Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino has been sending these images out via email.
?To me it?s just humor,? Paladino said. ?I?m not racist and have never related Obama?s color to my political taste for him.?
?I?m not ethnic sensitive to ethnic humor,? he continued. ?dago, spic, polack whatever we hear the humor every day.?
It's looking like the Liberal Democrats are going to be politically irrelevant for decades starting with the next elections. In this coalition government, they've agreed to all of the dirty work for the Conservatives and have received nothing in return. You know it's going to be bad when politicians start talking about what is fair for society. The Guardian:
But Clegg made clear he considered the reforms to be essential.
"A fair society is not one in which money is simply transferred by the central state from one group to another," he wrote in an article for the Times (paywall).
"Welfare needs to become an engine of mobility, changing people's lives for the better, rather than a giant cheque written by the state to compensate the poor for their predicament.
"Instead of turning the system from a 'safety net' into a 'trampoline', as Labour promised, people have been stuck on benefits, year in, year out."
A fair society, he wrote, was "one in which people are able to make a better life for themselves, with support from government and the broader community".
Source: ForexYardRare Japanese Intervention in Yen Trading Manages to Halt Yen's Bullish TrendThe most significant economic event yesterday was beyond any doubt Japan's ?confirmation of a unilateral intervention in yen trading in order to put a stop to the ?soaring currency. The consequences were seen immediately and the yen saw its ?biggest daily loss in 22 months. Unusual trading is expected today as well. ?Economic NewsUSD – Dollar Sees Mixed Results Vs. The MajorsThe U.S. dollar saw mixed results against most of the major currencies during ?yesterday's session. The dollar fell about 80 pips vs. the British pound, causing the ?GBP/USD pair to reach the 1.5650 level. The dollar also saw an… . . . → Full Story: Rare Japanese Intervention in Yen Trading Manages to Halt Yen’s Bullish Trend
Read The Full Article:
The history of the UK, from Henry VIII onwards, meant that the Pope's visit was always going to need delicate handling on all sides. The Catholic Church have obviously worried that Benedict XVI's visit would not - in the current climate - achieve the kind of success which Pope John Paul II achieved in the eighties.
So, it doesn't help that one of his aides - Cardinal Walter Kasper - has, shortly before Benedict sets foot in Britain, said that landing in the UK is like landing "in a third-world country"; nor does it help that he has said that the British suffer from "an aggressive new atheism".
It's hardly the start one would expect to what was always going to be a contentious visit. Especially as this is the first time the Pope has ever visited Britain has a head of state, which mean that the Brits are picking up a fairly hefty part of the bill.
The cardinal's remarks, made hours before the papal party was due to land in Edinburgh this morning, came in an interview with the German news magazine Focus, in which he noted that Britain was a "secular, pluralistic" country.
Asked by the magazine whether Christians were discriminated against in the UK, Kasper replied: "Yes. Above all, an aggressive new atheism has spread through Britain. If, for example, you wear a cross on British Airways, you are discriminated against."
Kasper appears to have been referring to events in 2006, when BA was embroiled in a bitter row after taking disciplinary action against an airport worker who refused to cover up a necklace carrying a cross which she wore outside her uniform.
The cardinal's comments on "aggressive" atheism drew an angry response from secular campaigners who said the UK did not need a "lecture" on religious freedom and belief from the Vatican ? but were welcomed by some Christians.
Even that last comment by Lombardi, which claims that those atheists who speak out, "do not in fact have the value they show off" strikes me as quite aggressive.
The pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said tonight that the cardinal "had no negative intention, nor [a] lesser appreciation for the United Kingdom", but had been referring to Britain's multi-ethnic composition. He said the pope's former adviser recognised "the great values of British culture".
In a statement, Lombardi said Kasper "had meant to refer to the fact that from the moment of arrival in London airport ? as happens in many big metropolises of the world today, but in London particularly because the unique role played over time by the UK's capital ? you realise from the outset that you are in a country in which many human realities of the most diverse provenances and conditions meet and mingle; a crucible of today's humanity, with its diversity and problems".
