Swimming in the Deep End of the Bunning Hypocrisy Pool

Now that the dust has settled, it’s time to weigh in on the Jim Bunning “controversy”. Bunning was alone in blocking a $10 billion spending bill that included extension of unemployment benefits. Now let’s get the obvious out of the way. Bunning is a hypocrite to end all hypocrites. None of George W. Bush’s wars were paid for yet Bunning voted time and again to fund them. He also voted to give tax breaks to the wealthy without worrying about finding another source for that revenue. The left went berserk with outrage. A few brave souls defended his fiscal courage, like the Wall Street Journal (should we be surprised?). And of course there was the occasional dumbass like John Kyl who suggested that unemployment benefits discourage people from going out and finding work. (More on that at the bottom of the page.)

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=jim+bunning&iid=8151033″ src=”e/6/6/d/Kentucky_Senator_Bunning_add7.jpg?adImageId=10972107&imageId=8151033″ width=”234″ height=”352″ /]

But we need to swim over to the deep end of the hypocrisy pool. You see except for a few Republicans, virtually everyone either publicly or privately condemned Bunning’s actions. So what we really witnessed was a GOP who less than a week after opposing health care reform on the grounds of financial irresponsibility, jump on Bunning for holding up this legislation. True, they were not as vocal as the Democrats but they still felt Bunning had gone off the deep end. (Bunning actually has an interesting history of being a loon.) Senator Susan Collins of Maine urged the Kentucky Senator to back down.

What I love about this is the dirty little secret that was reveled by the whole incident. Everyone in Washington likes to spend money. Now we already knew this from the first six years of the Bush administration where a Republican Congress took us from surplus to deficit. Since Democrats have always put ideology above fiscal responsibility the remaining two years of Bush’s term went no better. But we were led to believe that the times had changed. The Republican party had learned its lesson and they were gonna rail against reckless Democratic spending every chance they got. That is the big health care reform argument right? But the truth is Republicans want to get re-elected as badly as anyone else and denying people unemployment benefits is not the way to get re-elected. If it weren’t for his voting record, Bunning might rightly be called a hero for walking the GOP talk. Alas this was just a case of one of Bunning’s neurons misfiring.

It kinda makes a guy sympathize with the old rallying cry “throw the bums out.”

The GOP Really Doesn’t Love America

Let’s return to Jon Kyl a minute. In defending Bunning, Kyl said that “”continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let me get this straight. The GOP, the ra-ra-sisboomba party that loves America, the real Americans, the hard-working Americans, thinks that the average American would prefer to receive unemployment benefits than to get off their ass and find a job. Do I understand this right? The industrious American who doesn’t want the government interfering in their lives, would in the same breath gladly go on the dole.

This is the fascinating paradox of the Republican perspective. Don’t provide government programs because the more the government does for people the more they will be slaves to the government. Yet these are the same people who supposedly don’t want the government in their lives. So which is it? Are Americans lazy good-for-nothings who will suck up every government program or are they independent proud citizens who want government out of their way? Democrats and Barack Obama in particular get flack for being elitists who disrespect and condescend to the average American. But what could be more disrespectful than to believe that providing a helping hand to Americans will be taken advantage of by them? The GOP doesn’t love the American people. The GOP thinks the American people are a bunch of lazy loafers who need “tough love”. I call that condescension piled on top of hypocrisy.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Swimming in the Deep End of the Bunning Hypocrisy Pool

  1. Rutherford ,

    Back on my topic of discussion from a previous thread which you conveniently ignored, these words have been running thru my mind as of late concerning our disputes about amongst other things, healthcare:

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Isn’t it about time and overdue to come to an agreement that as we have come to an impasse, our differences too broad, our tenets unmatched, our wishes and dreams polar opposites, that maybe it is time to get serious about the above considerations before blood shed?

    P.S. – the lie that we had budget surpluses at any time during the Clinton regime has been refuted by me on this board. Cut the fucking lying, as I’ve grown weary of having to continually correct you. Or are you so fucking dumb you keep forgetting?

  2. Progressives are Americans lazy good-for-nothings who will suck up every government program…

    You forgot to add gullible, naive, inane, incompetent and stupid. I would add leeches, parasites, deviants, and immoral slugs too.

