This happens spontaneously to me… the worst.
This.
(Source: rainbowsqueeze)
![stfuconservatives:
penelopestamp:
sympathyfortheartgallery | thedailywhat
Hope Has A Posse of the Day: Street artist Shepard Fairey remixes his iconic Obama “Hope” poster with the Anonymous-associated Guy Fawkes mask in support of the Occupy movement.
He writes on his blog:
Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let’s be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people.
[obey.]
Heavy.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luvliczyFb1qzpwi0o1_1280.gif)
sympathyfortheartgallery | thedailywhat
Hope Has A Posse of the Day: Street artist Shepard Fairey remixes his iconic Obama “Hope” poster with the Anonymous-associated Guy Fawkes mask in support of the Occupy movement.
He writes on his blog:
Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let’s be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people.
[obey.]
Heavy.
myotherblogisthemilleniumfalcon:
Fox News’ fair and balanced coverage of this morning’s incident.
“I’ve never seen a president start so many speeches with a heavy sigh.” -Jon Stewart
This would be hysterical if Obama didn’t have to scold the GOP canidates for allowing the crowd to boo a solider because of the sex he chooses to sleep with.
![stfuconservatives:
whynotshesaid:
downlo:
(Judging from his blog posts, Krugman is nearly there.)
Via this article about why the federal stimulus doesn’t seem to be having any affect on the economy:
Paul Krugman […] has a chart on the stimulus. It’s the most important chart I’ve seen on this topic, which has spawned oh-so-many charts. I’ll show it, and then explain it:
Okay, here is what this chart is telling us. The federal government has been pumping economic stimulus, in the form of higher spending and lower taxes, into the economy since 2009. But state and local governments have been pumping stimulus back out of the economy.
Why? Because state and local governments can’t run deficits. They have to balance their budgets. When the economy slows down, those governments collect less taxes, and often they have to spend more (on, say, programs for the poor, because more people qualify in a terrible economy.) So states that had balanced budgets at a given level of taxes and spending before the crisis suddenly have to raise taxes and/or cut spending in order to balance their budget during the crisis. The private sector is throwing people out of work, and the public sector is throwing even more people — cops, teachers, and so on — out of work.
The […] chart here measures the effect of the federal government’s stimulus against state and local governments’ anti-stimulus. Guess what? Anti-stimulus has been winning since the middle of 2010.
So the conservative arguments that Keynesianism has failed us aren’t quite accurate. State governments have been essentially mitigating the federal stimulus dollars so that the public isn’t really seeing any positive changes. Viewed in another way, the federal stimulus seems to have prevented things from getting even worse.
Our balanced budget amendment down in Florida is one of the things that has screwed us royally.
I know that conservatives like to be all, “Government should operate the same way I run my household! I don’t spend money I don’t have!” I suppose that would be accurate, if they had never taken out student loans, used a credit card or obtained a mortgage or a car loan.
We should probably listen to someone with a Nobel Prize in ECONOMICS!
-Joe](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrw8h4Nq0c1qccrklo1_400.jpg)
(Judging from his blog posts, Krugman is nearly there.)
Via this article about why the federal stimulus doesn’t seem to be having any affect on the economy:
Paul Krugman […] has a chart on the stimulus. It’s the most important chart I’ve seen on this topic, which has spawned oh-so-many charts. I’ll show it, and then explain it:
Okay, here is what this chart is telling us. The federal government has been pumping economic stimulus, in the form of higher spending and lower taxes, into the economy since 2009. But state and local governments have been pumping stimulus back out of the economy.
Why? Because state and local governments can’t run deficits. They have to balance their budgets. When the economy slows down, those governments collect less taxes, and often they have to spend more (on, say, programs for the poor, because more people qualify in a terrible economy.) So states that had balanced budgets at a given level of taxes and spending before the crisis suddenly have to raise taxes and/or cut spending in order to balance their budget during the crisis. The private sector is throwing people out of work, and the public sector is throwing even more people — cops, teachers, and so on — out of work.
The […] chart here measures the effect of the federal government’s stimulus against state and local governments’ anti-stimulus. Guess what? Anti-stimulus has been winning since the middle of 2010.
So the conservative arguments that Keynesianism has failed us aren’t quite accurate. State governments have been essentially mitigating the federal stimulus dollars so that the public isn’t really seeing any positive changes. Viewed in another way, the federal stimulus seems to have prevented things from getting even worse.
Our balanced budget amendment down in Florida is one of the things that has screwed us royally.
I know that conservatives like to be all, “Government should operate the same way I run my household! I don’t spend money I don’t have!” I suppose that would be accurate, if they had never taken out student loans, used a credit card or obtained a mortgage or a car loan.
We should probably listen to someone with a Nobel Prize in ECONOMICS!
-Joe
Unbelievable.
A must watch. This video by the Women’s Media Center, “Sexism Sells—But We’re Not Buying It,” shows several real-life examples of prominent figures in the news making disgusting, extreme sexist remarks, specifically about the presence of (in reality, the lack thereof) women in politics. Obsessive, dehumanizing analysis of women’s appearances? Equating women in politics to having “nagging voices” that remind men of their wives? Fears of castration? It’s all here!
I mentioned this during the Got Milk ad controversy, so here it is again: a video of people perpetrating negative stereotypes about women, several of which boil down to “haha women have PMS and that makes them unfit to be leaders.”
2:45 - complaints about women being “nagging” and how “every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth it sounds like your wife nagging you to take the garbage out”
3:40 - “Men are depressed, but it’s their own faults; they’re allowing women to take over the world”
4:19 - Bill O’Reilly asks, “What is the downside of having a woman in the White House?” and the person responds, “Besides the mood swings and the PMS?”
5:12 - “This is exactly why men should not allow The Vagina Monologues to become The Vagina Dialogues.”
Tell me again how sexist ads don’t matter?
“It was preventable, but giving you medicine would be socialism, soooo…”
hahahaha
