that would have gone unnoticed by the schools, police or friends. It's probably a marketing gimmick for the Republican primary. He is trying to be what a conservative white party wants of a black man. They want the "angry" black thug who sees the error of his ways and suddenly agrees with everything the conservative white party espouses. Just being a successful black doctor isn't enough to sell in the Republican party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson Fabricated Violent Juvenile Past, CNN Investigation Suggests
By Jordan Charlton, November 5, 2015
Ben Carson has made his transformation from a violent boy to soft-spoken, responsible adult a cornerstone of his campaign, but a CNN investigation found no evidence to back up Carson’s claims of being a problem child.
On the campaign trail, the former neurosurgeon has recounted being an angry juvenile in his native Detroit — stabbing, throwing rocks at people, hurling bricks and beating others with baseball bats.
But through interviews with nine former classmates and friends, CNN was unable to verify any incidents supporting those claims.
One former classmate told the network: “I don’t know nothing about that… it would have been all over the whole school.” Another classmate told CNN, “I personally do not have knowledge of those incidents… I wondered, ‘When did that happen?'”
A former friend of Carson said if he was as big a hothead as he described, it wouldn’t be a secret.”He got through his day trying not to be noticed… I remember him having a pocket saver. He had thick glasses. He was skinny and unremarkable.”
“CNN was unable to independently confirm any of the incidents, which Carson said occurred when he was a juvenile,” CNN reporters Scott Glover and Maeve Reston wrote in their online account.
Carson’s campaign declined to provide the network with any corroborating evidence of his violent past, calling the CNN investigation a “witch hunt.”
“Why would anyone cooperate with your obvious witch hunt?” campaign adviser Armstrong Williams wrote in an email last Friday. “No comment and moving on…… Happy Halloween!!!!!”
Carson is leading the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for the first time, narrowly edging Donald Trump 24.8 to to 24.6.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* it seems to me that when a person chooses to run for public office, he or she is knowingly exposing themself to the prying eyes of the media. I'm not defending the silliness of CNN's story but I am suggesting that it goes to the veracity and judgement and inherent shortsightedness of a candidate if he chooses to lie about any part of his background. Clinton may have transgressed in the past and her transgressions have been duly noted by the media. It seems that politicians as a lot are a lying lot. It's just not fair to us being forced to choose the candidate who hasn't been caught yet....a pax on all of their houses
* This is what happens when a political party consumed by hatred open their door to the right wing lunatics. The GOP is now one big asylum, with inmates running the daily operation on the asylum.
* Grain storage 'eh? Why then grain stored in jars alongside tombs? Are we really going to start going backwards? The earth isn't just a few thousands years old-even God said a thousand years is but a blink and it took him 7 days of blinking to make earth; who are the mathematicians running the numbers here? Joseph built the Pyramids now? Pyramids built over many centuries, average life span then, except for like Moses, was under 35. Even if joseph had lived to 75, unheard of then, would have had tough time finishing just one.
* Candidates frequently make their past look BETTER than it actually was, Dr. Carson is breaking New Ground painting his youth as more troubled and violent than it truly was. How can you make wise decisions in the future if you have falsified in serious ways your past? I suggest Ben Carson has to give chapter and verse to his "fallen Angel" narrative or apologize.
* He's just another republican lying unnecessarily to his low information base.
* It wouldn't surprise me if he fabricated that background. If he was such a "hothead" as he says (beating people with baseball bats), it's hard to believe that would have gone unnoticed by the schools, police or friends. It's probably a marketing gimmick for the Republican primary. He is trying to be what a conservative white party wants of a black man. They want the "angry" black thug who sees the error of his ways and suddenly agrees with everything the conservative white party espouses. Just being a successful black doctor isn't enough to sell in the Republican party.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson Fabricated Violent Juvenile Past, CNN Investigation Suggests
By Jordan Charlton, November 5, 2015
Ben Carson has made his transformation from a violent boy to soft-spoken, responsible adult a cornerstone of his campaign, but a CNN investigation found no evidence to back up Carson’s claims of being a problem child.
On the campaign trail, the former neurosurgeon has recounted being an angry juvenile in his native Detroit — stabbing, throwing rocks at people, hurling bricks and beating others with baseball bats.
But through interviews with nine former classmates and friends, CNN was unable to verify any incidents supporting those claims.
One former classmate told the network: “I don’t know nothing about that… it would have been all over the whole school.” Another classmate told CNN, “I personally do not have knowledge of those incidents… I wondered, ‘When did that happen?'”
A former friend of Carson said if he was as big a hothead as he described, it wouldn’t be a secret.”He got through his day trying not to be noticed… I remember him having a pocket saver. He had thick glasses. He was skinny and unremarkable.”
“CNN was unable to independently confirm any of the incidents, which Carson said occurred when he was a juvenile,” CNN reporters Scott Glover and Maeve Reston wrote in their online account.
Carson’s campaign declined to provide the network with any corroborating evidence of his violent past, calling the CNN investigation a “witch hunt.”
“Why would anyone cooperate with your obvious witch hunt?” campaign adviser Armstrong Williams wrote in an email last Friday. “No comment and moving on…… Happy Halloween!!!!!”
Carson is leading the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for the first time, narrowly edging Donald Trump 24.8 to to 24.6.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"They have the ultimate effect of ... discouraging them from seeking benefits." That's why Walker is doing it!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Walker should be tested to see if he actually has brain activity....Hey Wisconsin, wake up a get this loser out of there!
