FULL STORY

‘Tanorexic’ cites dark forces behind arrest

Check out the Article by Robert Becker, Rove Misfires, Pitting Obama Celebrity Vs. Romney Void

What is Turd Blossom thinking? — or is he cowed by reactionary funders who think this election gets decided on personality and likeability. If so, Obama rules, the better campaign hustler and world’s greatest celebrity….(read)

Catholic priest Father Martin McVeigh accidentally showed a slideshow of gay porn images during a presentation at a primary school.
[Dude was instantly hating it] as the slideshow of X-rated pictures popped up on screen automatically when he inserted his USB stick into the computer. The priest was talking to parents about going to Confession [if you know what I mean] in Pomeroy, Northern Ireland, when the images autoplayed and popped up on screen. He claimed he did not know the images were on the memory stick. [quick thinking, hating it boy!] Parents who attended the gathering on March 26 said ‘approximately 16 indecent images of men’ were shown before the priest removed the USB stick. [I would have been quicker on the draw, I think. 16 is a lot!] One eight-year-old was also present at the meeting. [”This dude is hating it” she said. “I’m fucking 8 years old.”].

Police were called following the incident but officers said no crime had been committed. [”We have no evidence of a crime here, only clear evidence of Hating It on a grand scale, and that is perfectly legal.”]

Logan’s advice to the Hating It: If you ask me, Priest, you should just no-sell the whole thing, act like someone played a joke on you dude! You can say it was me!
source

D’oh! Romney’s Auto-Bailout Dance Enrages Tea Party Too!!

by Benjy Sarlin

Mitt Romney is stuck in the worst possible position this week in Michigan when it comes to the auto bailout. On the one hand, he’s being pilloried by both Democrats and the local press for his confusing criticism of the federal intervention that rescued the auto industry. On the other hand, his claim that he would have rescued Detroit too — maybe even with similar measures! — is drawing jeers from conservatives as well. That’s right, the Tea Party isn’t happy with his bailout position either.

At issue is confusion over just what the “bailout” was. Romney, who even in his “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” days in 2008 hinted that the government would need to provide help to keep the car companies alive, can’t fully embrace the idea that taxpayer money should have gone to GM and Chrysler without angering the right. So instead he keeps winking at Michigan voters that the Obama administration’s managed bankruptcy solution in mid-2009 was exactly what he would have recommended himself and GM would still be posting record profits if they had just taken his advice sooner without all those bailouts beforehand. Left unsaid is that in order to make that managed bankruptcy work without destroying the companies, the government had to step in with tens of billions of additional dollars in loans to keep them afloat.

Romney doesn’t like to talk about this part, alluding only to vague “help” from the federal government that he would have provided as president (and driving Detroit columnists insane in the process). This week he at least hinted for the first time that this “help” could have included direct loans. But for conservatives, using taxpayer money to ease GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy at all was a bailout. For Tea Partiers, it’s one of the ultimate bailouts.

“It was a managed bankruptcy and taxpayers were there the whole way,” Daniel J. Ikenson, director Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, told TPM. “I’m not sure what distinction Romney is trying to draw, but he’s awfully good at trying to flip flop.”

Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party patriots, said in an interview that a central Tea Party objection to the White House’s process was that the car companies received government loans and special treatment rather than going through a normal private sector bankruptcy.

“We have a bankruptcy system that applies to everyone else,” Meckler said.

And while Romney has tried to avoid the whole “direct loans” question, he’s explicitly endorsed measures like guaranteeing private sector loans or car warranties, which are still considered taxpayer bailouts on the right. According to Wayne Brough, chief economist of Freedomworks, even Romney’s rhetorical claim this week that “of course I wouldn’t have allowed [Chrysler and GM] to be liquidated” was a betrayal of conservative principles.

“It’s playing into the whole moral hazard question,” he said. “If in fact companies are thinking that way, it’s not the way a market works.”

As a smokescreen to distract from this fundamental conflict with the right, Romney plays up his opposition to other, less important, issues — how much the unions had to concede versus bondholders, for example — that play well with conservatives. But on the most basic question of the entire bailout, he’s simultaneously positioning himself as an anti-bailout crusader while all but insisting had he been in charge he would have bailed out the industry. And, as is often the case when one tries to please everybody, now nobody is happy.

source

During his victory speech on Saturday night in South Carolina and his appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich mentioned Saul Alinsky and how evil, dangerous, and un-American his influence is on America and American politics. He also tried to associate President Obama with him. But, who IS Saul Alinsky and why is Newt Gingrich so frightened of him?

Well, it’s pretty simple: Saul Alinsky was a writer and community organizer who empowered the poor no matter their race. He strove to give a voice to the voiceless by organizing them into a body capable of massive protests, believing that the poor and disenfranchised would have more power to make their voices heard if they would come together and speak as one. In other words, he added the voices of the poor to our democracy.

