This Republican seems completely unaware that we don’t have a Surgeon General right now… because the GOP has blocked Obama’s nominee at the behest of the NRA. But he’s not going to let that stop him from blaming the Obama administration.
Right wing politics, ladies and gentlemen.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says Ron Klain is “off to a bad start” in his new role asthe president’s Ebola response coordinator, and that the U.S. Surgeon General should be the one leading the effort. But what Chaffetz doesn’t seem to realize is that there hasn’t been a surgeon general for more than a year.
“Why not have the surgeon general head this up?” Chaffetz asked in a Wednesday appearance on Fox News. “I think that’s a very legitimate question. At least you have somebody who has a medical background whose been confirmed by the United States Senate.”
“It begs the question, what does the surgeon general do?” he added. “Why aren’t we empowering that person?”
Some Christian nuts are passing this around on Facebook and other social media:
Of course, Jesus is not recorded to have said one word about homosexuality, in contradiction to what the poster implies.
A group of economists say the top marginal tax rate in America should be 90% for the most stable economy.
Right wingers will certainly balk at that, but only because they do not understand (nor will Fox News explain) how marginal tax rates work:
A 90 percent top marginal tax rate doesn’t mean that if you make $450,000, you are going to pay $405,000 in federal income taxes. Americans have a well-documented trouble understanding the notion of marginal tax rates. The marginal tax rate is the amount you pay on your income above a certain amount. Right now, you pay the top marginal tax rate on every dollar you earn over $406,750. So if you make $450,000, you only pay the top rate on your final $43,250 in income.
Gun makers know the way to keep increasing profits is to continue ratcheting up as much paranoia as they can — be it “Obama’s coming for your guns!” to “gotta keep them scary black people in line!”
Well, it should come as absolutely no surprise that they’re also into selling Ebola paranoia.
We’ve all know that liberals and conservatives consume different media, but a new study confirms something I’ve known to be true for a long time — liberals consume a variety of different media while conservatives latch on to one major source, like a cult.
Liberals favor CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio and The New York Times, but none of those sources more dramatically than another. Conservatives have an overwhelming favorite: Fox News Channel, according to a study of media habits released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.
Conservatives are more likely to distrust news sources that don’t reflect their point of view, the study said.
Conservatives tend to have more friends who share their political views, and are more likely to read material on Facebook that reinforces their opinions. Liberals are more likely to “defriend” someone on Facebook or end a real friendship because of political differences, Pew said.
[…] The Wall Street Journal was the only organization trusted by majorities of both strong liberal and conservatives, with Buzzfeed the only organization distrusted by both groups, Pew said.
[…] Among people judged as true moderates, CNN was listed as the main news source by 20 percent, with local TV next at 16 percent.
The Republican Party is going all in on Ebola paranoia because of politics. They believe by ratcheting up fear, panic and paranoia it will rebound on President Obama and, by extension, Democrats. But imagine what that means: They are willing to engender national panic, something that could be far worse than Ebola, just to get votes.
But that shouldn’t be a surprise — they’ve been willing to crash the economy, shut down the government and keep millions out of work just for political gain, so why not dangerous panic?
And as a political ploy, it’s worked pretty well for them. That’s a testament to how screwed up our political process is. If Republicans win votes because of this panic tactic, we as an entire nation should be deeply ashamed.
Delphi, the online discussion forum service, has become 99.9% flaming and .1% enlightening debates and rational discussions, IMO.
Assholes weary me, but somewhere in the back of my mind I’m just not willing to acknowledge that most of the assholes I deal with are confined to Delphi, and far less in the real world or even on Facebook. (No, I’m not talking about any recent dustups here – most of those have been minor – I’m talking in general, over the last few years.)
If I could pull myself away from the Delphi cesspool, actually have the courage to shut down this forum and walk away from the whole service, I would have much less aggravation. It really seems there are far more Kingpacos and right wing flamers than there are JRs and Peskydangs these days.
I like to argue and debate – I’m addicted to wrestling an issue and manage to do it with my friends in real life without anyone getting personally angry – but so rarely does an argument or debate stay civil on Delphi anymore. You can’t get more than five or six posts in before someone flings out a “Liar!” accusation or some other sort of ad hominem, and then the flames get flamier until it’s a long-running feud spilling across multiple forums, with people bringing up crap from years ago, or assholes bashing you over something you forgot about in the last decade, people stomping out of forums vowing never to return again, and evangelizing other Delphi forums with how bad THAT forum is.
And once you find yourself in a shooting war it’s awfully hard not to start shooting too. Very few are able to do it. I’m not.
I’m just wondering what the point is, and why I can’t bring myself to put an end to it. Maybe I’m just waiting for Delphi to die its inevitable death and comfort myself with the knowledge that I hung out until the very end. But is that really worth it?