  3. Your closing you touch on the truth. The government no matter the party has spoiled into a rotten mass of anti American scumbags. The illusion of appeasement to the middle class for example is nothing but bs. A final push for allies in the class envy struggle the inducing of the middle class with entitlements is something everyone should be ashamed,disgusted and afraid of.
    Of course the Dems are the worse at this.

  4. Also Bunning is a bitter person and perhaps a bit of a kook. Bottom line though he wanted to go out with his head held high and would have if people embraced the blatant honesty in his early comments regard funding.
    Alas the Hill is full of pussies and commies on both sides of the aisle and in the dark corners and behind closed doors.
    Buns could’ve served as an example of some integrity but the crooks and liars would rather finish him off and send him back to KY wishing his former colleagues had used some KY. Soon enough every American is gonna wish they had some KY. PAYGO? Yeah we pay and our future goes,down the crapper.

  5. Alfie, BIC, Rabbit, Gorilla, LOL,

    I was out on the treadmill, ruminating about this whole charade of health care, land grabs, cronyism, leftist political lies and propaganda, bigotry, every problem a government solution, killing us with taxes, fees, needless services, judicial fiats, constitutional perversion and cowardice, etc…

    And I think I have come to the conclusion this is what we ought to do. Wait until after the election – see what happens. If things haven’t changed significantly, I think we need to convince people who believe as we do that government is out of control and endangering the nation, that it is time to act. Don’t wait until 2012…say January 2011.

    I’m telling all of you that we can’t wait too much longer. It would appear to me that people like Rutherford and company are only growing more emboldened and we’ve let this crap go on too long thinking they might come to their senses.

    If people don’t wake up soon, I am afraid the damage will be irreparable, and even desperate measures won’t be enough.

  6. LOL yeah Tex, the capitalism cartoon is a hoot.

    As for the comment before that, and some others you’ve made recently, I think you’ve been watching too much of Rick Perry, that batsh*t crazy TX Governor who talks about beating Kay Bailey Hutchison like he won the general election. 😆

    So secession is the answer hey? You know I felt Hippie’s reaction to you was a bit melodramatic but even I am now beginning to wonder. You idly and blithely “hope” for an event more devastating than anything we’ve seen since the Civil War. Pretty disturbing. Slow the treadmill down a notch dude cos it’s jostling your brain.

  7. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

    -Samuel Adams

    It just seems fitting.

  8. Tex, your link doesn’t refute a damn thing. Your link points to debt, not deficit. Go back to the drawing board to prove your point.

    I poked around and there are loads of blog posts talking about the “myth” of Clinton’s surplus but they’re all full of excuses. One said “it was an accidental surplus because capital gains taxes brought in lots of money and then the dot com bubble burst and we lost the capital gains revenue”. So-friggin-what? I don’t care how the surplus was achieved, The bottom line is we had one.

    And don’t you find it interesting that Republicans brag about forcing Clinton to balance the budget during his term? The GOP claims credit for the surplus my friend. You guys can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  9. BiW, your comment is one reason I regret the emergence of the Tea Party … now everyone couches their discontent in grand historical terms, quoting the founding fathers.

    It is melodrama at its finest. I wish I could rewind to the days when social security was introduced to see you guys playing Chicken Little back then.

  10. Rutherford, you’re getting to where you are dumber than Wally. What in the hell does this mean?

    Your link points to debt, not deficit. Go back to the drawing board to prove your point.

    So each year’s deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,it’s called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt.

    Do you see a number trending down any place idiot? Hell no, you don’t. Again, I’m showing you hard numbers and still you deny you’re lying.

    You’re so dumb, you don’t even know when you’ve been pawned.

  11. It is melodrama at its finest. I wish I could rewind to the days when social security was introduced to see you guys playing Chicken Little back then.

    I would have been just as against it then as I am now.

    Because it was just as unconstitional then as now.

    You like to cycle back to this argument that says that because we’ve had it for 90, 60, 40 years and its never been overturned, it must be ok. I wonder what this country would look like if principled men had treated another institution with the same deference. Would someone own you, or would you just not be worth the trouble?

