No shame NRA blame

Of course, the gun grabbers were out in full force following the recent Fort Hood shooting.  Among the common calls for more government sponsored mental health something -- which surprisingly enough was argued against by a vet here -- brings us to this gem:

Thanks to the NRA?

For what?  First, I have to remember that as a leftist, he seriously does believe that Ivan dick-face was handed a gun and told to shoot up the base.  Remember, he is a leftist, and completely lacks conscience thought (ok, that was unfair...  sorry).  Everything he knows has been told to him, why wouldn't it be the same for everyone?

Secondly, the NRA supports the base not being a gun free zone.  Actually, the NRA is a fan of gun shows too, which we all know how many mass-shootings happen at gun shows.  (That's just a link to Google.  There has never been a mass shooting at a gun show).  Does anyone remember Think Progress's attempt to paint the image like people were being gunned down at gunshows?  Oh yeah...  apparently, to Think Progress, accidents are a great reason to get rid of guns.  Cars have accidents.  People have accidents on the job.  Sometimes, a teacher sexually harasses a student.  I don't see any leftist calling to get rid of cars, jobs, or teachers.

Of course, when you are a right winger who stays fully immersed in leftist media, you learn very quickly they know very little about guns.  There was the article about the Man Who Killed Himself During a Gun Safety Demo on Huff Post.  Only, their idea of a "gun safety demonstration" is pointing a gun you believe to be unloaded at your head and pulling on the trigger.  The problem with that is, it's not a gun safety demonstration if you aren't following the rules to gun safety, and the first rule is always treat the gun as if it is loaded.

It's always political peeps...  always.

Point A. to Point... wait, what?

This article was brought back to my attention because my comment:

Add caption

was followed up with:

586 fans, peeps.

I was quoting the very CBO report the article linked to.  Here it is again.  How in the world, did me quoting a report lead him to believe I was completely against Unemployment Insurance?  I'll tell you how - he blindly trusts his news source.  I appeared to question HuffPost's article, and that went against everything he has been told to think.  He might even believe I get paid to think this way.

Here is the thing - what do we do about unemployment?  You want a conversation?  Here is an uncomfortable one:

What about the people who are recently unemployed, but expect the same 99 week opportunity as the last round?  Do we expect to extend this extension to them?  Yeah, because long-term unemployment benefits didn't happen to create another group of individuals who are suddenly being discriminated against, did it?  Oh, and that CBO report I keep linking to, does point out that because of benefits, people will become less-intense in their job searches.

OR

The leftists want to chain minimum wage to either: the cost of living, or inflation.  Ok...  in return - extended unemployment has to be chained to slightly below minimum wage (for the entire duration) - or - you receive somewhere around 75% of whatever your salary (or average pay) was.  

How is an open floor for discussion too much to ask?  I need the recent Supreme Court ruling so hopefully now I can be a better voice than the people on the other side simply saying what they believe I believe in?

My Sugar Daddy Buys Me Koch

Oh yes...  free speech is under attack again - and apparently to the left, that means less speech is better.  If you really want to peak into the ideology of a leftist, look no further than how they want to control the way someone spends their money.

Now, this article on HuffPo is suprisingly (and refreshingly) unbiased.  Oh, that's right, it's not.

"This will immeasurably help the Republican Party, which relies far more on large campaign donors who give the maximum campaign contributions. In the past year, Republican congressional political party committees have struggled to raise funds, as compared to their Democratic counterparts and the RNC. The court's decision now frees donors to make contributions of $32,400 to all three party committees every year."

But wait, what if they want to spend, say $40,000 on a plate of food like the 1% had to at Sarah Jessica Parker's fundraiser for Obama?  Is that OK for a donation?  Why is it that the Left only feels money is not speech when those of us who could realistically write a check for more than $2,600, but could never afford a $35,000+ dinner, are involved?  Why does the left reject the middle-America that is responsible with their money?  Oh...  maybe because we wouldn't benefit from a minimum-wage increase?  Natch.

