Liberal Forum

CNN pundit Hillary Rosen created a firestorm when she said, Admittedly the part in bold print was put in a bone-headed way. Obviously Ms. Rosen was talking about working outside the home, but the rest of what Rosen said is absolutely true.Ann Romney has never had to work outside the home to insure the economic survival of her family.She had the luxury of being able to stay home and raise her kids, probably with a lot of paid help, a luxury most women don't have.Of course, even though she admitted that she chose those words poorly, Democrats couldn't throw Ms. Rosen under the bus fast enough.And in the long list of Romney campaign lies, they have falsely identified Hillary Rosen as an 'Obama adviser'.She's not. She works for CNN.It's ironic that I haven't seen the same thing coming from the GOP side, when Republican Congressman Allen West recently said that 78 to 81 Democrat members of congress are Communists.Did any other Republicans denounce his words?No.....of course not.Same as when Rush Limbaugh said those awful things about Sandra Fluke.Democrats cower. Republicans double down.I was not aware of what may be some serious sleazy representation from Hilary Rosen..thus far, it doesn't look good.The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal: Does Her Firm Sell Access To The White House To Powerful Corporations? Hilary Rosen, a Democratic lobbyist and pundit for CNN, found herself caught up in 24-hour news cycle controversy after she made some inflammatory comments about Ann Romney's work as stay-at-home mom. Rosen has apologized for her off-the-cuff comments. But the entire story may set off a greater, more substantive inquiry about the nature of Rosen's consulting firm, SKDKnickerbocker, an unregistered lobbying firm that has become one of the biggest names in the influence business by using its ties to President Obama and leaders in Congress.Predictably, Republicans have noticed that Rosen is a frequent visitor to the White House. While Democrats are arguing that Rosen is not an advisor to the Democratic Party or President Obama's reelection campaign, then what are the meetings about? Today in the Politico's "Morning Money," reporter Ben White flags a deeper concern:Per a senior Dem: "Serious Dem operatives are aghast at Hilary Rosen's misguided attack on Ann Romney's work history. She and others at PR firm SKD Knickerbocker have represented many clients that have raised hackles with senior White House staff. It's an open secret in the Dem consultant community that SKD has been signing up clients based on 'perceived White House access' tied to prior relationships and employment."As we've reported, SKDKnickerbocker is led by a team of former Democratic operatives and key White House figures. But instead of promoting a progressive agenda, or even an Obama agenda, these consultants score huge contracts by helping corporate interests lobby for policies that are not in line with the public interest. Many SKDKnickerbocker employees, including Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director, are also frequent White House visitors.We've compiled a partial list of SKDKnickerbocker's clients. Since the firm refuses to register as an ordinary lobbying firm, we don't know their full roster of clients:-– SKDKnickerbocker was hired by Kaplan Education to block Obama's reforms on for-profit college companies, an industry plagued by by low quality education, false promises to students, and fraudulent business practices.-– SKDKnickerbocker was hired to push for billions in tax breaks for already profitable corporations. As Bloomberg reported, SKDKnickerbocker manages a lobbying campaign called "Win America," an effort by companies like Google and Pfizer to receive hundreds of billions in tax breaks on profits made overseas.-– SKDKnickerbocker was hired by a coalition of food manufacturers to fight the Obama administration's proposals on food nutrition standards. As the Washington Post reported, the firms paying Dunn includeGeneral Mills and PepsiCo.– SKDKnickerbocker represents consulting for Students First, a lobbying group aimed at destroying collective bargaining, and replacing public education with a mix of charters, private schools, and online learning companies. According to documents revealed the blog At The Chalk Face, Students First helped craft bills in Michigan to break teachers unions by severely limiting collective bargaining.– SKDKnickerbocker previously worked with the Association of American Railroads, a group representing large railroad companies. When the railroad industry was in a pitched battle with their respective labor unions, SKDKnickberbocker produced ads for the railroad lobby.A proposal leaked two months ago showed that a group of political consultants, including SKDKnickerbocker's Anita Dunn, worked up an effort to find hedge funds to pay them to kill efforts to enact the "Buffett Rule." In the memo, Dunn clearly advertised her ties to the White House.Earlier this year, I asked Hilary Rosen's partner, Anita Dunn: "You have a lot of access to the President, from advising his campaign to regular visits to the White House. Do you think its a little bit disingenuous that you're simultaneously being paid by a lot of corporations to lobby against his reforms?" Dunn scoffed at my question, and replied that she works for "some corporations" because "people have a right to be heard." But the evidence suggests Dunn isn't just giving voice to these multinational corporations. She's also peddling their interests in multiple meetings with White House officials, all without registering any of her employees as lobbyists.We would like to know more about who is paying Dunn, especially since she has the president's ear. However, like Newt Gingrich and Ed Gillespie, she exploits weaknesses in current lobbying registration law to avoid revealing her clients.UPDATE: Politico's money and politics reporter, Ken Vogel, tweets that Rosen brought one of her lobbying clients, a Microsoft executive named John Kelly, to a state dinner at the White House in March http://www.alternet....l_corporations/ Edited by Henry_, 13 April 2012 - 08:03 PM.