    You need to understand, R, that you can’t make half the country carry the other half on its back. And the continued attempts to get us there are building a lot of resentment. The kind that gets ugly sooner or later…sooner if the Chicago Messiah™ pushes this “unprecidented” power grab onto the American People.

  12. So each year’s deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,it’s called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt.

    Tex, you can’t make any argument about deficit and only present debt figures. The debt can go up year to year with revenues also going up year to year creating a surplus. As I said, go back to the drawing board. You can’t prove a deficit argument and only show one side of the balance sheet.

  13. Interestingly, Bunning voted against the paygo bill. His excuse:

    “Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats’ Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks.”

    So much for his commitment to principle.How DARE he make us PROVE it!!!

    Fixed it for you.

  14. Rutherford, good grief. This isn’t differential equations…Do you see one number here that is less than the previous year? Just one? Revenue has already been taken into account doofus. Revenue – Costs = DEBT. Now I am having to do simple mathematics and definitions for you. Take one cumulative deficit number and subtract the previous one.

    Here, I’ll do it for you.

    Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 1950 – 1999

    09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
    09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

    Here, courtesy of Excel – they’re all positive dork.

    Date Deficit Yearly Debt

    9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 130,077,892,717.81
    9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 113,046,997,500.28
    9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 188,335,072,261.61
    9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 250,828,038,426.34
    9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 281,232,990,696.07
    9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 281,261,026,873.94
    9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 346,868,227,617.72
    9/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 399,317,303,824.63
    9/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 431,989,899,919.78
    9/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 –

  15. And then there is the little matter of the fact that the Dems wanted to do this on a unanimous consent…not looking for debate, just everyone approve, and it’s just too important to bother with that nasty old PAYGO thing…that was sooooooo last week. This is A CRISIS!!!! It’s just another ten billion we’ll borrow. We don’t have the time to try to find the money to pay for it!!! We couldn’t possibly deny subsidies to ACORN, or stop Spendulous money earmarked for “This project paid for with Stimulous Spending!” Signs. And North Dakota’s 99th Congressional district couldn’t possibly forego hundreds of millions of dollars it got from Spendulous. At least not now that it has enough cash to spend itself INTO existence!

  16. As Rutherford boasts to the world about Bunning’s hypocrisy of having the unmitigated gall to ask that we pay for that which we give away, I am still awaiting Rutherford’ explanation for this:

    And how Rutherford propose how we pay for Obama Care.

    Hypocrisy, dishonesty, or flat out lying? You make the call. 🙄

  17. OK Tex … you’re saying debt = accumulated deficits hence any surplus should show a decrease in the debt.

    Obviously there are different definitions going on here. Perhaps annual vs cumulative? I don’t know. All I can say is it is common accepted belief that we had a surplus when Bush came into office. I’d have to research some more to figure out how that claim works with the numbers you posted. But I’ve got news for you. If the claim were as easy to dismiss as a simple web link like the one you posted, the claim would never have been made. They have a rationale and I admittedly can’t explain it at the moment.

    I do stand by my claim earlier that the web is full of excuses as to why we had a surplus and no one is posting the list you found which is why I still suspect your list doesn’t prove your point. I just can’t pinpoint why at the moment.

  18. Bunning’s hypocrisy of having the unmitigated gall to ask that we pay for that which we give away

    You don’t get it. Bunning’s premise in isolation is praiseworthy. In context it is hypocrisy. The dude voted against the paygo bill, for starters. Second he voted to fund a war with no money to pay for that war.

    Can’t be defended Tex. He’s just another Washington spender, except this time one of his neurons snapped and he threw a fit.

  19. Rutherford, care to explain the graph for us? Hmmm?

    Now, on to that which I easily thought you could understand and “misundestimated” your abilities.

    All I can say is it is common accepted belief that we had a surplus when Bush came into office.

    It’s a common belief amongst your circles that Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread too, but that ain’t working out either. Tell a lie long enough and it generally becomes fact, so I did a little research myself. The best thing you can say for Clinton’s deficits is that is was possibly moving towards being balanced, but never got there.