* just look and listen to Walker for five minutes and tell me he's not on drugs.
* This issue is kind of like an IQ test. If you are dumb enough to believe that drug testing the poor is effective (especially cost effective) at anything, you should not be eligible to vote or hold office.
* The politicians receive state money. Lets drug test them. Be a good start..
* just one of the reasons I would NOT want to live in Wisconsin, and one of the reasons I do NOT buy Wisconsin products.
* ....and he wonders why no one bought into his Presidential plans.....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin Is Moving Ahead With Its Plan to Drug-Test Welfare Recipients
By Zeeshan Aleem, November 5, 2015
Republican Scott Walker's recent bid for the presidency may have been a spectacular failure, but as of this week, he's one step closer to success on an issue of great importance to him — dogging the poor.
The Wisconsin governor announced on Tuesday that he has approved an agency rule that paves the way for the state to implement its program of drug testing some applicants for food stamps, job training or unemployment insurance. The drug-testing program became law as part of the state's budget earlier this year, and will begin on Nov. 9, according to the Capital Times.
Under the program, "individuals who test positive for a controlled substance without a prescription would be eligible for a drug treatment plan," according to Walker's office.
The policy is dear to Walker's heart. When he launched his short-lived campaign for the White House, drug testing for public assistance beneficiaries was among the accomplishments he listed in his kickoff speech before a national audience.
"In Wisconsin, we enacted a program that says that adults who are able to work must be enrolled in one of our job training programs before they can get a welfare check," he said. "Now, as of the budget I just signed, we are also making sure they can take a drug test."
Walker has largely built his national profile on fights with labor unions and assaults on the poor at the behest of wealthy donors. He once described his battles against unions while in office as preparation for fighting the Islamic State terrorist group.
His renewed focus on drug-testing applicants for public assistance is particularly troubling. There's little compelling evidence that screening programs are necessary or that they work. They have the ultimate effect of degrading the poor and discouraging them from seeking benefits.
In February, ThinkProgress analyzed the results of welfare drug-testing data in seven states, and found that applicants were not just testing positive at extraordinarily low rates — they were testing lower than the general population.
Here's the breakdown of the proportion of welfare applicants who tested positive for drug use, according to ThinkProgress:
Missouri 0.1%
Oklahoma 8.9%
Utah 0.3%
Kansas 0.4%
Mississippi 0.1%
Tennessee 0.2%
Arizona 0.002%
Those numbers are stunning in light of the fact that the general population uses illegal drugs at a rate of around 9%. ThinkProgress' report is only one of a number of closer state-level investigations that have confirmed that general trend.
Why are those numbers so low? Any obvious reason throws the purpose of the program into doubt. Perhaps most people seeking public assistance are too poor to buy illicit drugs, in which case drug testing is a waste of resources. Perhaps prospective applicants who are consuming drugs, fearful that testing positive will result in a criminal penalty or foreclose future opportunities to receive benefits, avoid seeking the help they need.
This, of course, is to say nothing of the problematic assumption that testing positive for use is considered evidence of addiction.
Wisconsin law will require someone who tests positive for illicit drug use to go through a state-funded drug treatment program. But given the stacks of evidence that drug testing is either unneeded or a distortion of public understanding of drug use, making screening for drug use a condition for benefits won't be benefiting Wisconsin's taxpayers.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Walker should be tested to see if he actually has brain activity....Hey Wisconsin, wake up a get this loser out of there!
* just look and listen to Walker for five minutes and tell me he's not on drugs.
* This issue is kind of like an IQ test. If you are dumb enough to believe that drug testing the poor is effective (especially cost effective) at anything, you should not be eligible to vote or hold office.
* The politicians receive state money. Lets drug test them. Be a good start..
* just one of the reasons I would NOT want to live in Wisconsin, and one of the reasons I do NOT buy Wisconsin products.
* ....and he wonders why no one bought into his Presidential plans.....
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin Is Moving Ahead With Its Plan to Drug-Test Welfare Recipients
By Zeeshan Aleem, November 5, 2015
Republican Scott Walker's recent bid for the presidency may have been a spectacular failure, but as of this week, he's one step closer to success on an issue of great importance to him — dogging the poor.
The Wisconsin governor announced on Tuesday that he has approved an agency rule that paves the way for the state to implement its program of drug testing some applicants for food stamps, job training or unemployment insurance. The drug-testing program became law as part of the state's budget earlier this year, and will begin on Nov. 9, according to the Capital Times.
Under the program, "individuals who test positive for a controlled substance without a prescription would be eligible for a drug treatment plan," according to Walker's office.
The policy is dear to Walker's heart. When he launched his short-lived campaign for the White House, drug testing for public assistance beneficiaries was among the accomplishments he listed in his kickoff speech before a national audience.
"In Wisconsin, we enacted a program that says that adults who are able to work must be enrolled in one of our job training programs before they can get a welfare check," he said. "Now, as of the budget I just signed, we are also making sure they can take a drug test."
Walker has largely built his national profile on fights with labor unions and assaults on the poor at the behest of wealthy donors. He once described his battles against unions while in office as preparation for fighting the Islamic State terrorist group.
His renewed focus on drug-testing applicants for public assistance is particularly troubling. There's little compelling evidence that screening programs are necessary or that they work. They have the ultimate effect of degrading the poor and discouraging them from seeking benefits.
