Tag Archives: obama

Bobby Jindal Thinks the IRS Shouldn’t Be Used to Target Political Enemies, Except For His

by PennyPalazzi Posted on August 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Appearing at the #KidsTable GOP presidential debate on Thursday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal vowed that if he were elected president, he would use every agency he could think of to hound Planned Parenthood out of business—even the agency Jindal has blasted for allegedly targeting conservative opponents of President Obama.

“Planned Parenthood had better hope that Hillary Clinton wins this election,” Jindal said, “because I guarantee you, under President Jindal, January 2017, the Department of Justice, and IRS, and everybody else that we can send from the federal government, will be going into Planned Parenthood.”

Jindal’s campaign promise to use the Internal Revenue Service to attack a nonprofit he disagrees with might be surprising to anyone familiar with his past comments about the IRS’ screening of politically active nonprofits, which included a number of small conservative and tea party groups. In January 2013, speaking to a group of Virginia Republicans, Jindal had a starkly different take on using the IRS to pursue political opponents.

“Anyone who is participating in the targeting of Americans for our political beliefs…anybody who knew about it, anybody who cynically looked the other way, anybody under whose watch this occurred, they need to be fired and they need to be fired immediately!” Jindal told the crowd.

But he didn’t stop there.

“You cannot take the freedom of law-abiding citizens, law abiding-Americans, whether you disagree with them or not, and keep your own freedom, when you do that, you go to jail!”

Source article – 

Bobby Jindal Thinks the IRS Shouldn’t Be Used to Target Political Enemies, Except For His

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bobby Jindal Thinks the IRS Shouldn’t Be Used to Target Political Enemies, Except For His

Here’s How President Trump Could Dismantle Obama’s Climate Rules

by RayfordAua Posted on August 5, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was first published by the Huffington Post and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Republican presidential candidates gathering in Cleveland for Thursday’s debate are sure to get questions about the Affordable Care Act, Planned Parenthood, and immigration.

All of those issues deserve attention. But maybe the first question should be about President Barack Obama’s latest effort to slow climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday released a final version of new regulations designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Technically, the regulations are part of the Clean Air Act, which became law in the 1970s and gives the federal government broad powers to regulate pollutants that threaten public health.

The new regulations call upon states to devise plans that cut down on carbon output from power plants—which, in practice, could mean anything from shutting down aging coal-fired generators to creating multi-state markets for trading pollution permits. States must produce their plans by 2018, and begin making cuts by 2020. In states where officials decline to submit plans, as the law envisions, the EPA will step in and impose blueprints of its own making. (The Huffington Post‘s Kate Sheppard has all the details—and the case Obama is making in favor of these new regulations.)

Monday’s announcement is the latest step in the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to limit greenhouse gases. The idea is to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants by about one-third, relative to 2005 levels, by 2030. You can make a credible argument that, taken together, the president’s efforts to slow climate change belong alongside the Affordable Care Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms as cornerstones of Obama’s legacy on domestic policy.

But that depends, in part, on the next administration implementing these new regulations faithfully. And that may not happen.

Even before the rules became final, Republicans were vowing to fight them. “This is going to be a disaster,” Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, told a gathering of conservative donors that the Koch Brothers convened on Sunday. Formal release of the regulations on Monday produced still more condemnations. “This is a buzzsaw to the nation’s economy,” Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, said at a candidate forum in New Hampshire.

Continue Reading »

Read this article:  

Here’s How President Trump Could Dismantle Obama’s Climate Rules

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How President Trump Could Dismantle Obama’s Climate Rules

Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

by pinfamozpa Posted on July 31, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jeb Bush knows it doesn’t look good if a candidate appears to get most of his financial support from a small group of wealthy donors. Earlier this spring, he asked donors to try not to give checks of more than $1 million to his super-PAC, and when the group announced its total haul for the first six months of the year, it took pains to emphasize that 9,400 of its more than 9,900 contributors had donated less than $25,000.

But now it’s going to be a lot harder for anyone to think of the Bush super-PAC—which completely dwarfs his campaign in terms of financial resources—as anything but driven by extremely wealthy donors.

This morning, the Right to Rise super-PAC filed its first disclosure reports, confirming that it had indeed raised $103 million in the first six months of the year. That is an unprecedented amount, but what’s really news is the distribution of the donations. It does appear that only about 500 donors gave more than $25,000 to the super-PAC, but donations of less than $25,000 accounted for just $21.7 million of the total. On the other end of the spectrum, 23 people gave more than $1 million to the super-PAC, contributing a total of $27.3 million.

