Category Archives: fearmongering

More from the War Against Voters

This buy cheap alesse (ovral l) online can occur in gastrointestinal cancers, such as colon, stomach, and purchase ventolin online rectal cancer, and gynecological cancers, such as uterine and cervical cheap levitra without prescription cancer. Most individuals can continue to work in their present amikacin online job or look for another position in their chosen field. buying cheap lipitor side effects canada Doctors derive these from umbilical cord blood and use them order azor to treat conditions that affect the production of blood. Animal buy generic compazine alternative liquid studies show that there may be an increased risk of cheap augmentin online problems with fetal development (commonly known as birth defects) in viagra buy animals who took Lyrica during pregnancy. Drugs for prolactinomas are toradol online stores likely effective enough that a doctor does not usually have cialis online without a prescription to perform surgery. If people have any of these medical get discount norvasc conditions, they can speak with a doctor to discuss the buy accutane without prescription next steps. To find out what the cost of Keppra order bentyl will be for you, talk with your doctor, pharmacist, or ampicillin prescription insurance provider. This is a refinement of existing techniques, as methylation.

Image: Source (and a good read)

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots. “What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century,” says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. #read from RollingStone

The Encyclodpedia of

Check out a thorough collection of articles about 9/11 via NYMAG‘s Encyclopedia of 9/11.

What Dinh didn’t anticipate was a profound shift in liberalism and, therefore, in the politics of the country. Even with a Democrat now in the White House, the liberalism that protects the right of the individual against the majority—the politics of civil rights and abortion and gay marriage—has diminished, in favor of one that aims to improve the lot of the median man. Obama’s liberalism is for the majority, not against it. This spirit, and the unlikely endurance of the Patriot Act, owes something to the central psychological events of the decade: the vitality and threat of new economic competitors, the social violence initiated by the authors of obscure financial instruments, but first and most of all September 11—each of which evoked a particular feeling, that we were all together, under attack. .::Patriot Act

A Climate of Hate?

The video (youtube) and text (Paul Krugman) are not associated with one another, but are oh-so-related:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.

Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has.

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence. (Source)

Anti-Socialism (Except in terms of Masturbation)

BTW… if Delaware elects this woman, I’m sending my best ninjas.

O’Donnell’s version of this critique is more explicitly socialist: If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture? The guy is taking care of his own business, and O’Donnell is upset because this makes him less dependent on others.

Is O’Donnell going to outlaw masturbation? Of course not. No government could enforce such a law. But that doesn’t lessen her antipathy to non-procreative sexuality, even when it’s protected by private industry. In 1995, when Coors offered health benefits to partners of its gay employees, O’Donnell said that her organization, Concerned Women for America, opposed the company’s policy because “it legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle.” In Catholic doctrine, masturbation and homosexuality are wrong for the same reason: They don’t serve the kind of conjugal union that can lead to procreation.

The next time you hear O’Donnell decry socialism, remember how little she respects the individual in the most private of matters. Your wallet doesn’t belong to society. Neither does what’s under it. ##Read the full story from Slate##

Truly Inspirational

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsUVL6ciK-c&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Thanks to all the moms for coming out of the woodwork and taking our country back.

I love how Republicans, or conservatives in general act like we’ve had a thousand years of left-wing rule and that there is something to actually “take back.” It makes me wonder if we’re living in the same universe…

LET’S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK (from these liberal black-voting tax-raising left-wing-because-i-said-so liberals). I WISH US’N COULD RE-ELECT BUSH. Come on people, get with it.

Tea Party speaker gay-baits Lindsey Graham

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MCXjkS8cc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

At a Tea Party rally in Greenville, S.C., last week, a speaker tried to figure out just what, exactly, is wrong with Graham. “Barney Frank has been more honest and brave than you. At least we know about Barney Frank, nobody’s going to hold it over his head.”

He continued, “Look, I’m a tolerant person. I don’t care about your private life, Lindsey. But as our U.S. senator, I need to figure out why you’re trying to sell out your own countrymen, I need to make sure you being gay isn’t it.”

This is the language of a political movement that sees itself defending a peculiar, limited version of democratic politics. Academics have a term for this idea: herrenvolk democracy. The basic idea is that there is supposed to be equality, and even unanimity on crucial matters, among qualified citizens. And if someone breaks the consensus, it’s not so much a sign that there needs to be an argument about this or that issue. It just casts doubt on whether that person was a legitimate member of the group in the first place. (Note that Graham himself has criticized the use of “racial epithets” on the right.) [Read the whole story from Salon.com]

Rulings on Prop 8 Coming Tomorrow

The Associated Press
Posted: 05/25/2009 11:54:01 AM PDT
Updated: 05/25/2009 11:54:01 AM PDTSAN FRANCISCO—Gay marriage supporters are holding a prayer service on the eve of the California Supreme Court’s expected ruling on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials.

The group Marriage Equality USA plans to hold the interfaith event Monday night at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

On Tuesday morning, the state’s high court plans to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

Opponents of the gay marriage ban argue that the issue was improperly put before voters; they say it revised the state constitution’s equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.

But during a March hearing, several justices appeared skeptical at the idea of overturning a law passed by the voters.

Here at PoltricksMNP, we’ve never had a whole hell of a lot of faith in the good common sense of people in general, I mean, not to insult your intelligence.  If you’re reading this, I’m assuming you’ve read our blog before.  So, having done that, you’ll know that we’re not known for having any amount of blind faith in the legal system or process.  When I heard about the upcoming prop 8 rulings tomorrow, I figured that this was just the forum to air those views that may be contrary to the mainstream.