In February, ThinkProgress analyzed the results of welfare drug-testing data in seven states, and found that applicants were not just testing positive at extraordinarily low rates — they were testing lower than the general population.
Here's the breakdown of the proportion of welfare applicants who tested positive for drug use, according to ThinkProgress:
Missouri 0.1%
Oklahoma 8.9%
Utah 0.3%
Kansas 0.4%
Mississippi 0.1%
Tennessee 0.2%
Arizona 0.002%
Those numbers are stunning in light of the fact that the general population uses illegal drugs at a rate of around 9%. ThinkProgress' report is only one of a number of closer state-level investigations that have confirmed that general trend.
Why are those numbers so low? Any obvious reason throws the purpose of the program into doubt. Perhaps most people seeking public assistance are too poor to buy illicit drugs, in which case drug testing is a waste of resources. Perhaps prospective applicants who are consuming drugs, fearful that testing positive will result in a criminal penalty or foreclose future opportunities to receive benefits, avoid seeking the help they need.
This, of course, is to say nothing of the problematic assumption that testing positive for use is considered evidence of addiction.
Wisconsin law will require someone who tests positive for illicit drug use to go through a state-funded drug treatment program. But given the stacks of evidence that drug testing is either unneeded or a distortion of public understanding of drug use, making screening for drug use a condition for benefits won't be benefiting Wisconsin's taxpayers.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Religious conservatives and their organizations, however, are not going away." Too damned bad.....
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The religious right in every faith, in every country is a disease that destroys society from within. It is not going away, true: but it can and will be fought like any other disease that threatens our well-being. In the end, we will control it as well as we have controlled polio, t.b and malaria.
* That super drug you indirectly speak of is higher education.
* Problem with that reasoning is that so much else in the right's message is anti minorities. The GOP is has too many leaders tied to bigoted messages and that will keep minorities who might otherwise agree with a great deal of their message away. One particular aspect of the growing latino demographic is that these people are coming from countries with a lot of problems tied to extremists. They are not coming here to get involved in politics, but coming for work, shelter, and a bit of the American dream. The left may not resonate with them well, but the right comes across as hateful.
* All faiths can believe whatever they want to believe, just keep it out of my face and out of my government.
* The Conservative Republicans are the poison of our government, and the religion is contributing the worst part.
* Keep religion out of politics or life will become miserable.
...................................................................................................................................................................
6 Predictions for the Future of the Religious Right
By Neil J. Young, November 5, 2015
For more than forty years now, the Religious Right has been a powerful force in the United States, helping reshape the Republican Party and realign the nation's politics and culture.
Typically considered a grassroots movement of conservative Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons, and the political organizations that mobilized their efforts in the 1970s and 1980s, the Religious Right's intellectual and ideological origins trace back further into the twentieth century. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, religious conservatives mounted a theological defense against the powerful ecumenical movement of mainline Protestantism and began to stitch together a loose alliance that would make later political partnerships possible.
As historians and other scholars continue to investigate the "long history" of the Religious Right, many observers also wonder what the future holds in a secularizing United States. Here, then, are six predictions about the Religious Right in the years ahead:
1. The Religious Right is not going away, but predictions of its demise will continue.
No sooner had the Religious Right emerged than those from both inside and outside of the movement began forecasting its end. Religious Right leaders have often threatened to abandon politics should politicians and, particularly, the Republican Party ignore their agenda, but they continue to be the GOP's most important constituency. Secular commentators, on the other hand, read almost every election result and demographic forecast as a death knell for the Religious Right.
Religious conservatives and their organizations, however, are not going away. While the United States is becoming less Christian, most conservative Christian denominations remain vibrant and will continue to exert their influence in public life. Indeed, the sense of being a shrinking demographic will galvanize religious conservatives' commitment to politics as a means of safeguarding their religious identity and defending "religious freedom," the latest framework for the politics of the Religious Right.
2. The Religious Right will become more racially diverse, especially its leadership.
Changing demographics mean significant transformations for the nation's politics. The Religious Right will not be immune from these shifts, but will instead reflect them. Historically, the Religious Right has included almost only white evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons. But with the nation's rising Hispanic population and the rapid growth of Asian-American evangelicals, plus an increasingly vocal and visible number of conservative African-American religious leaders, like Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., the faces of the Religious Right will showcase the nation's racial diversity. Many of these non-white Americans may never join the Republican Party, but their backing of socially conservative candidates and legislation will be critical for the Religious Right's political victories going forward.
3. Mormons will play a more visible role in the Religious Right and national politics.
Since the 1970s, the LDS Church has played an active role in national politics, but much of that work has been under the radar. Working through grassroots organizations that often hid their LDS affiliation, Mormons helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, pass anti-gay legislation, and enact anti-obscenity laws, among other "moral issues," as the church defined them.
In 2008, however, the LDS Church prominently led efforts to pass California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative outlawing same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney's two presidential bids brought increased attention to the church and helped mainstream Mormonism to the American public.
During the Obama presidency, the LDS Church has become one of the most outspoken and vigilant defenders of religious liberty, a move that has helped strengthen political ties with conservative Catholics and evangelicals. As evangelicals have softened, or at least reevaluated, some of their longstanding attitudes about Mormonism, they have also helped lay the groundwork for a much more visible and politically-active LDS Church.
4. Abortion will continue to be a top issue; same-sex marriage will not.
Although the federal right to abortion has been legal for more than forty years longer than the federal right for same-sex couples to marry, religious conservatives see abortion's legality as far more vulnerable and will continue to seek to overturn it.
