Michael Moore & MoveOn.Org Produce A Vile Video For The Democrats

CAUTION: There is obscene language in this video:

 

Here's another vile video, and it comes with a CAUTION just like the other one.

 

Both instant comic classics. I suppose Okie was just as offended by the racy political cartoon of the mid-1800's too. But he was barely 25 at the time so we'll have to forgive him.

 

Zing! Very little, if anything, personally offends me. What DOES offend me is our country's current unemployment, the sour economy, Obama's refusal to work with Republicans, the NDAA, the Benghazi cover-up, more Americans needing welfare than ever before, Obamacare being shoved down America's throat and Hillary Clinton's fat ass.

 

No one is TRYING to offend you. Make fun of you sure, but offending you is just gravy.

 

I got a good chuckle out of both videos.

Here's what really made me laugh.

That is classic!

 

Parallel universe I tells ya.

 

Harry Reid has vowed not to work with Romney should he be elected. That's the same game plan the Democrats have used for the last 6 years and for the last 4 years in Obama's case. Nothing's changed; the Democrats keep saying "no" to a conservative agenda. Unlike Obama, Romney will at least seek bi-partisanship (but it doesn't look like he'll get it from Reid). What a liberal jerk.

View attachment 720

 

Because primarying any Republican willing to work with Democrats is so bi-partisan. Using a record number of filibusters to stop legislation you once sponsored is so bi-partisan. Signing a pledge to an unelected lobbyist is so bi-partisan.


Gridlock in Congress? Blame the GOP
By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
updated 8:55 AM EDT, Mon May 21, 2012

Julian Zelizer says that since 2007, congressional Republicans have taken the partisan wars to new extremes.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Julian Zelizer: Congress is reaching a point where it will no longer be able to function
Observers are starting to note that both parties are not equally to blame, Zelizer says
Since 2007, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters over 360 times, a record
Zelizer: Republican activists now target any party member who can be tagged as centrist
Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" (Times Books) and of the new book "Governing America" (Princeton University Press).
(CNN) -- Congress is reaching a point where it will no longer be able to function at all. Over the past two years, some members of the Republican Party have ramped up the partisan wars on Capitol Hill. They are threatening to bring the legislative process to a standstill.
For many years, journalists and scholars have lamented the rise of partisan polarization on Capitol Hill. The number of moderates has vastly declined and the number of bills that receive bipartisan support has greatly diminished. The usual culprits range from the advent of the 24-hour news cycle to changing demographics.
But now observers are starting to note that both parties are not equally to blame, especially in recent years.
In their new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks," Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein -- two of the most prominent talking heads in Washington, known for their balanced view and proclivity toward moderation -- say that the Republican Party is to blame.
"The GOP," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed based on the book, "has become an insurgent outlier in American politics." Mann and Ornstein trace the partisan style back to the emergence of Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist in the 1970s, when the two men promoted a style of slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners politics that has remained integral to the strategy of congressional Republicans.

Julian Zelizer
There is always a certain amount of nostalgia in American politics. The notion that Congress used to be a better place is one of the staple arguments in public rhetoric. But there are times when things are worse than usual.
While both parties have played roles in the growth of polarization since the 1970s, since 2007 congressional Republicans have been taking the partisan wars to new extremes in several areas.
The first is with the kind of brinksmanship budgetary politics that has now become normative. Last week, House Speaker John Boehner once again threatened that Republicans would not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless Democrats agreed to certain tax and spending policies sought by the GOP. Republicans have used this tactic repeatedly in the past few years, each time bringing the nation closer to the brink of default.
This is no way to decide on a budget or to handle the nation's debt. Holding the debt ceiling hostage to win political battles has undermined international confidence in the U.S. political system. It has also created an unhealthy atmosphere where politicians are willing to take great risks with the goal of winning certain legislative battles. There need to be some limits to what legislators are willing to do in the pursuit of victory.
The second way Republicans push the envelope of partisanship is with the filibuster. As political junkies know, use of the filibuster has greatly increased since the 1970s. Both parties have been guilty. A tool once reserved for high-profile legislation such as civil rights became a normalized tool of combat making the Senate a supermajoritarian body on almost every decision.
Senators don't even have to filibuster anymore. They can simply raise the threat and that brings the discussion to an end. Senators have also employed additional tactics such as anonymous holds, whereby senators can secretly prevent action on a bill and nobody can know who was responsible.

But the number of filibusters by Republicans has escalated, and they have been far more willing to use the tactic than their opponents. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.
Finally, there has been a much sharper shift to the right within the Republican Party than there has been to the left in the Democratic Party. Here, too, the data is rather clear.
In January, political scientists Kenneth Poole and Christopher Hare concluded, based on their close analysis of the roll call vote, that "in the last few Congresses, the overlap has vanished; that is, the most liberal Republican is to the right of the most conservative Democrat."
Last week, the political-science blog The Monkey Cage pointed out that Sen. Richard Lugar's political positions have changed little since he entered the Senate in 1977, and yet: "In his first term in Congress, Sen. Lugar was the 23rd most moderate Republican in the Senate; in the most recent term (through 2011), he was the fifth most moderate."
As Lugar's recent primary loss shows, Republican activists are now targeting any member of the party who can be tagged as centrists, and they are pushing their caucus farther to the right, making compromise almost impossible.
The current hardening of these procedural wars has some resemblance to the 1950s, when Southern committee chairmen, who were then the kings of Capitol Hill, used their power in the House and Senate to prevent any kind of progress on issues such as civil rights or health care.
Although a series of events allowed for a huge legislative breakthrough in 1964 and 1965, the Southern committee chairs regained power after the 1966 midterm elections and continued to assert their power in the closed rooms of Capitol Hill. The situation reached a boiling point in the 1970s, when in the aftermath of Watergate, reformers transformed the system by weakening committee chairs, empowering party leaders and opening up the legislative process through sunshine rules and more.
It could be that Republicans will take things so far that we may reach one of those rare moments when congressional reform happens. If reform does not happen, and these trends continue, the nation will be left with an inoperative legislative process that can't handle the problems we face with the economy, social problems and foreign policy.
This is a situation that should be of equal concern to the right, left and center. Without a functional Congress, the nation's government will not be able to live up to the challenges of the day.