Just politics.

Willard Romney and the Reality of Gun ControlBy Charles P. Pierce@Esquire.comI have come to conclusion that the key to understanding Willard Romney, foof-dauphin of the Republican party, is to understand an old vaudeville joke. (This is the key to understanding many things, as Woody Allen demonstrated in Annie Hall.) Two women are sitting at a bar. One talks like the young Lauren Bacall. The other one talks like a duck. When the bartender talks to the former, he sounds like Clark Gable. When he talks to the latter, he talks like a duck. The second woman gets fed up. "Are you making fun of me?" she quacks at the bartender. "No, ma'am," he quacks in reply. "I'm making fun of her." Having lived in the Commonwealth (God Save it!) under the barely perceptable leadership of Governor Willard, I have spent the campaign wondering if the Governor Willard is the sham or Candidate Willard is the sham. I wonder no longer. He wasn't making fun of them. He was making fun of us. He's gone so fully wingnut that the only conclusion that any of we veteran Romneybot watchers can come to is that his whole governorship here was a riff. He's shucked off all the "moderate" camouflage that so fooled us that it can never have been stuck to him that solidly. Take today, for example. He went and spoke to the National Rifle Association and he vigorously stroked that group's most deeply masturbatory fantasies: "In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election," Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the cavernous Edward Jones Dome. "As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he'll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea." Referring specifically to the right to bear arms, Romney said: "If we are going to safeguard our Second Amendment, it is time to elect a president who will defend the rights President Obama ignores or minimizes. I will."Let us begin briefly by noting, as we always must do after every Romney oration, what a whopping big lie this is. There is nothing in the first three years of the Obama Adminstration that indicates that he's going to embark on a wildassed gun-grabbing spree as soon as they put away the Bible next January. (Romney can ask some liberals, if he doesn't want to believe me.) What gun rights, precisely, has the president ignored or minimized? And, if all he does is ignore them or minimize them, isn't that what these people want, as long as he doesn't curtail the fundamental American freedom to open up with an AK if the gardener looks at you crosswise? He's given up on having his lies make sense. Moreover, as he damn well knows, this is the phony monster story that the NRA has been peddling for three years in order to fatten its war chest so it can go around the country and bribe state legislators into creating more and more George Zimmermans. This is something that concerned Governor Willard when he was at our end of the bar, making fun of us. How much of a paranoid delusion is this that he's adopting as his own? Check out the official response from the White House which, in addition to calling Romney out as the fraud he is, also, spectacularly, seems to be trying to get around to the right of Romney on gun control.... "The President's record makes clear the he supports and respects the second amendment, and we'll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters," said campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt. "Mitt Romney is going to have difficulty explaining why he quadrupled fees on gun owners in Massachusetts then lied about being a lifelong hunter in an act of shameless pandering. That varmint won't hunt." That's where the reality of gun control lies in this election: Romney pretends he was born politically in 2009, and the White House reminds people what a gun control fanatic he was in Massachusetts. And it doesn't matter if the bartender is making fun of us, we all need a drink.Romney 2002: We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them. I believe that they help protect us and provide for our safety.Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

John McNeil of Cobb County GA. Sentenced to Life After Officers Determine Self Defense in ShootingJohn McNeil, a father who was defending his teenage son, himself, and his home, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in November 2006 for killing Brian Epp, a white trespasser. The Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court found that Epp, an armed trespasser on McNeils property had already threatened McNeils son with a box cutter. When McNeil arrived home to protect his son, he told the trespasser to get off the McNeil property. Eyewitnesses saw the trespasser, with the box cutter still on his person, keep advancing toward McNeil. McNeil warned him again, and when the trespasser got within a few feet of McNeil, the homeowner fired a warning shot into the ground. The trespasser continued to advance in a threatening manner toward McNeil, ignoring McNeils command to back up. When the trespasser was within arms distance where he could injure or kill McNeil with the box cutter, or grab McNeils weapon, McNeil fired one shot, which was fatal.Read more on the John McNeil story here.The officers determined that John McNeil acted in self defense and did not arrest him.Later, however, the District Attorney brought the matter before a grand jury.Indictments were brought. The man who tried to defend himself and his home was tried, convicted of felony murder andsentenced to life in prison.NAACPThis is the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case in reverse.John McNeil is black and Brian Epp was white.