A lot of people have asked me recently about my support for gay marriage, but mostly in terms of pure ignorance like: “are you gay, my ninja?” No, I’m not gay, but that’s beside point anyway.  The point is, how can a real life human being not support basic human rights for another real life human being?  Aren’t we civilized enough to care about one another, at least in statute?

Here’s my example, ready?  If you’re a hick (which I am slightly against, but I digress) and you drink moonshine out of a boot and beat up on your wife, well,  you can probably assume that as a ninja, first and foremost, I don’t approve of your disgusting way of life.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that you have the same right to life as anybody else out there.  I would never suggest that somebody who leads a life that doesn’t live up to my standards is somehow sub-standard on the human scale – even in the face of what I would consider to be reprehensible behavior.

Therefore, how you gonna try and deny somebody rights on the basis that you don’t like them or their kind?  I am sick and tired of these needlessly sophisticated arguments about the institution of marriage and the family unit and everything else non-sequitur under the sun.  These people need to at least grow enough sack to admit that they just don’t like gay people.  I’m saying… I do happen to know that I never even heard the words “institution of marriage” in a sentence until gay marriage became an issue.  Nobody has seemed particularly concerned with the family unit until now (at least not enough to turn off the TV once a week between 1966 and today).  That’s okay with me.  I mean, I myself have no problem with gay people, but it’s personally within your rights to dislike whoever you want.

What is not within the right of a citizen of a true republic is the power to trample on the rights of another citizen- especially without some logical basis for it.  Especially when in this case their is no chance of harm to society for letting people be people.  This same paradigm holds true, if not formally true, in regards to how I feel about torture.  the information obtained from treating people inhumanely is not worth it.  Otherwis, what is the point.  If we can’t be “better” than the “terrorists” then why are we fighting them and claiming to stand against the ideologically?  Certainly they, too believe in the “by any means necessary” approach, eh?

I’ve come to realize that I view discrimination against gays and blacks as the same thing.  Of course some people, especially some black people, will be up in arms about that statement.  No, you numbnuts, it’s not the EXACT same thing (furthermore, nothing is the EXACT same as anything else…. in the universe) but it’s damn close.  It’s so close that they use the same arguments that they tried to use to justify Jim Crow.  “Oh, blacks and whites can’t co-exist, and certainly not inter-marry.”  “What will happen when blacks are raising white children?” “What will happen to the family unit when the races are mixed?”  “What do we tell the school children about the niggers?”

All of a sudden, these things which were not a concern during 200 years of slavery are now THE most pressing issues justifying Jim Crow?  The anti-gays (gaysists) even go as far as to offer a revoltingly insulting “separate-but-equal” argument in these so-called civil unions.

“What’s the difference?  It’s the same water… just different fountains, a black one and a white one.”  Maybe it’s time we stop living like that.

More to come… feedback appreciated and encouraged.

.::Prop 8 Article via Mercury News

Let Judges Decide?

giuliani-large-drag-1.jpg

That would just make too much feckin’ sense, my ninjas!

In one of the latest attacks against Obama, Rudy “don’t I look great in these heels” Giuliani has recorded a “robocall” for the McCain campaign – “warning” voters that Barack is against mandatory sentencing. Here’s a transcript:

You need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers. It’s true, I read Obama’s words myself. And recently, congressional liberals introduced a bill to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for violent criminals — trying to give liberal judges the power to decide whether criminals are sent to jail or set free.

With priorities like these, we just can’t trust the inexperience and judgment of Barack Obama and his liberal allies.

Um…what? “Liberal” judges? So a judge is “liberal” if she/he actually wants to DO HIS/HER FUCKING JOB and sentence people convicted of crimes? Really? What are judges for exactly if not to sentence people? Why not just hire referees for the courtroom – cut out all that extra school time and money.

In all seriousness though, our justice system is supposed to be set up so that the sentencing fits the particulars of a case – which makes “mandatory” sentencing inherently flawed. And the response from Obama? None, of course – as he actually understands the legal system. There is this, however, from his website:

Every leading expert body in criminal justice has opposed the use of mandatory minimum sentences, including the Sentencing Commission, the Judicial Conference, the American Bar Association, and leading criminal justice scholars.

But hey, what do they know. I mean, let’s face it – mandatory sentencing makes it so much easier to lock people away for longer sentences than are probably needed, keeping modern US slavery alive.

BTW Rudy – if Palin gets in the White House, expect the mandatory sentence for the getup you’re wearing in this photo to be 5 years. I hear guys in drag as huge hits in prison.

.:full story and audio of robocall->via CNN

Drill, Idiot, Drill

never-underestimate-28015-stupidpeople.jpg

Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!”

I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall — “Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

.:T. Friedman’s op-ed Making America Stupid -> via the NY Times

What A Guy …

This is the new John McCain commercial set to air on national television:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpyOSLZw8qo[/youtube]

There is one line in there that’s more nauseating than most. Something like, “In a dangerous world with a broken economy,” … what? John McCain will make it more dangerous and put us further in debt? Two days ago, John McCain said that he would balance the national budget in his first term, should he be elected. This ninja here wants to know how he plans to do that. But that’s one of McCain’s secrets. In the past, candidates have offered some numbers to support their claims. But McCain’s got that one covered: if you don’t give any numbers, there’s no way people can do the calculations to shoot you down. Genius. Considering his plans to potentially lower taxes and maintain our current foreign policy that would leave him with only two more miracles before he would be canonized, right?

As far as the world being more dangerous … my ninja, please. I’m not sure I can get a ninja to tell me that this place is any more insecure (security-wise) than it was 12 years ago. Don’t buy it, folks.