The size of the donations is shocking. Despite the growing public perception that super-PACs are playgrounds for millionaires, the number of people who have ever given $1 million to political causes in their lifetimes is small. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign finance organization (where I used to work), prior to this election cycle, just 475 individuals had ever given $1 million or more cumulatively since 1989, when it began keeping track of the data. Given the seven-figure donations that have already been reported for other super-PACs in the last week, the number is probably well over 500 people now, and the Right to Rise super-PAC is responsible for many of them.

The fact that only about 0.04 percent of Americans gave more than $2,600 last election cycle means that even most of the donors who gave less than $25,000 were already elite in terms of political donations. But with these latest numbers, even the under-$25,000 contributors begins to look like small donors by comparison.

Among Bush’s top donors are people with an interest in some of the top foreign policy debates right now. Miguel Fernandez, a private equity executive who chipped in $3 million, the largest contribution to the super-PAC, was a refugee from Cuba. Bush has slammed President Obama’s rapprochement with the Castro regime. Hushang Ansary was the Iranian ambassador to the US before the Iranian Revolution; he and his wife each donated $1 million. Bush has likewise opposed Obama’s nuclear-containment deal with Iran.

The list of top donors has some expected names, the dependable rainmakers who have long fueled the Bush family. Included among the top donors are big Texas names like oilmen T. Boone Pickens and Ray Hunt, as well as the widow of Harold Simmons, a Dallas chemical magnate who is one of the largest political donors of all time and who was a major source of money for Karl Rove’s various fundraising efforts over the years.

There are also a number of donors who are not people—something that could not have happened before the super-PAC era, or at least not on the same scale. NextEra Energy, Florida’s electric utility, donated $1 million to the super-PAC. That donation itself is unusual, given that publicly traded corporations have tended to avoid giving money to super-PACs, though they may legally do so after the Citizens United court decision in 2010. The US Sugar Corporation Charitable Trust donated $505,000—possibly a first for charities, which are generally excluded from involving themselves in politics.

Not all of the corporate donors are quite as transparent. One $1 million donation came from a shell corporation called Jasper Reserve LLC. On the disclosure forms, the company lists a Charleston, West Virginia address belonging to a law firm that has represented numerous coal companies over the years. The company appears to be registered in Delaware, effectively blocking any information about who founded it or runs it.

Excerpt from: 

Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Megadonors Bankrolling Jeb Bush’s Campaign

Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal Just Keeps Getting Weirder and Weirder

by kx93z6g Posted on July 29, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The congressional hearings into the Iran nuclear deal continue apace. Steve Benen points us today to this lovely exchange between Sen. Lindsey Graham and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter:

Graham: Does the Supreme Leader’s religious views compel him over time to destroy Israel and attack America?

Carter: I don’t know. I don’t know the man. I only —

Graham: Well let me tell you, I do. I know the man. I know what he wants. And if you don’t know that, this is not a good deal.

Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

Carter: No. The United States.

Graham: We. Win.

So there you have it: (a) the Ayatollah unquestionably wants to destroy Israel and attack America, and (b) there is no doubt America would win this war. This sounds like mighty poor strategic thinking on the Ayatollah’s part to me, since presumably he knows as much as Lindsey Graham about the relative military strength of Iran and the United States. But I guess his pesky religious views compel him to commit national suicide anyway.

Now, you might be skeptical that Graham knows the Ayatollah as well as he thinks he does, or knows his religious views in any depth either. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt on that score, his apparent view of things still doesn’t make sense. If the Ayatollah is as committed to war as Graham thinks, why would he bother with this deal in the first place? According to conservatives (I’m not sure what the CIA thinks these days), Iran is currently less than a year from being able to build a nuclear bomb. So why not just build a few and start the war? It can’t be because the sanctions matter. If war is inevitable thanks to the Ayatollah’s religious views, but America is going to win the war by reducing Iran to a glassy plain, who cares about a few more years of sanctions? Most Iranians are going to be dead a few hours after the war starts anyway.

So….it’s all still mysterious. Conservatives don’t like the deal Obama negotiated. Fine. But we can’t go back to the status quo. If we pull out of the deal, economic sanctions will decay pretty quickly and Iran will have lots of additional money and be a year away from building a bomb. The only other alternative is war. Graham is more open about this than most conservatives, but even he realizes he has to be cagey about it. He can’t quite come out and just say that we should go to war with Iran before they build a bomb. So instead he tosses in an oddly pointless question about who would win a war between Iran and America. Why? Some kind of dog whistle, I guess. Those with ears to hear understand what it means: Graham wants to see cruise missiles flying. The rest of us are left scratching our chins.