On the other hand, they will generally accept marriage equality as "settled law." The key difference here is the generational factor. Younger religious conservatives, including evangelicals, support same-sex marriage more than twice as much as the oldest generation. Conversely, younger religious conservatives are just as likely to oppose abortion rights as their elders.
As public polling continues to indicate an almost equally divided nation on the question of abortion, these trends bode well for keeping abortion in the political spotlight and at the forefront of the Religious Right's agenda.
5. The Religious Right will go local.
Other than George W. Bush's presidency, the Religious Right has had few political victories at the national level in the last twenty-five years. Locally, religious conservatives have fared far better in chipping away at abortion rights, implementing conservative educational curricula and textbooks, and (for a time) preventing same-sex marriage. This represents a concerted effort hatched in the 1990s by Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed who said he would "exchange the Presidency for 2,000 school board seats" so that he could transform the nation at the community level. Expect increased focus on local and state elections to advance religious conservatives' causes in the years ahead.
6. The Religious Right will go global.
The Religious Right has also found incredible success on the international stage, particularly in Africa and South America. As Mormonism, Catholicism, and evangelicalism, particularly Pentecostalism, have grown on those continents, American religious conservatives have spotted fertile ground for their political objectives, such as the work of American evangelicals in supporting anti-gay measures in Uganda.
There's a feeling among some American religious leaders that the United States is a lost cause, but many of them believe certain foreign countries can defend and advance the political concerns of religious conservatism.
Additionally, what will be most interesting to look for is whether conservative religious leaders from other countries, such as Brazil's Silas Malafaia, who will have increasing relevance in the States thanks to changing demographic patterns, will involve themselves in American politics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The religious right in every faith, in every country is a disease that destroys society from within. It is not going away, true: but it can and will be fought like any other disease that threatens our well-being. In the end, we will control it as well as we have controlled polio, t.b and malaria.
* That super drug you indirectly speak of is higher education.
* Problem with that reasoning is that so much else in the right's message is anti minorities. The GOP is has too many leaders tied to bigoted messages and that will keep minorities who might otherwise agree with a great deal of their message away. One particular aspect of the growing latino demographic is that these people are coming from countries with a lot of problems tied to extremists. They are not coming here to get involved in politics, but coming for work, shelter, and a bit of the American dream. The left may not resonate with them well, but the right comes across as hateful.
* All faiths can believe whatever they want to believe, just keep it out of my face and out of my government.
* The Conservative Republicans are the poison of our government, and the religion is contributing the worst part.
* Keep religion out of politics or life will become miserable.
...................................................................................................................................................................
6 Predictions for the Future of the Religious Right
By Neil J. Young, November 5, 2015
For more than forty years now, the Religious Right has been a powerful force in the United States, helping reshape the Republican Party and realign the nation's politics and culture.
Typically considered a grassroots movement of conservative Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons, and the political organizations that mobilized their efforts in the 1970s and 1980s, the Religious Right's intellectual and ideological origins trace back further into the twentieth century. In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, religious conservatives mounted a theological defense against the powerful ecumenical movement of mainline Protestantism and began to stitch together a loose alliance that would make later political partnerships possible.
As historians and other scholars continue to investigate the "long history" of the Religious Right, many observers also wonder what the future holds in a secularizing United States. Here, then, are six predictions about the Religious Right in the years ahead:
1. The Religious Right is not going away, but predictions of its demise will continue.
No sooner had the Religious Right emerged than those from both inside and outside of the movement began forecasting its end. Religious Right leaders have often threatened to abandon politics should politicians and, particularly, the Republican Party ignore their agenda, but they continue to be the GOP's most important constituency. Secular commentators, on the other hand, read almost every election result and demographic forecast as a death knell for the Religious Right.
Religious conservatives and their organizations, however, are not going away. While the United States is becoming less Christian, most conservative Christian denominations remain vibrant and will continue to exert their influence in public life. Indeed, the sense of being a shrinking demographic will galvanize religious conservatives' commitment to politics as a means of safeguarding their religious identity and defending "religious freedom," the latest framework for the politics of the Religious Right.
2. The Religious Right will become more racially diverse, especially its leadership.
Changing demographics mean significant transformations for the nation's politics. The Religious Right will not be immune from these shifts, but will instead reflect them. Historically, the Religious Right has included almost only white evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons. But with the nation's rising Hispanic population and the rapid growth of Asian-American evangelicals, plus an increasingly vocal and visible number of conservative African-American religious leaders, like Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., the faces of the Religious Right will showcase the nation's racial diversity. Many of these non-white Americans may never join the Republican Party, but their backing of socially conservative candidates and legislation will be critical for the Religious Right's political victories going forward.
3. Mormons will play a more visible role in the Religious Right and national politics.
Since the 1970s, the LDS Church has played an active role in national politics, but much of that work has been under the radar. Working through grassroots organizations that often hid their LDS affiliation, Mormons helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, pass anti-gay legislation, and enact anti-obscenity laws, among other "moral issues," as the church defined them.
In 2008, however, the LDS Church prominently led efforts to pass California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative outlawing same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney's two presidential bids brought increased attention to the church and helped mainstream Mormonism to the American public.