Lombardi added that, in speaking about atheism, the cardinal "was obviously referring to the positions of certain well-known authors who put themselves forward particularly aggressively and dress themselves up in scientific and cultural arguments, but who do not in fact have the value they show off".
"Clearly they are personal views ? Catholics play a full part in this country's life and welcome the rich diversity of thought, culture and people so evident here. This visit marks a further development of the good relationship between the United Kingdom and the Holy See. We are confident that it will be a huge success."Cardinal Walter Kasper has withdrawn from this Papal visit and has chosen to remain in Rome "for health reasons".
In recent weeks Sarkozy has deported around 1,000 Gypsies and has destroyed about 100 of their Roma camps. A leaked document from the French Interior Ministry revealed that the Roma were being deported "as a priority", despite French denials that this was taking place.
The confrontation between Paris and Brussels over French president Nicolas Sarkozy's anti-Gypsy campaign expanded into a war of words between France and Luxembourg, when Sarkozy told the principality to take in France's unwanted Roma.
Sarkozy was said to have reacted furiously to a verbal broadside from the European commission yesterday. Viviane Reding, the justice commissioner, branded the French policy of deporting Roma a disgrace, appalling, and likened the treatment of the Gypsies to that of the Jews in the second world war. She accused French ministers of duplicity and said she expected disciplinary action against France for breaking EU laws on freedom of movement. Reding is from Luxembourg.
Sarkozy allies emerged from a presidential lunch today to report that the French leader would take the commission to task when he arrives in Brussels for an EU summit tomorrow.
"He says he is only applying European regulations, French laws, and that there is absolutely nothing to criticise France for on the issue," said Bruno Sido, a senator from Sarkozy's UMP party. "But if the Luxembourgers want to take them [the Roma], there would be no problem."
The numbers certainly don't look favorable for Goldman Sachs. NY Times:
Three women formerly employed by Goldman Sachs sued the investment bank on Wednesday, contending that the firm systematically discriminates against its women employees.
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, claims that Goldman intentionally pays its male employees more than their female counterparts, and promotes them more frequently. A persistent pattern of bias has resulted in an underrepresentation of women in the firm?s management ranks, the complaint alleges.
?The number of women in management positions at Goldman Sachs dwindles as the level of management rises,? says the complaint, citing firm data that show women making up 29 percent of the firm?s vice presidents, 17 percent of the managing directors and 14 percent of its partners.
There's really no difference between the intolerant fundamentalist bigots of one religion from those of another religion. From the great blog ratboy's anvil 2.
Read The Full Article:
On Tuesday the teabaggers again showed they have virtually taken over the Republican Party. In Delaware the teabagger candidate, Christine O'Donnell, beat the candidate preferred by Republican Party leaders (and who had a much better chance of defeating the Democratic candidate). She joins Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Marco Rubio of Florida as candidates backed by the teabaggers who beat mainstream Republicans to get the party's nomination for the Senate.
These candidates are well out on the fringes of mainstream conservative belief (in territory once inhabited by the John Birch Society -- whose members considered President Eisenhower to be a communist). Bill Clinton pointed out that these candidates make right-wing fundamentalist President George W. Bush look good by comparison, saying, "A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal."
And Wall Street is loving it. Both guests and hosts on CNBC (NBC's corporate and market slanted business channel) agreed yesterday that the nomination of these teabagger candidates is good for Wall Street because it shows that there is a movement in the country toward "business-friendly and market-friendly policies" and could result in a Congress that has "pro-growth, pro-business, anti-spend, anti-tax views."
They are right. These candidates are not just right-wing -- they are far to the right-wing fringe. It amazes me that the teabagger movement, which claims to be opposed to opposed to greed and mismanagement and was outraged over the TARP bailout proposed and signed by President Bush, could think that electing candidates such as these would be any kind of solution. All I can think is that they bought the lies funded and sold by the fringe right-wing billionaire Koch brothers (who have funded many of the teabagger groups through various organizations).