I'm accusing Republicans of a war on women, not because they disagree with me on policy, but because they are passing laws in many states that roll back the rights that women fought for.It's not my imagination. It's actually happening.I've cited many examples of it right here in this thread.Remind me again, what are some of these rights us mean mysogynist Republicans are trying to remove? I think I lost the memo with the headline reading "Rights Women Should Not Have" O'Reilly sent me.

Remind me again, what are some of these rights us mean mysogynist Republicans are trying to remove? I think I lost the memo with the headline reading "Rights Women Should Not Have" O'Reilly sent me.Well let's see. When a woman goes to her doctor to request a legal medical procedure, and her doctor has to read her a script written by lawmakers (some containing lies) and shove a vaginal probe inside her against her will (and make her pay for that unnecessary procedure to boot), I think that's an infringement on her liberties. Silly me.What about the right to equal pay for doing the same job as a man?Most Republicans voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and Governor Scott Walker just repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act.Obviously Republicans feel that a woman does not deserve to be paid as much as her male counterparts, and is not entitled to any redress if she is discriminated against in the workplace. Edited by MistyBlue, 14 April 2012 - 04:30 PM.

Well let's see. When a woman goes to her doctor to request a legal medical procedure, and her doctor has to read her a script written by lawmakers (some containing lies) and shove a vaginal probe inside her against her will (and make her pay for that unnecessary procedure to boot), I think that's an infringement on her liberties. Silly me.And you don't think the murder of her baby is an infringement on ITS liberties and rights (to live, mind you)? Women coming in for an abortion should be glad we're not yet at the point at which we cuff and take them away the second they say the want an abortion - on the charges of conspiracy to committ murder. What about the right to equal pay for doing the same job as a man?Most Republicans voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and Governor Scott Walker just repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act.What about a business owner's right to handle his business the way he wants to as long as nobody gets hurt? If you own a business, you should be allowed to discriminate against anyone you want and for any reason you damn well please. If you're applying for a job at a company who's owner doesn't want to pay you the same salary just because you're a woman - either start your own business or apply for another job. If there's a restaurant owner who doesn't want to serve whites like me - I can go look for another restaurant or start my own. It's that simple. PROPERTY RIGHTS, PEOPLE!

Disenfranchising the Amish In Pennsylvania Religious questions for Pennsylvania voter ID law draw fire.Nothing is sacred about your religion when it comes to getting a state identification card without a photo. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation offers ID cards for those with religious objections to being photographed. The Amish and certain sects of the Mennonite community are among those who object to having their photos taken because of their faith. To get a nonphoto ID for religious reasons, applicants must answer a series of 18 questions that delve deeply into their faiths and other personal information. Now that Pennsylvania has passed one of the nations toughest voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud, the scope of the questions is drawing criticism. The first item on PennDOTs form asks applicants to describe your religion. It is followed by more questions that devout followers might struggle to answer, and some that inquire about the lives of family members. How many members are there of your religion? How many congregations? Whats the process by which you came to the religion? What religious practices do you observe? Do other family members hold the same religious beliefs? Submitting that form, once notarized, is not enough. Applicants must fill out another form. If they lack proof of identification, yet another form must be completed before a nonphoto ID is issued. The ID is valid for four years, and the renewal process is simpler. Going through this process is essential if those who hold religious objections to being photographed want to vote. Anyone who wants to vote must show identification in the November election.Two Republican state Senators (who supported the voter ID law) have expressed concerns about what it takes to get a nonphoto ID, and say that the questions seem intrusive.State Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon County, said the questions seem intrusive, and he wonders why all that information is needed. They are going to be keeping them from the polls, keeping American citizens from the polls, Folmer said. Thats what Im concerned about. That form is an overreach in my opinion, said Sen. Mike Brubaker, R-Lancaster County. I dont want persons for religious reasons not to have a photo taken, to go through a process that is any more cumbersome than absolutely necessary to get the proper identification to be able to vote. Those concerns prompted Brubaker and his chief of staff to meet with PennDOT officials Friday to understand why such a cumbersome process is required.Lebanon and Lancaster Counties? Now why do those sound familiar? That couldn't be where the Amish live could it?G. Terry Madonna, a political scientist at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, said a lot of Amish and Mennonites dont vote, but when they do, they tend to vote Republican. OIC. So that's why they're concerned. I doubt if they have the same concern for people who tend to vote Democratic being disenfranchised. As a matter of fact, I know they don't.