It all just gets weirder and weirder. The deal on the table, imperfect as it might be, doesn’t restrict American freedom of action at all. Plus it has a pretty stringent inspection regime and would prevent Iran from building a bomb for at least ten years—probably longer. That’s better than what we have now, so why not go ahead and sign the deal and then use the next ten years to figure out what to do next? What’s the downside?

I can’t really think of one except that it makes a shooting war less likely over the next decade. I call that a feature. I guess Graham and his crowd call it a bug.

Taken from: 

Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal Just Keeps Getting Weirder and Weirder

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Opposition to Iran Nuclear Deal Just Keeps Getting Weirder and Weirder

When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy

by Norris41S7784335 Posted on July 28, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When you watch the news after the latest big shooting, there’s a good chance you’ll come across John Lott. The 57-year-old economist has made more than 100 media appearances over the past two years, from friendly conversations on Fox News to heated debates on MSNBC and CNN. After nine churchgoers were gunned down in Charleston, South Carolina, he went on Sean Hannity’s show and criticized President Obama for spreading “clearly false” information about gun violence. Following the recent mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, his op-ed asking “Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?” was among the most popular articles on the Fox News site. After an interview with Lott in the wake of the movie theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham gushed, “He knows more about guns and the Second Amendment than pretty much anyone I know.”

More from MoJo: Read Chris Mooney’s look the Lott controversy in 2003

Lott does not come off as the stereotypical pro-gun activist. His demeanor is professorial and his argument is academic: Based on his years of research and data analysis, he claims that guns reduce crime by enabling people to protect themselves and deter criminals. His message is simple: As he told CNN’s Piers Morgan in the wake of the Aurora mass shooting, “Guns make it easier for bad things to happen. But they also make it easier for people to protect themselves and prevent bad things from happening.” His book, More Guns Less Crime, which has been referred to as the bible of the gun lobby, forms the quantitative justification for the effort to ease restrictions on concealed firearms across the country.

It’s no coincidence that Lott’s profile has risen as Americans have been reckoning with the causes and impact of gun violence. But his newfound visibility is surprising considering that, a dozen years ago, his professional reputation was in tatters, his bold claims undermined by accusations of shoddy research and questionable ethics.

Continue Reading »

Original post – 

When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy

The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Turning 25. Watch the Dramatic Protest That Made It Happen.

by DanaOFerrall Posted on July 25, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Twenty-five years ago this weekend, the Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law, officially outlawing discrimination against disabled people in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and government services. The law was a long time coming: Activists had fought for decades against unequal access to jobs and exclusion from public schools. But the ADA might never have gotten to President George H.W. Bush’s desk were it not for a group of activists in wheelchairs who took matters into their own hands earlier that year.

On March 12, 1990, hundreds of people with disabilities gathered at the foot of the Capitol building in Washington to protest the bill’s slow movement through Congress. Dozens left behind their wheelchairs, got down on their hands and knees, and began pulling themselves slowly up the 83 steps toward the building’s west entrance, as if daring the politicians inside to continue ignoring all the barriers they faced. Among the climbers was Jennifer Keelan, an eight-year-old from Denver with cerebral palsy. “I’ll take all night if I have to!” she yelled while dragging herself higher and higher.

Here’s some footage of the protest, via PBS’s Independent Lens:

The Capitol Crawl, as it became known, made national headlines and pushed lawmakers to pass the ADA into law. When Bush finally signed the landmark bill, it was seen as one of the country’s most comprehensive pieces of civil rights legislation to date. But it was not a total cure-all, according to Susan Parish, a professor of disability policy at Brandeis University. The Supreme Court later watered it down, she says, in a series of decisions that created a narrow definition of disability.

In 2008, lawmakers passed amendments to strengthen the ADA, but Parish says people with disabilities have still struggled to gain equal access to employment, in part because employers are expected to comply with the law but do not have to follow reporting requirements. “I feel that the country needs a full-scale affirmative action program for people with disabilities,” she said in a recent interview.

President Obama issued an executive order in 2010 requiring the federal government to hire more people with disabilities. In a speech earlier this week, he said the West Wing receptionist, Leah Katz-Hernandez, is the first deaf American to hold her position. But despite some progress since 1990, he acknowledged, “We’ve still got to do more to make sure that people with disabilities are paid fairly for their labor, to make sure they are safe in their homes and their communities…I don’t have to tell you this fight is not over.”

Continue reading – 

The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Turning 25. Watch the Dramatic Protest That Made It Happen.

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Turning 25. Watch the Dramatic Protest That Made It Happen.

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

by FeliciaStill Posted on July 24, 2015

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

By on 24 Jul 2015commentsShare

What will happen to your electric bill after the Obama administration starts limiting CO2 emissions from power plants? It could come down quite a bit, a new report finds — if your state leaders are smart.