As far as I can tell from looking at pictures of teabagger gatherings, many of them are older Americans -- who are on Medicare or getting close to it. Don't they know most of these candidates would like to abolish Medicare (and throw the elderly to the wolves -- the private insurance companies)?
Don't they know that all of these candidates (except Rubio, who recently said he's changed his mind) is opposed to Social Security and would like to abolish the current program and privatize it?
Don't they know these candidates are against regulating Wall Street and the giant financial institutions and corporations (thus letting them unleash their greed on Main Street)?
Don't they know these candidates are climate change deniers and would vote to unleash the big oil and gas companies on our already fragile environment?
Don't they know these candidates are in favor of massive tax cuts for millionaires (thus shoving a huge tax burden on our children)?
Don't they know these candidates approve of corporate execs getting multi-million dollar salaries while depressing the wages of ordinary Americans (and would even eliminate the minimum wage)?
In addition, these candidates are just plain nutty. Sharron Angle is opposed to the color black (because it is the devil's color). Christine O'Donnell has campaigned against masturbation. Joe Miller thinks Social Security and unemployment insurance is unconstitutional. Rand Paul thinks the civil rights acts of the 1960s and the law making businesses and buildings more disabled-friendly are unconstitutional.
I am amazed that the teabaggers have been deluded into voting against their own financial and environmental interests. They have let their hatred for an African-American president blind them to what these candidates stand for and the destruction they would cause to this country.
The only saving grace is that these teabaggers only have power within the Republican Party. The country in general is much more moderate and middle-of-the-road, and doesn't like candidates from either political extreme -- the right or the left. In fact, in an off-year election that was looking very good for Republicans, the teabaggers may have tossed Democrats a lifeline by nominating such fringe candidates as these.
Republican Lisa Murkowski was virtually a shoo-in for re-election in Alaska. But Miller's nomination gives the Democratic candidate a real chance of getting elected (especially if Murkowski runs as a write-in candidate as she seems inclined to do).
It looked like this election would be curtains for Democrat Harry Reid. The polls showed most establishment Republicans could beat him. But the nomination of Angle has changed that, and for the first time in months Reid actually has a lead in most polls.
In Kentucky the Democrat was given no chance of winning -- until Paul was nominated, and now the race is very close.
O'Donnell's opponent in the Republican primary was polling well ahead of the Democrat their, but now that she's won O'Donnell trails that same Democrat badly in the polls (and many mainstream Republicans say they will support the Democrat).
Even Florida has turned out to be a mess with the teabagger candidate winning the nomination. It is now a three-way race that could be won by anybody.
Conventional wisdom says the teabaggers have blown the Republican's chances of winning the Senate in 2010. I think that's probably true. Even if some of these teabagger candidates can get elected, it won't be good for Republicans. It will show America just how far to the right the Republican Party has been pushed, and that will hurt them in 2012.
Read The Full Article:
Political Cartoon is by Steve Breen in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Read The Full Article:
The picture above is of some activists that belonged to an organization call ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). There were some right-wingers who thought President Obama won in 2008 because of voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN. Of course the accusation was ridiculous. ACORN was not large enough or powerful enough to affect an election with many millions of voters, and there is no evidence that any fraudulent voters registered by them actually cast a single vote.
But reality really doesn't mean much to a lot of people -- stupid people. Take for example a recent survey done by Public Policy Polling between September 10th and 13th. Among some more serious questions, they decided to toss out a silly question to just see how people would answer it. They asked people if they thought ACORN would steal the coming election to keep the Democrats in power in Congress. Here are the sad results:
It's bad enough that 40% of the population weren't sure (maybe they've been living in a cave for the last year and heard no news). But I'm absolutely appalled that 20% of the people answered yes. And it wasn't just the Republicans. Of the people who voted for McCain in 2008 about 23% said yes, and of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 about 18% said yes.
OK. Let me straighten out some of you amazingly stupid people. ACORN cannot steal the upcoming election for anyone because ACORN DOESN"T EXIST ANYMORE!!! The organization has not existed for many months now.
Good grief people, read a newspaper or watch a news program once in a while. Your ignorance is embarrassing the rest of us.
Read The Full Article: