Thursday, February 24, 2011

It's the Inequality

Keep in mind these things never end well for the rich.

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones


Their remedy for everything is 2nd Amendment.

‘Use live ammunition’ against Wisconsin protesters, Indiana official says | The Raw Story



E.J. Dionne Jr. - The Tea Party is winning:
"Take five steps back and consider the nature of the political conversation in our nation's capital. You would never know that it's taking place at a moment when unemployment is still at 9 percent, when wages for so many people are stagnating at best and when the United States faces unprecedented challenges to its economic dominance.

No, Washington is acting as if the only real problem the United States confronts is the budget deficit; the only test of leadership is whether the president is willing to make big cuts in programs that protect the elderly; and the largest threat to our prosperity comes from public employees.

Take five more steps back and you realize how successful the Tea Party has been. No matter how much liberals may poke fun at them, Tea Party partisans can claim victory in fundamentally altering the country's dialogue."

A fucking shame on the White House.

Infant dolphin deaths spiking in Gulf after oil spill | McClatchy


1 comment:

CLA said...

I think you left out these links:

Showing that the idiot in Indiana was fired.

Its from MSNBC. Those are your people, right? Is it good that they fired him? Was the threat real, or metaphorical? I haven’t investigated enough because its not as interesting as what’s going on in Wisconsin.

This next one shows a threat made against a conservative blogger for her coverage of the protests in Wisconsin. The threat was that she should be shot in the head. What should happen to the person who made the threat? Was it real? Should the blogger fear for her life?

The next link, taken from that same blogger’s site, shows a democratic congressman capitalizing on the shooting in Arizona and then, weeks later, telling followers its okay to take to the streets and get a little bloody. Hypocrisy? Yes. But neither statement offends my sensibilities because it appears to be politics as usual. The first statement was to go after guns and free speech. The second was made in support of the unions. He’s merely being an inconsistent advocate for his causes.

My bigger point is that the rhetoric isn’t as skewed as you portray. I’m sure you’ll come up with a million links of different instances; I could probably do the same.