Saul Alinsky grew up in a Jewish household and always identified himself as a Jew when asked about his religious views. His political views are harder to pin down, since he refused to join any party or subscribe to any ideology. I suspect Newt thinks that Alinsky is a communist but he would be wrong. Alinsky was appalled by political extremes. He hated the Nazis on the right and the Communists on the left. When asked if he would join the Communist Party, Alinsky replied,

“I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism… The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”

Alinsky believed people could make their lives better if they became more politically active and joined together for that purpose. In the last years of his life, during the Nixon Presidency, Alinsky saw the coming extreme conservative movement and planned to organize white middle class citizens to fight for their futures. Alinsky feared the middle class would be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, “making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday.” That guy on horseback sounds like Newt Gingrich and every other Republican who wants to take America back to a time when corporations and the wealthy had all the power, when regulations that protect consumers and workers didn’t exist, when racial minorities were second class citizens, when women were confined to the home, and when there were no protections for the disabled and the elderly.

It makes sense that Newt Gingrich fears Saul Alinsky. Alinsky helped give the poor and downtrodden a voice in this country. In fact, if Saul Alinsky were still alive, he’d be proud of the Occupy movement and would more than likely be helping to organize it. Newt Gingrich once mentioned Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals, and how bad for America it is. But the book just details how to organize and push for an idea and pressure the government to listen to the will of the people. In the first paragraph of the book Alinsky wrote, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

I wrote earlier that Alinsky’s political views are hard to pin down. I believe he was just left of center like President Obama is. And that’s another reason why Newt Gingrich tries to tie the two together. Barack Obama was a fantastic community organizer in Chicago, where Alinsky began his own organizing efforts. Alinsky was so effective that he drew criticism from those who feared the wrath of the masses, but he also drew praise from progressives like Adlai Stevenson who said Alinsky’s efforts “most faithfully reflect our ideals of brotherhood, tolerance, charity and dignity of the individual.” Even conservative William F. Buckley said he was “very close to being an organizational genius.” That being said, if Newt Gingrich says President Obama is like Saul Alinsky, Obama should wear that comparison like a badge of honor.

Newt Gingrich fears a Jewish, politically independent community organizer who helped the poor, improved democracy, helped both blacks and whites, and hated Nazis and Communists. Can we then assume that Gingrich is an ultra-conservative Christian extremist and white supremacist who wants to bring corporate and religious fascism down upon America? Because that’s the only reason why Newt Gingrich would be so frightened of Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky changed American democracy by adding the voices of the previously ignored and unheard, which only makes our democracy stronger and more inclusive. This is what makes our system the envy of the world. This is why people come here to build themselves a better life and to be included, counted, and heard. Apparently, Newt Gingrich hates the fact that the poor have a voice in America. If Gingrich or any other Republican candidate were to become President, the poor would once again be quashed under the boot heel of a conservative corporate coalition whose only goals are to fleece the American people and dismantle the Constitution. The people have the right to organize and protest. That right is protected by the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers, whom conservatives claim to revere. So why do they hate poor people so much when they protest? Why do they seek to limit democracy to only the white, wealthy few? Conservatives have no clue what real democracy is. They only want power and greed and that means they have to attack the masses and strip them of their voice and their vote. That’s why we, as Americans, must rise up and make our voices heard. That’s why we, as Americans, must vote. So I believe I speak for a majority of Americans, including the poor, when I say, in the words of Saul Alinsky, we “love this goddamn country, and we’re going to take it back.”

source

UPDATE

ED NOTE: While we here at HatingItMagazine.com think this writer is a completely brainwashed right winger, his perspective is rather telling.

By Brett Stephens of the WSJ

Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.

It doesn’t matter that Mr. Obama can’t get the economy out of second gear. It doesn’t matter that he cynically betrayed his core promise as a candidate to be a unifying president. It doesn’t matter that he keeps blaming Bush. It doesn’t matter that he thinks ATMs are weapons of employment destruction. It doesn’t matter that Tim Geithner remains secretary of Treasury. It doesn’t matter that the result of his “reset” with Russia is Moscow selling fighter jets to Damascus. It doesn’t matter that the Obama name is synonymous with the most unpopular law in memory. It doesn’t matter that his wife thinks America doesn’t deserve him. It doesn’t matter that the Evel Knievel theory of fiscal stimulus isn’t going to make it over the Snake River Canyon of debt.

Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.

Is this the best they can do?
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.

That’s my theory for why South Carolina gave Newt Gingrich his big primary win on Saturday: Voters instinctively prefer the idea of an entertaining Newt-Obama contest—the aspiring Caesar versus the failed Redeemer—over a dreary Mitt-Obama one. The problem is that voters also know that Gaius Gingrich is liable to deliver his prime-time speeches in purple toga while holding tight to darling Messalina’s—sorry, Callista’s—bejeweled fingers. A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House.

Then there is Mitt Romney, even now the presumptive nominee. If Mr. Gingrich demonstrated his unfitness to be a serious Republican nominee with his destructive attacks on private equity (a prime legacy of the Reagan years), Mr. Romney has demonstrated his unfitness by—where to start? …. (source)

While this one makes you say “WOW WHAT A TOOL!”