During the Obama presidency, the LDS Church has become one of the most outspoken and vigilant defenders of religious liberty, a move that has helped strengthen political ties with conservative Catholics and evangelicals. As evangelicals have softened, or at least reevaluated, some of their longstanding attitudes about Mormonism, they have also helped lay the groundwork for a much more visible and politically-active LDS Church.
4. Abortion will continue to be a top issue; same-sex marriage will not.
Although the federal right to abortion has been legal for more than forty years longer than the federal right for same-sex couples to marry, religious conservatives see abortion's legality as far more vulnerable and will continue to seek to overturn it.
On the other hand, they will generally accept marriage equality as "settled law." The key difference here is the generational factor. Younger religious conservatives, including evangelicals, support same-sex marriage more than twice as much as the oldest generation. Conversely, younger religious conservatives are just as likely to oppose abortion rights as their elders.
As public polling continues to indicate an almost equally divided nation on the question of abortion, these trends bode well for keeping abortion in the political spotlight and at the forefront of the Religious Right's agenda.
5. The Religious Right will go local.
Other than George W. Bush's presidency, the Religious Right has had few political victories at the national level in the last twenty-five years. Locally, religious conservatives have fared far better in chipping away at abortion rights, implementing conservative educational curricula and textbooks, and (for a time) preventing same-sex marriage. This represents a concerted effort hatched in the 1990s by Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed who said he would "exchange the Presidency for 2,000 school board seats" so that he could transform the nation at the community level. Expect increased focus on local and state elections to advance religious conservatives' causes in the years ahead.
6. The Religious Right will go global.
The Religious Right has also found incredible success on the international stage, particularly in Africa and South America. As Mormonism, Catholicism, and evangelicalism, particularly Pentecostalism, have grown on those continents, American religious conservatives have spotted fertile ground for their political objectives, such as the work of American evangelicals in supporting anti-gay measures in Uganda.
There's a feeling among some American religious leaders that the United States is a lost cause, but many of them believe certain foreign countries can defend and advance the political concerns of religious conservatism.
Additionally, what will be most interesting to look for is whether conservative religious leaders from other countries, such as Brazil's Silas Malafaia, who will have increasing relevance in the States thanks to changing demographic patterns, will involve themselves in American politics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
"... the panel will waste taxpayer dollars and is redundant, since other committees are already investigating Planned Parenthood." Right on!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Funniest, most patently ridiculous lie from the GOP is them pretending that they care even a little bit about "the sanctity of all human life". It's the same party the spits on the poor, wants to take away people's access to health care, and never met a war that they didn't love.
* If they cared so much about the sanctity of life, then where are their bills, and legislation to stamp out child hunger and poverty in this country? You can't call yourself a "Christian Nation" if you don't act like a Christian.
* They say they want to save lives inthe womb,but they choose to deny those lives their freedom to pursue an education and the pursuit of happiness and the right to vote. Republicans cut food stamps, and education just so they can spend taxpayer money on wars, shutting down the government, and self-made scandals. The Repubs vote all elections while the Democrats sit at home and let them rule over them. Democrats either get out and vote every time or live under the Republican dictators on the poor side of civilization. All because the Dems did not VOTE.
* I don't understand how the GOP officials get women to vote for them.
* Just another battle in the republican war on women
* It is sad that Republican males have to prove they are manly by bullying women. These are the same cry babies that can't stand 12 minutes of questions.
* The obvious answer is the Coat Hanger Committee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Coin A More Accurate Name For House Committee Probing Planned Parenthood
House Republicans have convened a Select Investigative Panel to investigate "the grisly practices of big abortion providers." But Democrats, who considered boycotting the committee because they think it will target Planned Parenthood exclusively, on Wednesday unveiled their preferred name: the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement, also named Democrats to sit on the committee.
“I am proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health,” Pelosi said. “Hard-working families deserve better than a taxpayer-funded Republican Select Committee fixated on dismantling women’s health. As Republicans try to take affordable family planning and lifesaving preventive care away from millions of American women, Democrats will be in the room to fight for the truth.”
The Democrats on the committee are Reps. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), who will be the ranking member; Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.); Diana DeGette (Colo.); Jackie Speier (Calif.); Suzan DelBene (Wash.); and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.). Statements from the members used Pelosi's name for the committee, rather than the GOP's designated title.
Eight Republicans have been named to the panel.
Republicans convened the committee to capitalize on sting videos made by an anti-abortion group that show Planned Parenthood staff members discussing fetal tissue donations for research. Federal law allows the organization to accept reimbursements to cover the processing and transfer of the tissues, but anti-abortion advocates have claimed the provider profited from the donations. Planned Parenthood has insisted it has done nothing illegal and various state and federal investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Republicans say a special committee is necessary to it can find "the truth" and "build on our work to protect the sanctity of all human life.” But Democrats say the panel will waste taxpayer dollars and is redundant, since other committees are already investigating Planned Parenthood.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Funniest, most patently ridiculous lie from the GOP is them pretending that they care even a little bit about "the sanctity of all human life". It's the same party the spits on the poor, wants to take away people's access to health care, and never met a war that they didn't love.
* If they cared so much about the sanctity of life, then where are their bills, and legislation to stamp out child hunger and poverty in this country? You can't call yourself a "Christian Nation" if you don't act like a Christian.
* They say they want to save lives inthe womb,but they choose to deny those lives their freedom to pursue an education and the pursuit of happiness and the right to vote. Republicans cut food stamps, and education just so they can spend taxpayer money on wars, shutting down the government, and self-made scandals. The Repubs vote all elections while the Democrats sit at home and let them rule over them. Democrats either get out and vote every time or live under the Republican dictators on the poor side of civilization. All because the Dems did not VOTE.