    And even that is a ruse, because Clinton was the benefactor of serendipity of a revenue generating bubble called “tech” which begin to disappear about the time he was leaving for a heart transplant. Problem is when the NASDAQ was sitting at over 5,000, you would have looked good managing the budget. And Clinton is frickin’ Einstein compared to the plebe we’ve got now.

    I give Clinton kudos for one thing. Dragged to the table for the 3rd time, he finally signed welfare reform (where are all those starving ghetto mothers?) when Dick Morris he would be a one term President if he didn’t.

  20. Rutherford, you did know the difference between debt and deficit or am I reading your responses wrong?

    There are many people who get laid off with a smile on their faces.

    My wife was hoping she would get laid off. Between not having to pay child care and the benefits themselves, we would have been thrilled. She was bummed when it didn’t happen this year.

    So, get of your high horse dude. It can certainly be an incentive to stay away from a jay oh bee.

    That being said, I agree with you. Bunning is a total hypocrite. Dude had no problem passing TARP.

  21. OK, the Research department of the Rutherford Lawson Blog helped me out here.

    Tex, in 98, 99, 2000 and 2001 we had a surplus. In 99 and 2000 this is true even if you take out net income from social security. This does not mean we had eliminated the debt.

    There is about a 2 trillion dollar difference between your chart and my chart. when it comes to the debt. Your chart refers to “debt outstanding”. Mine refers to “debt held by the public”. I don’t know what the difference is. In my chart, the debt held by the public went down in 98, 99 2000 and 2001 as you would expect.

    You can find an explanation of this here.

    You’ll notice that if accrual accounting is used, the whole argument changes.

    To make matters more complicated, a surplus does not necessarily have to be applied to the nation debt. So the national debt could conceivably increase despite a surplus.

  22. No Rutherford, it’s not that complex. What I gave you comes directly from the U.S. Treasury.

    Here is what it is effective debt as a country is as of yesterday:

    03/04/2010 8,061,072,722,591.94 + 4,484,417,290,440.35 = 12,545,490,013,032.29

    The chart I provided you doesn’t need any cost accounting adjustments. There were no surpluses and I will bet you and your research department a thousand dollars right here that you are wrong.

    When you hear that the current deficit is 12.5 trillion dollars which is what the debt ceiling was at until asked for $14T+, the chart I provided will tally to $12.5 trillion dollars. Our outlays to revenues have negative for years…every year.

    For an explanation, see here:

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    And here is the line “your research department is playing games with”:

    As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

    Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself–mostly borrowing money from social security.

  23. The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” — Author Unknown

    Wish I had written it, because it certainly explains well what I believe.

  24. Tex I’ll look at your craigsteiner link tomorrow when I’m more awake. I would love to know how you dismiss a report by the bi-partisan CBO, which is the link I provided you. That report clearly shows a surplus as well as decreasing public debt.

    The report shows that folks who say we had a surplus in the last years of the Clinton White House are neither crazy nor liars. Now we can throw all sorts of calculations in there to discredit the assertion but the assertion on its face is reasonable.

    More after I read Craig (who I bet is a conservative shill 🙂 ).

  25. As for Author Unknown … he expresses my fear that Sarah Palin might end up President in January of 2013. I’m probably only going to say this once so listen carefully and enjoy.

    Obama’s election was probably as much the typical America celebrity-love, flavor of the month behavior as it was a well thought out informed decision. In other words, I’m not sure the average voter is really capable of choosing a leader who is good for them and when they do, it’s probably as much luck as it is design. The Taco Bell chihuahua could have won the Presidency in 2008 if he distanced himself enough away from George W. Bush.

  26. I’m not sure the average voter is really capable of choosing a leader who is good for them and when they do, it’s probably as much luck as it is design. The Taco Bell chihuahua could have won the Presidency in 2008 if he distanced himself enough away from George W. Bush.

    I suppose that would depend on how you define an “average voter”, but I think that the 2008 result can best be described by the participation of many who did not “have skin in the game”. Well, that and a criminally uncurious press.

  27. Rutherford,

    As for Author Unknown … he expresses my fear that Sarah Palin might end up President in January of 2013.