 

Chris Rock tells us how white Barack Obama is:

 

Essentially, Chris Rock is right about Obama. Only the crazy Right-wingers seem to see him as this radical black Muslim because as Clint Eastwood pointed out, only they can see this invisible Obama the rest of us don't recognize as the guy in the White House. Hell, the whitest president we ever had, Ronnie himself, raised taxes more than Obama has, called high taxes on lower income people crazy, and increased the deficit far more than Obama has thus making him a big spending, big government radical. Maybe Obama is white. And by the way, I thought you were offended by the term "white". Now it's OK? WTF!

 

Just repeating what Chris Rock said. I'm not offended by the term "white", I just find it inaccurate. We're all African, you know. I just find it racist when people use racist terms. Do you find racist terms offensive?

 

Well, if you have to go back to the dawn of man to make a point about racial issues, you might just be grasping at straws for who knows what reason. Why stop there? Why not go back to the primordial puddle we sprang from?
Arguments that you continue to make like this one are why I label you Mr. Tangential. All you really accomplish with this tactic is avoiding the substance of the current issues of society and race and I can't help but think that is most likely your goal in the first place. Or maybe you are completely unaware of the dynamic but you are just happy that the result is that you don't have to think about current racial issues in any meaningful way. Either way, you add nothing to the discussion worth considering as a consequence. I'm not trying to sound insulting although I realize that I probably do, I'm just pointing out the limitations either intentional or unintentional of your ability do rationally discuss the issue of race.

 

The problem with people like you is that you want to put a racial slant on every topic, but the fact remains that all modern humans are members of the homo sapiens species. It's true that some of us have more melanin in our skin than others and while that seems like a valid reason for some people to discriminate against others, it isn't valid to me. Humanity began in Africa (at least the presiding scientific theories say that) so, therefore by living in the United States, we can all be considered African-American. Does that logic elude you somehow?

I realize that you would prefer to foment tension along so-called "racial" lines, but your idiocy just doesn't work for me.

 

To your first point, which one of us posted the Chris Rock video about Obama being white? Oh yeah, that was you and then your tangential tendencies took over and you were off and running towards your adherence to our very beginnings as human beings when society wasn't even an issue much less race. You pretend that race isn't an issue in this country and maybe for you it isn't but I kind of doubt that based on your strange argument that we all came from the same place early on therefore race isn't an issue. Like I said, if you have to go back to cavemen to make a point, you just might not have a point to make in the first place.

You completely misuse the term African American as it currently is defined in the modern world. Not one definition anywhere defines African Americans as all descendants of the original African peoples, but you do for the sake of one of the lamest, strangest, eye-rolling arguments ever put forth in this forum. You are the king of the tangential with this one easily.

You, like many Right-wingers, tend to see things in absolutes. Your use of "every" and "all" and "people like you" speak to this very point. It's not that I don't hear what you are saying and I certainly know your leanings but you have exhausted any credibility you may have had with your tangential nature. I personally think that you've just bumped up against the limitations of your own intellect and have nothing further of substance to contribute as far as I'm concerned. That's just a fancy way of saying that your opinion doesn't really mean anything to me. But don't despair, their are other Right-wingers here that bumped up against their intellectual limitations long ago that actually do hang on your every word. They are the ones that "like" your posts.

 

Sorry, but unlike you, I decline to classify people based on the color of their skin. By your remark "the original African peoples" you've segregated them from the rest of the populace of the earth when, in fact, we are all "originally African". Do you think Africans are different than other people? If so what, in your mind, makes them different and what makes them "original"? Aren't we all originally from Africa? Aren't you an "original African" person?

View attachment 723

 

Lets take your absurd argument to another level of absurdity. Technically, the continent has only been named Africa since the days of the Romans. And they were basically only referring to the part of Africa known today as Tunisia. So how can we all be African American if Africa has only existed as Africa for a few thousand years?

You seemed to ignore my point that only you refer to all descendents from Africa as African Americans. Nobody else, just you. I figure that if you ignore perfectly good points like that, you must be unable to refute them. That makes you wrong and me right. You don't get to just ignore arguments made and go on patting yourself on the back like they were never made and hope to sound like anything other than an idiot.

BTW. How often do you refer to yourself as "African American?"

 

I probably qualify more as an "African American" than anyone else here (and maybe even most negroid people in America). At least I have lived there for several years.

 

Hey, thanks for adding a whole new level of absurdity. You never disappoint.

 

It's not that I couldn't refer to myself as African-American, it's just that I don't. Any human being, including you and I, have the option of referring to ourselves as African-American (that is, if we live anywhere on the American continent). I refer to myself as "American" simply as a reference to my geographical location as opposed to an aspect of my heritage. If I wanted to sub-categorize myself, I could call myself "African-American" but, in my opinion, to HYPHENATE is to DISCRIMINATE.

What I think you're failing to grasp is that, first and foremost, all the people on earth are homo sapiens. Or "humans" if you prefer. You could even call us "Terrans" if you want. Actually, it makes no difference to me what one wants to label himself. But, for those who choose to categorically label themselves, I'm pleased they choose "Africa" as the first descriptor before adding the hyphenation (e.g., "African-American", "African-European", "African-Antarctican", etc.).