* I don't understand how the GOP officials get women to vote for them.
* Just another battle in the republican war on women
* It is sad that Republican males have to prove they are manly by bullying women. These are the same cry babies that can't stand 12 minutes of questions.
* The obvious answer is the Coat Hanger Committee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Democrats Coin A More Accurate Name For House Committee Probing Planned Parenthood
Six Dems will serve on what they call the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
By Samantha Lachman, November 4, 2015House Republicans have convened a Select Investigative Panel to investigate "the grisly practices of big abortion providers." But Democrats, who considered boycotting the committee because they think it will target Planned Parenthood exclusively, on Wednesday unveiled their preferred name: the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement, also named Democrats to sit on the committee.
“I am proud to name six strong champions of women, families and facts to stand up against the latest Republican assault on women’s health,” Pelosi said. “Hard-working families deserve better than a taxpayer-funded Republican Select Committee fixated on dismantling women’s health. As Republicans try to take affordable family planning and lifesaving preventive care away from millions of American women, Democrats will be in the room to fight for the truth.”
The Democrats on the committee are Reps. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), who will be the ranking member; Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.); Diana DeGette (Colo.); Jackie Speier (Calif.); Suzan DelBene (Wash.); and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.). Statements from the members used Pelosi's name for the committee, rather than the GOP's designated title.
Eight Republicans have been named to the panel.
Republicans convened the committee to capitalize on sting videos made by an anti-abortion group that show Planned Parenthood staff members discussing fetal tissue donations for research. Federal law allows the organization to accept reimbursements to cover the processing and transfer of the tissues, but anti-abortion advocates have claimed the provider profited from the donations. Planned Parenthood has insisted it has done nothing illegal and various state and federal investigations have found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Republicans say a special committee is necessary to it can find "the truth" and "build on our work to protect the sanctity of all human life.” But Democrats say the panel will waste taxpayer dollars and is redundant, since other committees are already investigating Planned Parenthood.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Which is it, Trump? "Hardball" (after the CNN debate last month) or "softball" (this past Tuesday)?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The questions were valid and only seemed easy because Sec. Clinton was prepared to answer them.
* Maybe Trump should go after the Benghazi panel. Did you ask Hillary any tough questions because Hillary made it look easy. Say what you will about Hillary, she knows how to debate and is one tough broad.
* I don't care who has tougher moderators, I want tough candidates. If your moderator is tough, all the better for you to show off how cool headed and strong you are rather than whining like a little *****.
* With all the crybaby GOP candidates, they don't need moderators, they need babysitters!
* The difference is simple. When they ask Hillary tough questions and attack her personally she eats them for lunch. When they ask the GOP, they whine and cry. LOL
* Republicans can't win on the issues so they have to blame the media and manufacture scandals (Benghazi).
* Hillary Clinton recently endured 11 hours of well scripted "gotcha" questions by some of the most rabid conservatives on Capitol Hill without flinching, but 10 republican candidates complain about a shared 2 hour debate being unfair? I think we know who the losers are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Anderson Cooper drops a hammer on Donald Trump after being accused of going easy on Hillary Clinton
By Colin Campbell, November 4, 2015
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper called out Donald Trump on his show Tuesday night after the Republican presidential candidate accused Cooper of lobbing "softballs" during the first Democratic presidential debate.
Cooper noted that Trump praised his "tough" and "firm" moderating the day after the CNN debate last month. He then played a clip from Tuesday afternoon, when Trump said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't get tough enough questions at the event.
"Hillary Clinton was given all softballs," Trump said. "I mean, she wasn't asked one tough question."
Cooper seemed puzzled.
"Not one tough question, he said," the anchor repeated. "Now, keeping him honest, he's actually right. We didn't ask Hillary Clinton one tough question. We actually asked her a lot more than that. Here are a few examples."
Cooper then played a rapid-fire highlight reel of him grilling Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, at the debate.
Watch Cooper firing back at Trump below:
To be fair, Trump clarified what he meant during a contentious Wednesday morning interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo. Trump said he was simply comparing the Democrats' CNN debate with last week's CNBC Republican debate.
At the CNBC event, which was widely criticized by the Republican field, Trump's first question was about whether he was running a ridiculous "comic book" presidential campaign. A moderator said in a follow-up that Trump would have a better chance at "flying away from that podium by flapping your arms" than balancing the deficit with his tax plan.
"I thought Anderson Cooper did a great job," Trump told Cuomo. "But they weren't tough like [ours]. And ours weren't even questions. They were statements given over by the moderators."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The questions were valid and only seemed easy because Sec. Clinton was prepared to answer them.
* Maybe Trump should go after the Benghazi panel. Did you ask Hillary any tough questions because Hillary made it look easy. Say what you will about Hillary, she knows how to debate and is one tough broad.
* I don't care who has tougher moderators, I want tough candidates. If your moderator is tough, all the better for you to show off how cool headed and strong you are rather than whining like a little *****.
* With all the crybaby GOP candidates, they don't need moderators, they need babysitters!
* The difference is simple. When they ask Hillary tough questions and attack her personally she eats them for lunch. When they ask the GOP, they whine and cry. LOL
* Republicans can't win on the issues so they have to blame the media and manufacture scandals (Benghazi).