    You know, I can actually relate to that, even understand that. Now replace Barack Obama with Sarah Palin, and in the theater of your mind know is already President and trying to ram every “theocratic” agenda she can dream up at the cost of $4 Trillion dollars, including shutting down TV and radio stations she believes “godless”.

    Palin appoints Pat Robertson as Chief of Staff, Michelle Bachmann as Secretary of State, Bernie Madoff as Treasurer, Tom Tancredo as Secretary of Defense. James Dobson becomes anointed as Czar to name Czars. Our new Attorney General will be Ken Starr. You can see where this is going “r”. Palin’s biggest push? To eliminate the IRS, build ten more GITMOs, and implement a federal tax rate to one half of one percent. She promises to nuke any country that holds we believe are holding terrorists. Any state that voted Democrat in 2012, will only receive half the assistance of any red state. When asked how we will feed the poor, Palin answers, “The immediate family will do so.” Palin then announces that effectively immediately, all homosexuals will declared mentally disabled and prayed over with hands. Unions will be eliminated.

    And that is what many of feel like we have now not exaggerated by much. A gifted but unqualified man, radical in nature and dangerous in decision, playing with nothing more than a cult of personality. A President with the most inept cabinet we’ve ever witnessed, literally chock full of people calling themselves “green czars”, some professed communists and socialists, a few with known records of anarchy.

    I’m probably only going to say this once so listen carefully and enjoy. Obama’s election was probably as much the typical America celebrity-love, flavor of the month behavior as it was a well thought out informed decision

    And if you would more frequently be honest about Obama, as I know that you know he’s not seasoned either, I wouldn’t make it so personal towards Obama. My hostility towards Obama is actually based more on guys like you and Hippie that push the propaganda and the leftist agenda with half baked truths or outright falsehoods. I don’t actually hate the man, but I do know him to be completely unqualified as President, and when I say I think Obama a narcissist ten orders of magnitude, I’m not joking either. I have never seen somebody so in love with his own image.

  28. “r”,

    As far as Craig being a Conservative shill, I wouldn’t be surprised. But if you can read through his excellent article and prove him wrong, I’ll send you in the mail a gift certificate for you and your wife to go eat someplace nice.

    I like guys like that who will actually cut through the smoke and mirrors and provide in detail exactly how things work. There’s too much game playing in Washington and I for once would like the truth.

  29. “I’m probably only going to say this once so listen carefully and enjoy…….” -R

    You see, that’s exactly what I don’t get about Rutherford. Why only once? Why is an obvious truth such a limited commodity, dished out as some sort of rare gift?

  30. This is rich.

    The guy who is in favor of tough love tactics (reconciliation) to force-feed legislation is now snivelling about tough love to block legislation.

  31. Interestingly, Bunning voted against the paygo bill. His excuse:

    “Unfortunately, Pay-Go is a paper tiger. It has no teeth. I did not vote for the Democrats’ Pay-Go legislation because I knew it was just a political dog-and-pony show to get some good press after some political setbacks.”

    So much for his commitment to principle.” — R

    I’m sorry I’ve missed a good chunk of this, but Tex has carried the water very well.

    R, how did this (meaning Bunning’s blockage) get resolved?

    How has Bunning’s comment been wrong? He called it a paper tiger, why? Because, of course, if it is designated as a “crisis” then the pay-go measures don’t apply. Guess what, just about everything is being treated as a crisis, which means nothing is being managed by pay-go. So it is no wonder he didn’t support it, neither would I considering the billion dollar loop holes in it.

    So really, who are the hypocrites here?

    I’ve found several things in this tread interesting, namely your complete financial-and governmental- ignorance.

    Clinton’s “surplus”, where did it come from? While you’re pondering that, why don’t you tell us which part of government is suppose to initiate and control spending.

    Better yet, let me help you out- the House initiates and controls spending. Who was in the house during Clinton’s surplus? The GOP. Yes, yes, I know you’re shocked to learn this, but it was the GOP, not Clinton, who brought spending down.

    Believe it or not, while I’ll be the first to throw stones at them for over spending, the GOP spending in the house was actually coming down when they lost it in 2006. Guess what happened to spending then… yeah, it went up. Guess who oversaw that rise in spending… yeah, it was Dems.