Women coming in for an abortion should be glad we're not yet at the point at which we cuff and take them away the second they say the want an abortion - on the charges of conspiracy to committ murder. If you own a business, you should be allowed to discriminate against anyone you want and for any reason you damn well please.Having any further discussion with you would be pointless on my part, considering those two statements.

...Look at your profile.

Having any further discussion with you would be pointless on my part, considering those two statements.Of course, taking the easy way out. Wouldn't it be great if they adopted your way of 'debating' in Presidential debates too? Whenever Obama says something Romney can just go "Considering your statement, I believe any further discussion on the subject would be pointless". Or maybe not, Chicken.

MistyBlue, on 14 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:Having any further discussion with you would be pointless on my part, considering those two statements.Of course, taking the easy way out. Wouldn't it be great if they adopted your way of 'debating' in Presidential debates too? Whenever Obama says something Romney can just go "Considering your statement, I believe any further discussion on the subject would be pointless". Or maybe not, Chicken.It has nothing to do with courage. I'm just being practical.You said that women who request an abortion (which BTW is legal in this country) should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and you also said that business owners should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want, for any reason they damn well please.Needless to say I totally disagree with both of those things, and since I'm very unlikely to change your mind, and you sure as hell will never change mine, arguing with you will be about as useful as repeatedly bashing my head against a wall.

I vote for you bashing your head,,,,

Meet Mitt Romney fundraiser, dog roaster and Jew counter, Fred Malek. Why Can't People Forgive Fred Malek for a Little Dog-Roasting?Every year or so, poor old Fred Malek, the GOP fundraiser, has to suffer through a callback to his youthful indiscretions, like that one crazy time in his twenties that he and his friends were caught drunkenly barbecuing a dog on a spit, or the wacky moment in his thirties when he counted the Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics so President Nixon could demote them, or the hilarious time in his sixties when the Securities and Exchange Commissioned ordered him to personally pay a $100,000 fine for allegedly using taxpayer funds to reward a political supporter. *(Youth!) On Friday, the anti-Mitt Romney group Dogs Against Romney noted that Malek is hosting Ann Romney's birthday party. Dogs Against Romney does not appear to be an entirely serious group, as its core issue is reminding the world of the time in 1983 when Romney went on a road trip with his dog strapped to the car's roof. Nevertheless, poor old Malek must relive those old memories again. These are the things Malek is infamous for:In 1959, Malek and four other men in their 20s were arrested at 2a.m. in a Peoria park when police found them covered in blood. Police found a skinned animal on a spit. Malek said he had nothing to do with the dog killing.In 1971, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a report playing down a drop in the unemployment rate, and President Nixon became obsessed with the idea that Democratic Jews were conspiring against him in the agency. "We've got to get a man in charge who is not Jewish to control the Jewish do you understand?" Nixon told chief of staff H.R. Halderman. Halderman appointed Malek to the case. In 1988, The The Washington Post reported notes from five White House meetings taken Halderman. They include: On July 5, 1971: "Malek really check out Jewish cabals."July 9, 1971:"Malek -- Jews in BLS etc."July 24, 1971: "How many Jews -- Malek."July 25, 1971: "Malek get the [number] of Jews in BLS."July 30, 1971: "Where are the figs on BLS ethnics." Malek identified 13 Jews, and many were singled out for demotion. And now he never hears the end of it!The Jew-counting was first revealed in 1988 by The Washington Post when Malek was to become deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. He had to resign. In 2004, the stories made news again when Malek was fined by the SEC for his his company's work Connecticut's pension fund. The SEC said Malek's firm paid Malek's old political pal a lot of money to do zero work. The Jew-counting came up again in 2007, when he was named national co-chair of John McCain's presidential campaign. In 2010, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell -- a potential Romney running mate! -- named Malek to head his Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring. The Jew-counting came up again -- the story more richly textured thanks to the release of more Nixon documents -- and Malek had to apologize one more time. McDonnell claimed he had no idea of Malek's old job. Nixon White House alum Ben Stein was moved to write an essay titled "Leave Fred Malek Alone" in the American Spectator. Stein wrote, "Richard Nixon, in a silly moment, asked if the economists in the BLS who were giving out the data were his political enemies and if they were Jews Nixon never intended to do a thing about it, never intended to punish anyone, was just curious about why the BLS seemed to be slanting the news the way he thought it was being slanted." (Historical evidence does not appear to support this description of events.) When Malek was advising Sarah Palin, the Jew-counting came up again.And now that he's fundraising for Mitt Romney, all anyone cares about is his dog barbecue. Though Malek didn't officially endorse Romney till January, he's been a fan for a while. Malek maxed out in personal donations to Romney earlier this year. He's repeatedly praised Romney to reporters, and his support for Romney goes way back (Romney appeared at a fundraiser at Malek's house back in May 2009.) When Tim Pawlenty quit the race and backed Romney, Romney urged supporters to help Pawlenty retire his campaign debt, and Malek's group pitched in with a $45,000 purchase of Pawlenty's donor list. And all that time, no one talked about the Nixon stuff. It must be a relief Friday to talk about an entirely different embarrassment for once. The doggie BBQ story has the added effect of being mutually beneficial: Dogs Against Romney has struggled to get publicity, its actions mostly limited to some protests and selling snarky stickers. Finally, people are talking about them, too. This old dog has some life in 'im yet.One would think that in light of Willard's history of mistreatment of his own dog, he would steer clear of someone like Malek. LOL Edited by MistyBlue, 15 April 2012 - 10:06 AM.