* Hillary Clinton recently endured 11 hours of well scripted "gotcha" questions by some of the most rabid conservatives on Capitol Hill without flinching, but 10 republican candidates complain about a shared 2 hour debate being unfair? I think we know who the losers are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Anderson Cooper drops a hammer on Donald Trump after being accused of going easy on Hillary Clinton
By Colin Campbell, November 4, 2015
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper called out Donald Trump on his show Tuesday night after the Republican presidential candidate accused Cooper of lobbing "softballs" during the first Democratic presidential debate.
Cooper noted that Trump praised his "tough" and "firm" moderating the day after the CNN debate last month. He then played a clip from Tuesday afternoon, when Trump said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't get tough enough questions at the event.
"Hillary Clinton was given all softballs," Trump said. "I mean, she wasn't asked one tough question."
Cooper seemed puzzled.
"Not one tough question, he said," the anchor repeated. "Now, keeping him honest, he's actually right. We didn't ask Hillary Clinton one tough question. We actually asked her a lot more than that. Here are a few examples."
Cooper then played a rapid-fire highlight reel of him grilling Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, at the debate.
Watch Cooper firing back at Trump below:
#Trump on #DemDebate: @HillaryClinton "wasn't asked one tough question.” @andersoncooper is Keeping Them Honest https://t.co/IhJqYFtrgXThe Cooper questions:
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) November 4, 2015
- "You were against same-sex marriage, now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies, now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozens of times, you even called it 'the gold standard,' now suddenly last week you're against it. Will you say anything to get elected?"
- "You are going to be testifying before Congress next week about your emails. For the last eight months, you haven't been able to put this issue behind you. You dismissed it. You joked about it. You called it a mistake. What does that say about your ability to handle far more challenging crises as president?"
- "In all candor, you and your husband are part of the 1%. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?"
- "You spearheaded the 'reset' with Russia. Did you underestimate the Russians? And as president, what would your response to Vladimir Putin be right now in Syria?"
- "What would you do for African-Americans in this country that President Obama couldn't?"
- "Do you change your political identity based on who you're talking to?"
To be fair, Trump clarified what he meant during a contentious Wednesday morning interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo. Trump said he was simply comparing the Democrats' CNN debate with last week's CNBC Republican debate.
At the CNBC event, which was widely criticized by the Republican field, Trump's first question was about whether he was running a ridiculous "comic book" presidential campaign. A moderator said in a follow-up that Trump would have a better chance at "flying away from that podium by flapping your arms" than balancing the deficit with his tax plan.
"I thought Anderson Cooper did a great job," Trump told Cuomo. "But they weren't tough like [ours]. And ours weren't even questions. They were statements given over by the moderators."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Louie, you need to isolate yourself!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The state of Texas sure know how to pick their political dipshitz
* I'd rather ship all the religious to an island and see if they can survive.
* Why not put all these evangelical frauds on an island and see if their precious jeebus saves them?
* He seems to miss the point that gay people come from straight couples. So if the straight couples have some gay kids then nature has worked against him.
* Is this the best you've got, Texas? Really? When are you folks going to secede?
* You foolish Texan, gay people are not trying to take over the world and stop heterosexual people from having babies. They just want to not be persecuted.
* Let's send infertile heterosexuals to an island and see what happens. When they fail to reproduce, can we ban their marriage rights too?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Congressman Wants To Put Gay People On An Island To See If They Die Out
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took his opposition to same-sex marriage to an entirely new level during a speech at Virginia's Liberty University last week.
Gohmert, who previously compared the treatment of marriage equality opponents to how Nazis persecuted Jews during World War II, argued that even Americans who don't believe in God should be able to see that same-sex relationships aren't natural, Right Wing Watch reports. He went on to suggest conducting a "totally secular" congressional study that would prove it, too.
"How about if we take four heterosexual couples, and put them on an island where they have everything they need to live and exist, and we take four couples of just men and put them on an island where they have all they need to survive," he said. "And then let's take four couples of just women and put them on an island, and then let's come back in 100 years and see which one nature favors."
It isn't the first time Gohmert has made the deserted island suggestion. In July, he slammed the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling on same-sex marriage, arguing that Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg "ought to be impeached" for participating in the case.
Outlining the deserted island plan in more detail, Gohmert suggested a 100- to 200-year waiting period to determine "which one nature says is the preferred marriage."
It may only be November, but that island suggestion has us dreaming of warm sunsets and tropical beaches, Louie. We're guessing that's not what you intended!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The state of Texas sure know how to pick their political dipshitz
* I'd rather ship all the religious to an island and see if they can survive.
* Why not put all these evangelical frauds on an island and see if their precious jeebus saves them?
* He seems to miss the point that gay people come from straight couples. So if the straight couples have some gay kids then nature has worked against him.
* Is this the best you've got, Texas? Really? When are you folks going to secede?
* You foolish Texan, gay people are not trying to take over the world and stop heterosexual people from having babies. They just want to not be persecuted.
* Let's send infertile heterosexuals to an island and see what happens. When they fail to reproduce, can we ban their marriage rights too?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas Congressman Wants To Put Gay People On An Island To See If They Die Out
Stay classy, Louie Gohmert.
By Curtis M. Wong, November 4, 3015Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took his opposition to same-sex marriage to an entirely new level during a speech at Virginia's Liberty University last week.