Republican lawmakers have claimed that residential electricity bills will rise by up to $200 annually under Obama’s Clean Power Plan, based on a study put out in May 2014 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. While the study has been widely discredited, opponents of Obama’s plan continue to cite it.

Now, a report by consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics suggests that state compliance with the plan — paired with investment in renewables and energy efficiency initiatives — could actually lead to big reductions in what Americans pay for power. The key? Early action.

Two of the report’s authors lay out the logic in EcoWatch:

By investing in high levels of clean energy and energy efficiency, every state can see significant savings with a total of $40 billion saved nationwide in 2030 … However, consumers will typically see the largest savings in states that build renewable resources early. Under the Clean Power Plan, these first movers will profit by becoming net exporters of electricity to states that are slower to respond. States that keep operating coal plants well into the future will tend to become importers after those plants retire, and energy consumers in those states will miss out on substantial benefits of clean energy and energy efficiency.

According to the report, if two-thirds of consumers participate in energy efficiency programs, electricity bills could be $35 cheaper per month than a “business-as-usual” scenario would predict for 2030. In fact, bills would be cheaper than they were in 2012, write the authors. The firm projects that the $35 savings would leave household electric bills at an average of $91 per month in 2030. (The EPA also expects household electric bills to drop under the plan, but the agency estimates they would be $8 lower per month.)

Keep in mind, though, that Synapse’s $35 figure is averaged across the U.S. as a whole. Since electricity prices already vary widely around the country, and the Clean Power Plan will be implemented differently by different states, the projected savings are subject to some massive variance. North Dakota residents, for example, could save $94 per month if their leaders are aggressive with renewable energy and efficiency.

But so far six governors have said they won’t draw up strategies for implementing the Clean Power Plan — so don’t expect early action from their states. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed in March calling for states to defy the Obama administration over the power plant rules.

While the Synapse report wasn’t funded by a group with an obvious financial interest in the outcome (like, say, the corporate-backed Chamber of Commerce), it was supported by a group with a viewpoint: the Energy Foundation, “a partnership of major foundations with a mission to promote the transition to a sustainable energy future.” Which is something we can get behind.

Source:
A Clean Energy Future: Why It Pays to Get There First

, EcoWatch.

Climate rule to bring lower energy bills, report says

, The Hill.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

View original:  

Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, sustainable energy, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s power plant rules could cut your electricity bill

Shell gets the final go-ahead to drill in the Arctic

by CharlotMps Posted on July 23, 2015

Shell gets the final go-ahead to drill in the Arctic

By on 22 Jul 2015commentsShare

Shell has cleared its last regulatory hurdle before beginning drilling in the Arctic. And while that fact has ticked off environmental groups, Shell did not end up receiving the free pass it had been hoping for … at least, not yet. From FuelFix:

Under the limited Interior Department drilling permits, Shell can only focus on one well at a time, and it cannot penetrate potential oil- and gas-bearing zones some 8,000 feet underground, at least until a damaged company-contracted icebreaker returns from repairs in Oregon.

That ship, the MSV Fennica, is meant to keep ice from encroaching on Shell’s drilling operations and is designed to install critical equipment on top of a damaged well in an emergency.

Shell had hoped to exploit multiple wells at the same time during the short July-to-September window when drilling is viable in the Arctic. It had also hoped to drill multiple wells within nine miles of one another, but the Department of the Interior decided that wells would have to be 15 miles apart, in the interest of wildlife protection.

Then, earlier this month, one of Shell’s two icebreakers, the MSV Fennica, ended up with a crippling gash in its hull and had to dock in Portland, Ore., for repairs. It was a setback for the company, and environmental groups argued it was proof that Shell is not competent enough to manage the task of extracting oil in harsh Arctic conditions.

Shell’s past exploits in Arctic drilling have been a less-than-humorous comedy of errors. One of the company’s contractors ended up being fined $12 million after one of its ships ran aground in 2012. Environmental groups suggested that this year’s renewed efforts would lead to a similar outcome, and, when the MSV Fennica ended up hitting an uncharted rock, they redoubled their argument. The ship was carrying equipment to help the company deal with an oil spill — an eventuality that, according to DOI, is not unexpected. A February analysis found that there’s a 75 percent likelihood that Shell’s efforts in the Arctic will result in one or more spills of more than 1,000 barrels of oil during its 77-year lease.