    Like I said, I’ve lots of heartache with the GOP spending, but we also had some significant things to overcome, like 9/11, creating the DHS, fighting terrorism- not counting the two wars- and a whole host of other things.

    I keep asking you this on this forum and you continuously refuse to answer me- why did we have to suddenly learn about al Qaeda post 9/11? Why was there a dearth of information on a group that had been attacking us for a decade? The point is, we had a lot of catching up to do and the reason for lies mainly at the feet of Clinton… a Dem.

    This is the fascinating paradox of the Republican perspective. Don’t provide government programs because the more the government does for people the more they will be slaves to the government. Yet these are the same people who supposedly don’t want the government in their lives. So which is it? Are Americans lazy good-for-nothings who will suck up every government program or are they independent proud citizens who want government out of their way? Democrats and Barack Obama in particular get flack for being elitists who disrespect and condescend to the average American. But what could be more disrespectful than to believe that providing a helping hand to Americans will be taken advantage of by them?” — R

    In early 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927–2003), then assistant secretary for policy planning and research at the Department of Labor, completed a report that was eventually published as The Negro Family. I point this out because he called this the Pathology of Dependency. It certainly does not apply to just the black community, so don’t think this is some jab at blacks- it isn’t-, rather, it is an examination of how this disease of dependency gathers roots.

    “The substance of Moynihan’s report was influential in U.S. politics. Lyndon Johnson referred to it in his commencement address at Howard University in June 1965, focusing on the alleged dysfunctions of the black family and ignoring the issue of male unemployment. The empirical basis of the report also influenced academic research. James Coleman (1926–1996) published with several colleagues Equality and Educational Opportunity (1966) in which they demonstrated that the best predictor of a child’s educational achievement is not the material conditions within schools but the family background of the child. Welfare dependency and child poverty in black ghettoes remained stubbornly high, and by 1990 around 65 percent of all black children were born to unmarried mothers.

    Moynihan’s report became an important aspect of “the politics of controversy” in postwar America. Some days after the report was leaked to Newsweek, riots broke out in Los Angeles’s Watts ghetto on August 11, 1965, and Moynihan’s critics argued that the report was used by the administration as an explanation for the riots. William Ryan, an activist in the Congress of Racial Equality and a clinical psychologist at Boston College, published his Blaming the Victim (1971), which claimed that the Moynihan report was racist in suggesting that the problems of the ghetto were the consequence of black male promiscuity: Because whites had better access to contraception, abortion, and adoption, their behavior was not regarded as licentious. Attacking black sexuality masked the failure of American society to deliver social justice. The report also was criticized by the black feminist and academic Joyce Ladner, who claimed in Tomorrow’s Tomorrow: The Black Woman (1971) that the report did not challenge the myths surrounding the white middle-class family. Feminists criticized the nuclear family as oppressive and defended the black single-parent family as a foundation for the socialization of children.

    Foundation for the socialization of children…

  32. Detroit probably is at 40 percent unemployment. It’s in the bylaws that the 3 casinos HAVE to hire a majority Detroit residents before they can hire somebody from the suburbs. This is a union job, full bennies, vacation, etc etc.

    THEY CAN’T FIND ENOUGH WORKERS TO HIRE.

    The drug test.

  33. Nope. They plow through resumes. But the piss tests pop. My buddy who is a resident is getting hired.

  34. Debt and deficit are different creatures. The Clinton surplus though was essentially deficit spending financed by intra government borrowing. The economy at the time allowed for the numbers to look good.
    That’s ancient history now though.
    The debt is heading to all time highs. SS may need bailing out, and unemployment is at an a high.
    There is no deficit reduction or debt reduction going on. The economy is still a teetering mess and we’re not going to our collective happy place if we stay the course.

  35. Boy, that Bongo mystique with the Greek columns and flowing toga parties certainly has disappeared.

    Though Bongo not the butt of as many jokes is Bush, many of his most strident supporters appear to be biting their tongues, as they recognize Bongo will leave them hanging the next two years.

    Saturday Night Live mocked Bongo’s narcissism – the guy doing Bongo is weak, but effectual.