Gohmert, who previously compared the treatment of marriage equality opponents to how Nazis persecuted Jews during World War II, argued that even Americans who don't believe in God should be able to see that same-sex relationships aren't natural, Right Wing Watch reports. He went on to suggest conducting a "totally secular" congressional study that would prove it, too.
"How about if we take four heterosexual couples, and put them on an island where they have everything they need to live and exist, and we take four couples of just men and put them on an island where they have all they need to survive," he said. "And then let's take four couples of just women and put them on an island, and then let's come back in 100 years and see which one nature favors."
It isn't the first time Gohmert has made the deserted island suggestion. In July, he slammed the Supreme Court's June 26 ruling on same-sex marriage, arguing that Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg "ought to be impeached" for participating in the case.
Outlining the deserted island plan in more detail, Gohmert suggested a 100- to 200-year waiting period to determine "which one nature says is the preferred marriage."
It may only be November, but that island suggestion has us dreaming of warm sunsets and tropical beaches, Louie. We're guessing that's not what you intended!
...................................................................................................................................................................
One more crazy idea from Ben Carson. How much do we have to learn before he's dismissed out of hand? Do we want his finger on the nuclear button?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He may be too crazy to fail and people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time could make him president if too many sane people don't vote.
* You know, it would be fine for Carson to just say, "Hey, 17 years ago I had some unconventional ideas on some things." Except, he won't, because he is beholden to his Sky Pappy. He's the leader of the Not Ready For White House Players.
* I truly can't believe this man is leading a national party in polling for the presidency....
* It is not unusual to see an otherwise intelligent person spout inanities because of his or her religious beliefs. Carson is a prime example.
* It is unusual for that person to then get thousands (millions?) of people to believe they should lead them as President.
* Be aware everyone, Carson is a way out end Of Days religious cult fanatic. He is not a real christian. He worships doomsday Revelations and armegeddon not Christ and love. And this makes him kinda insane
* He believes in the rapture - want him to have the nuclear codes? I don't.
* another day, another strange theory from Carson
* What's really scary is that about 20% of the voters actually think this religious fanatic has the right stuff to be President.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson's Strange Theory About The Egyptian Pyramids
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson once vocalized an odd theory about Egyptian history.
According to a video unearthed by BuzzFeed on Wednesday, Carson posited in a 1998 commencement address at Andrews University that the pyramids in Egypt were used for grain storage rather than as tombs for ancient kings and queens.
"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," Carson said, referring to the Old Testament. "Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, [something to store that grain] would have to be something awfully big, if you stop and think about it."
Carson appeared to be referencing the biblical figure of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt and later went on to advise the Egyptian pharaoh to store grain due to a coming famine.
The famed neurosurgeon, who is currently the front-runner for the GOP nomination, added in the speech that he didn't think aliens built the pyramids, as some conspiracy theorists have stated.
"And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons," he said. "And various of scientists have said, 'well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how.' You know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you."
J.G. Manning, a professor of classics who studies Egyptian history at Yale University, called Carson's version of events "lunatic."
"It's a biblical view of the pyramids," he told The Huffington Post. "It just has no basis in fact."
Asked Wednesday by CBS News whether he still believed the pyramids were primarily used for grain storage, Carson said, "It's still my belief, yes."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* He may be too crazy to fail and people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time could make him president if too many sane people don't vote.
* You know, it would be fine for Carson to just say, "Hey, 17 years ago I had some unconventional ideas on some things." Except, he won't, because he is beholden to his Sky Pappy. He's the leader of the Not Ready For White House Players.
* I truly can't believe this man is leading a national party in polling for the presidency....
* It is not unusual to see an otherwise intelligent person spout inanities because of his or her religious beliefs. Carson is a prime example.
* It is unusual for that person to then get thousands (millions?) of people to believe they should lead them as President.
* Be aware everyone, Carson is a way out end Of Days religious cult fanatic. He is not a real christian. He worships doomsday Revelations and armegeddon not Christ and love. And this makes him kinda insane
* He believes in the rapture - want him to have the nuclear codes? I don't.
* another day, another strange theory from Carson
* What's really scary is that about 20% of the voters actually think this religious fanatic has the right stuff to be President.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson's Strange Theory About The Egyptian Pyramids
Say what?
By Igor Bobic, November 4, 2015Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson once vocalized an odd theory about Egyptian history.
According to a video unearthed by BuzzFeed on Wednesday, Carson posited in a 1998 commencement address at Andrews University that the pyramids in Egypt were used for grain storage rather than as tombs for ancient kings and queens.
"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," Carson said, referring to the Old Testament. "Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, [something to store that grain] would have to be something awfully big, if you stop and think about it."
Carson appeared to be referencing the biblical figure of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt and later went on to advise the Egyptian pharaoh to store grain due to a coming famine.
The famed neurosurgeon, who is currently the front-runner for the GOP nomination, added in the speech that he didn't think aliens built the pyramids, as some conspiracy theorists have stated.
"And when you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they’d have to be that way for various reasons," he said. "And various of scientists have said, 'well, you know there were alien beings that came down and they have special knowledge and that’s how.' You know, it doesn’t require an alien being when God is with you."
J.G. Manning, a professor of classics who studies Egyptian history at Yale University, called Carson's version of events "lunatic."
"It's a biblical view of the pyramids," he told The Huffington Post. "It just has no basis in fact."
Asked Wednesday by CBS News whether he still believed the pyramids were primarily used for grain storage, Carson said, "It's still my belief, yes."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)