Titled

votethemout2014:

1. He is the Worst of the Worst.

• While much of the nation was disheartened by Mitt Romney’s remarks about the 47%, Paul Ryan was busy making a similar claim. The difference? Ryan believes this country’s “Takers” actually account for 60%.
• While Todd Aiken became the poster child for “Legitimate Rape,” Paul Ryan doubled down on Aiken’s view. Not only did Paul Ryan co-sponsor several anti-choice bills with Aiken, he wants to enact the most absurd anti-choice laws our country has ever seen. 

2. Just because he didn’t earn his keep doesn’t mean he can’t demand that you earn yours.

• Paul Ryan loves to use the phrase, “Makers vs Takers.” He even co-authored a book about the “Takers” this country continues to allows to eat. Perhaps he should instead change his mantra to “Do as I say, not as I do.” Paul Ryan’s college education was paid for by his father’s death benefits (Yes, the very benefits he now wants to cut). Add to that, his current worth is measured at 7 million dollars. 5 million of which was received through a trust his wife received when her Mother passed away. He’s not a maker so that would make him….?

3. He’s Kind of a Numbers Guy.

• At least, that’s what he keeps saying. Strange thing, his numbers don’t seem to add up. In fact, some of them are straight out of Narnia. The balanced budget he is so proud of, doesn’t actually work. First, it heavily depends on a world of pure imagination, a hope that the Affordable Care Act will be overturned. A hope that has already been shot down on the house floor several times and has no end in sight. His budget is also reminiscent of Whodini as with a small slight of hand, the very same budget that he once said would take 25 years to balance now, like magic, is scheduled to be balanced in 10 years. Conveniently enough, the budget house committee only does fiscal budgets for 10 years at a time. If his budget was approved but didn’t work, he would likely never be held accountable for all the numbers that don’t add up.
• Oh and when he says balanced…

4. Before you cheer to loudly over his performance during the IRS questioning…

• Ask yourself, why did he paint the President as the culprit or at least part of the team? Like my Grandmother always told me, “When you’re right, you don’t have to lie.“ 
• Speaking of blatant anti-American actions, hostage crisis anyone?
• Like Paul Ryan? Stay away from the facts.

5. Paul Ryan isn’t a bigot extremist but…

• He does believe that what rapists in this country really need is a new smaller person to rape.
• What did his (allegedly) going on a few dates with a Black girl in college have to do with anything? Well, you were supposed to keep that in your mind as he stated that the best way to stop gun violence was to “Teach character and discipline” to the people in the “Inner cities.” (It’s a good thing there is no gun violence outside of the inner cities!!) You were also supposed to be so enamored by this revelation that you completely forgave the direct harm placed on Black Americans. The urban turnout probably was surprising for Paul Ryan considering how hard the GOP worked to suppress the Black vote.
  
• He voted against equal pay for women, against gay adoption, is anti-birth control and somehow also anti-choice, 
  
• Maybe he’s better on immigration…nope, not at all.

dailykos:

So much for Speaker Boehner’s top priority.

(Source: facebook.com)

activistaabsentee:

*Looooooong siiiiiiiiigh*

(Source: 6dogs9cats)

liberalsarecool:

Not only are they trying to end health care reform, but the GOP offer no alternative. They want the ‘for-profit’ status quo.

shortformblog:

Jan Brewer, liberal hero? The Republican Governor of Arizona—traditionally no friend to the left—has pledged to veto every bill that lands on her desk until her fellow Republicans agree to implement the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare. Yesterday, she made good on the threat, vetoing five bills in quick succession and repeating demands that Republicans in the state house approve the expansion.  A local wing of the GOP is putting enormous pressure on Republican state legislators to oppose the expansion, which would provide coverage to an estimated 50,000 low-income Arizonans. (Photo credit: AP)  source

see, this is exactly what a person in office should do!!!

think-progress:

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn on spending:

Iraq war 
v. 
Bank bailout 
v. 
Oklahoma tornado relief

reagan-was-a-horrible-president:

oinonio:

Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe opposed $60bn federal aid bill for Sandy victims but are fully behind funding for their state.

 Republican pair opposed Sandy aid – but it’s ‘totally different’ for Oklahoma | World news | guardian.co.uk

Yep. Totally different.

Just like marriage equality is okay with a Republican if they have a gay or lesbian family member. (Right, Dick Cheney? Rob Portman?)

Just like Social Security is good to have if you’re a Republican and your dad dies when you’re young and you need help paying for college. (Right, Paul Ryan?)

Just like FEMA is an evil government plan until your state needs help. (Right, Rick Perry?)

So much Republican hypocrisy.

odinsblog:

Earlier today, CBS News reported that at least two of the Benghazi e-mails that were leaked by Republicans last Friday were altered. The GOP leak of the altered Benghazi e-mails came five days before the White House released 100 pages of e-mail correspondence regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

One of the altered e-mails was from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. The other altered e-mail was from U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Here’s the Republican version of the Rhodes e-mail:

We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.

Here’s the White House version of the Rhodes e-mail:

We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

Here’s the Republican version of the Nuland e-mail:

The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.

Here’s the White House version of the Nuland e-mail:

The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.

BUSTED!!!

Republicans have been caught red-handed altering official e-mails sent in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack. I’m not surprised that Republicans would pull such a stunt, after all, it was the Republicans who misled this country into the Iraq War!

Now, can we talk about the REAL Benghazi scandal…you know, the one about Republicans altering e-mails?

Read More and more

quickhits:

Gun lobby, Ayotte clearly feeling the heat.

Greg Sargent: A bit of a dispute has broken out over just how much pressure Kelly Ayotte is feeling over her vote against the Manchin-Toomey compromise to expand background checks. The gun control forces have organized to pressure her at town hall meetings and on the air, but conservative media have argued that the pressure on her from the left has been exaggerated.

It’s interesting, then, that the major efforts to defend Ayotte by gun rights groups and fellow Republicans tend to emphasize her supposed support for background checks. That seems like a pretty good sign of which way the political winds are blowing on the issue.

Here, for instance, is a new ad that Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running in New Hampshire. It says this: “Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”…

That message echoes a recent NRA ad that thanks Ayotte for her vote, but also says: “Kelly Ayotte voted for a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” Ayotte herself recently defended her vote on the same grounds that she supports.

It’s hard not to notice that the thrust of these defenses center on Ayotte’s support for background checks, and not her opposition to expanding them.

In other words, the message here is “Kelly Ayotte? Voted against background checks? Why, you must be thinking of someone else!” They aren’t even trying to defend her vote. Instead, they’re trying to cloud the issue with bullshit. According to Sargent, what they’re pointing to is not the background check bill that was nearly universally popular, but instead “an alternative proposal, sponsored by Chuck Grassley, that would have beefed up state sharing of mental health data with the feds, without extending the background check to private sales via commercial portals on the internet and at gun shows.” So, not really a vote about background checks at all.

Sargent reports that “gun control groups believe the Grassley approach would actually undermine the overall background check system” and that voting for Grassley’s idea wouldn’t have prevented her from voting for voting for the background check expansion. They were separate issues, not competing proposals. In the end, Ayotte voted against expanding background checks and any other story isn’t even spin — it’s a lie.

But Rubio and the NRA know they’ve got the losing argument here, so they aren’t bothering to defend it. Rather, they’re just plain lying about Ayotte’s record to make it seem like she voted for gun control. This is so not going the way they’d hoped.

[photo by M Bergman]