  36. Look at this vile shit Rutherturd posts on Twitter:

    @Liam_Fox I thought by now we knew vatican and gay sex was redundant? 😉

    Guys, I’m telling you. Don’t be fooled by the cool demeanor here on his blog. Rutherturd deserves to be ridiculed, as this is one nasty little bastard. Don’t make the mistake I did and feel any tinge of guilt for providing anything you want.

    These types of comments make feel completely liberated from good etiquette.

  37. AN ASS RIPPER!! ** GUFFAW **

    I’m sorry! I can’t help but enjoy watching these buffoons getting slammed now from all over the world. Bongo the butt of editorial comics, Emanuel Satan’s spawn. The cult of personality now reduced to one liners. Pile on some more! These maggots deserve everything that is coming to them.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html

    Rutherford, I gots to say it! An utter and complete failure of your policies.

    I TOLD YOU SO!!!

  38. Tex, the Twitter comment was a cheap shot but:

    1. It was in response to an article posted by @Liam_Fox about a high level Vatican official involved in a male prostitution racket.

    2. You can’t deny the Catholic church’s piss-poor recent history with regard to sexual shenanigans.

    3. I’ll go low-ball here and estimate that between 1 and 2% of those who go into the priest-hood do so because they are sexually confused and think a celibate lifestyle will keep them from being gay. It’s probably not the best way to deal with your problem, if you think being gay is a problem.

    4. Last but not least, sorry Tex but I don’t exempt religious organizations from criticism. My Twitter comment was criticism using hyperbole. Most who read it, I would guess understood that.

  39. Rutherford,

    You can’t deny the Catholic church’s piss-poor recent history with regard to sexual shenanigans.

    I can certainly deny your estimates of such widespread abuse. If ten priest had been proven perverts, it would amount to a small fraction of the folks that are actually priests. Your attempts to generalize pedophilia in the Catholic church as a widespread problem are propaganda at its sleaziest – straight out of your Saul Alinsky bible that you live out.

    If I used your 1-2% figure, it would be too easy for me to respond like this:

    Let’s talk about the Left’s group of wholly men. Rev. Jesse banging staff with complete w/love child paid for out of the Rainbow fund while “counseling” Bill Clinton; Rev. Jeremiah and his anti-white, anti-Semitic counsel which Bongo “never heard” over 20 years (nod nod, wink wink), Rev. Al inflaming race riots where Jews were killed courtesy of Tawana Brawley, Louie Farrakhan who has delivered many a long hate-filled rant against Jews and Christians (and in praise of Saddam Hussein).

    Would you like me to go on as indictment of Lefty spiritual leaders? I haven’t even gotten to Bongo’s Hamas friends yet.

    I don’t care if you don’t exempt religious organizations, most usually directed at the entire Catholic church, with your propaganda. It is expected. I’m simply pointing the to the rest of the room your wicked disposition and the fact that they should feel free to speak with any tone they deem necessary.

  40. Tex, what’s odd is when I think of the religious right (since you’ve made this a left/right argument), I don’t think of Catholics. So, I’m not sure your argument holds water. The Tweet, tasteless though it may have been, was not political.

  41. Rutherford, everything you do is political. You don’t wipe your ass without thing about which side you are supporting. Though your ignorance wouldn’t allow you to know this, there are many Evangelical Catholics too.

    Your revelations about religion come filtered through the neopagan media in which you gather information. They are completely hostile to organized religion, though some may even attend out of habit or the need for fellowship.

    Yes the comment was crass, as was the last post about Sarah Palin and her baby, so I now feel completely unencumbered to say what I want here with no restrictions; not that inhibited me much previously. 😆

  42. C’mon Rutherford. You know damn good and well that there is only 1 religion about which people are allowed to generalize.

    And you picked the wrong one.

  43. Been seeing several comments as of late from the neopagans to cover ass about how well Bomba is managing the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars.

    And I thought to myself, isn’t it ironic that in fourteen months, the Left has gone from calling Bush a war criminal to being forced to admit that Bomba’s greatest accomplishments have been a continuation of the Bush Doctrine?

    Buwahahahahahahaha…

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s