“Today’s approval ignores Shell’s dismal record of safety violations and undermines President Obama’s pledge to combat climate change,” said Marissa Knodel of Friends of the Earth. “With this decision, President Obama has given Shell an open invitation to turn the Chukchi Sea into an energy sacrifice zone, threatening both the resilience of the American Arctic Ocean and his climate legacy.”

Even though the company will not be able to drill as many wells as it had hoped, any drilling at all is bad news for the climate. A January paper in the journal Nature concluded that, if the world is to avoid the nastier effects of global warming that come with a rise in average global temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius, then all of the oil in the Arctic will have to stay put. Shell, however, has different ideas — and now the company has the go-ahead to act on them.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work. A Grist Special Series

Meat: What’s smart, what’s right, what’s next

Get Grist in your inbox

See the article here: 

Shell gets the final go-ahead to drill in the Arctic

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, Monterey, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell gets the final go-ahead to drill in the Arctic

Ben Carson Says Prison Is So Comfy Some People Never Want to Leave

by ImaKinross Posted on July 22, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

President Barack Obama visited a federal prison in Oklahoma last week to discuss sentencing reform for non-violent drug offenses. At an event in Arlington, Virginia, on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson revealed that he, too, had visited federal prisons—and had a much different takeaway. Federal prisons are really nice!

From the Washington Post:

“I was flabbergasted by the accommodations—the exercise equipment, the libraries and the computers,” he said. He said he was told that “a lot of times when it’s about time for one of the guys to be discharged, especially when its winter, they’ll do something so they can stay in there.”

…

“I think that we need to sometimes ask ourselves, ‘Are we creating an environment that is conducive to comfort where a person would want to stay, versus an environment where we maybe provide them an opportunity for rehabilitation but is not a place that they would find particularly comfortable?'” he told reporters.

Not all federal prisons are alike, but to put his experiences in perspective, Carson may want to read up on the federal maximum-security facility in Florence, Colorado:

A federal class-action lawsuit filed in June alleges that many ADX prisoners suffer from severe mental illness that has been exacerbated or even caused by their years of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation in small concrete cells. It claims that the BOP fails to provide even a semblance of psychiatric care to these prisoners, with grisly results. According to a litigation fact sheet, “inmates often mutilate themselves with razors, shards of glass, sharpened chicken bones, writing utensils and other objects. Many engage in prolonged fits of screaming and ranting. Others converse aloud with the voices they hear in their heads. Still others spread feces and other waste throughout their cells. Suicide attempts are common. Many have been successful.

More: 

Ben Carson Says Prison Is So Comfy Some People Never Want to Leave

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ben Carson Says Prison Is So Comfy Some People Never Want to Leave

If You Don’t Click on This Classy Post, You Are a Loser and a Moron

by q1jurse Posted on July 21, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Four days after mocking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for being captured in Vietnam, Donald Trump is at the top of the Republican presidential polls. Despite his history of political flip flops, Trump has gained traction with red-meat-loving conservatives by skewering and belittling establishment figures such as McCain and Karl Rove, questioning President Barack Obama’s legitimacy, and attacking undocumented immigrants. But he’s also been quick to fling insults at anyone who ever says anything bad about him—other celebrities, journalists, legislators, and this one poor guy from Bermuda. Donald Trump insults people.

And now you, too, can be insulted by the tirade-prone tycoon—with the Mother Jones Donald Trump Insult Generator™. Just enter your name (or your friend’s name, or the name of your favorite stupid clown political pundit with bad ratings) and give it a spin. Just don’t expect an apology:

var get_name = function()
var form = $(‘#name_form’);
form.hide();
var name = form.find(‘inputtype=”text”‘).val();
tabletop_callback = function(response)
data = process_data(response);
data’user_name’ = name;
register_templates();
init_headline_generator();
check_query();

start_random_sentence_maker(spreadsheet, proxy);
return false;
};

var spreadsheet = “1eTi1J0Fc_uC_ODlnpNgIQWvTw1h0kcI_3T2P-7sqSWU”;
var proxy = ”;
var fb_description = ‘Trump Insult Generator’
var fb_picture = ‘http://www.motherjones.com/sites/all/themes/mobile/images/mobile_logo.png’;
var fb_app_id = ‘119572928091379’;
var templates =
‘subjectnametwice1 user_name subjectnametwice2 user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘user_namesubjectnamefirst predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘user_namesubjectnamefirst predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘user_namesubjectnamefirst predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘user_namesubjectnamefirst predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘user_namesubjectnamefirst predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,
‘subjectnamesecond user_name predicate insult3 kicker’,

var shorturl = ”

Original article:

If You Don’t Click on This Classy Post, You Are a Loser and a Moron

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If You Don’t Click on This Classy Post, You Are a Loser and a Moron