"With its decision today in McCutcheon, the Supreme Court majority continued on its march to destroy the nation's campaign finance laws, which were enacted to prevent corruption and protect the integrity of our democracy,"

You may be right, Mr. Fred Wertheimer - as the Gateway Pundit kindly pointed out, the Koch Brothers are being far outspent by the left.  Actually, the Left gets more dough than they would ever want to admit - that's why they continue the notion that Republicans are somehow owned by the rich!  As a kid, if you steal something, you blame someone else for what you did first, that way your trail is more innocent (yes leftists, children have to be used in comparison).  Not to mention, busing people who have no desire to involve themselves in politics strictly for votes - is very much so - affecting our democracy.  So, there's that too.

Oh, and here is this gem grass-roots leftists:

Partisan racism survives the apocalypse

Walking Dead is an awesome series.  Hopefully it doesn't disappoint like Lost did.  While being a great series, it is not immune to the regurgitation of stereotypes that the left deems AOK.

Here is a link to a clip from the show.  I would've embedded it, but the person who posted it decided to opt against people embedding the video.  If you watch, right around the 1:45 mark, the character will say:

"... Playin' errand-boy for these pansy-asses, n***ers, and Democrats."

Now, the character Merle, has already been portrayed as a racist...  OK.  So his use of the n-bomb in this context is not surprising.  But, Democrats?  Yeah...  way to softball that one in Hollywood.  I highly doubt someone like Merle was ever politically active, yet we really had to bring politics into a world where there is no longer political parties?

Where else have I seen this?

Oh yeah, The Following, when Kevin Bacon comes across the serial-killers prison/brainwashing operation...  what did that den look like?

See the Tea Party sign in the background?  Yeah...  so this notion that Tea Party/Republicans are blind followers to some racist movement actually stems from the Leftist-Hollywood interpretation of the movement.

Get Educated - HuffPo Style

HuffPo released an article today titled: Republicans are Stoopid (close enough), and pointed out John Boehner's hypocrisy in cherry-picking CBO reports.  In his bid to block extending unemployment, HuffPo's beef is that Boehner referred to the CBO report on minimum wage's negative effects on jobs, but refuses to reference their report on how the intergalactic monetary system will be saved simply by way of unemployment benefit payments.

Of course, true to HuffPo fashion, Arthur Delaney refuses to acknowledge that in the report - right after listing potential benefits - he writes:

"However, those positive effects on output and employment in 2014 
would be partially offset by the effects of an increase in the duration of 
unemployment for some people. Specifically, in response to the extension of 
benefits, some unemployed workers who would be eligible for those benefits 
would reduce the intensity of their job search and remain unemployed longer—
which would tend to decrease output and employment"

and

"Combining the positive effects on the economy from higher aggregate demand 
with the negative effects from job searches that would be (on average) less 
intense, CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other related 
expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase inflation-adjusted GDP 
by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent employment by 0.2 million in the 
fourth quarter of 2014."

If you read the CBO report, it seems like a lot of money and room for unintended consequences for a measly average of 25,000 / month.  Which, isn't even a big enough number to know if it had an effect on actual jobs created.  When you compare the CBO's report: The Effects of a Minimum Wage, you might have a better idea as to why a politician might use that one, but ignore the other one.

I digress.

There was a comment on how the extension of money would get back to the people, then get to the businesses who will in turn spend money on their business which will lead to more people working (actually, they were making a Republican argument), so I politely reminded them that the business owners are rich and evil and were going to hoard all the money because, the greatest thing about having money is obviously doing nothing with it!  I got this gem:

They are hoarding it because they know exactly how this cycle is going to work!  They get it, the libs try to get as many of their grubby little fingers on it as possible so they can pay some high-level salaries and then give it back to the people who have gotten accustomed to receiving money that was earned with little to no labor.  Did we forget Walmart warned their numbers were down due to a decrease in food stamps?

So, we get mad at corporations for hoarding cash - but we advocate to continue the very things that have lead people to be foolish with money which opened the pipeline of cash to go right to these corporations?  The economy is (allegedly) improving, but we are still nearing record levels of food stamp usage?  Obviously, people have gotten used to not having to put their own hard earned cash up for food - OR - the economy is still much worse than anyone wants to admit.