Indiana Republicans Pass Law Making it Legal to Kill CopsRepublican Governor Mitch Daniels has signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law in Indiana. The new law allows citizens to use deadly force against police officers they think are illegally entering their homes."MadMike's America?"This, from the moonbat who rejects my decades-tested, solid sources because they're "opinion?"Your source if full of crap.No, moonbat, no one is allowed to "kill cops." Citizens are allowed to shoot in self defense if anyone breaks into their house without identifying themselves, and not be charged later.This is why Liberals/Dems say the Republicans are waging a war on women.Not because of their rhetoric, but because of the actual policies they are putting into effect that are harmful to women.The old Democrat trick; look, a squirrel!Are women safer because of Obama's $1.3 trillion deficit? Are they safer because of his 11% real unemployment rate?Are they safer because of the collapsing dollar and rising inflation rate?And it's not just reproductive rights that are being eroded.Mitt Romney's buddy Gov. Scott Walker has actually repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, a 2009 law that offered legal avenues to fight wage discrimination.A leftist, Big Government scheme that puts politicians in charge of deciding what "equal" jobs, pay and qualifications are, one of many liberal reasons Wisconsin had a rotten economy.

I vote for you bashing your head,,,,Of course you would. This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?Sorry Puss, you have not risen.Still DEAD to me.

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?So what? Everyone else can read my refutations of your bulls***.Sorry Puss, you have not risen.Still DEAD to me.I'm God.And I'm really p***ed off at what your party has done.

I'm God.And I'm really p***ed off at what your party has done.Blasphemy!

...This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?Definition of DEAD1: deprived of life : no longer alive 2 a (1): having the appearance of death ......(2): lacking power to move, feel, or respond ...b: very tired ...c (1): incapable of being stirred emotionally or intellectually : unresponsive ......(2): grown cold : extinguished 3 a: inanimate, inert ...b: barren, infertile ...c: no longer producing or functioning 4 a (1): lacking power or effect ......(2): no longer having interest, relevance, or significance ...b: no longer in use : obsolete ...c: no longer active : extinct

...This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem . View it anyway?Definition of DEAD1: deprived of life : no longer alive 2 a (1): having the appearance of death ......(2): lacking power to move, feel, or respond ...b: very tired ...c (1): incapable of being stirred emotionally or intellectually : unresponsive ......(2): grown cold : extinguished 3 a: inanimate, inert ...b: barren, infertile ...c: no longer producing or functioning 4 a (1): lacking power or effect ......(2): no longer having interest, relevance, or significance ...b: no longer in use : obsolete ...c: no longer active : extinctEasy now. The best way to get rid of him is to completely ignore him and not even mention him. Try that.