Recent comments

  • Alternative Fuels......   12 hours 35 min ago

    Ever heard of a solar furnace (used in research into alternative fuels)? Try looking it up.

  • Billionaires won't be happy until America becomes Greece...   12 hours 35 min ago

    There you go again, Thom, "Back in December of 2013, Republicans gave Americans a really nasty Christmas present: they cut off long-term unemployment insurance for 1.3 million people. The party of Scrooge left Americans high and dry in the cold, and unable to provide for their families during what’s supposed to be one of the most joyous times of the year. "

    is there not a disconnect between voters and the Republican Party. Where were the Democrat Georgia voters last November, huh, Thom??? Did they vote, did they vote in droves......or they prefer to be unemployed, homeless, improvished? Or, perhaps, their thinking is--as long as it's not their job being outsourced or impacted, why should Joe 6-pack care?

    "Republican Senate candidate David Perdue defeated Democrat Michelle Nunn in the race for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. ..During the last few months of the campaign, Democrats sought to portray Perdue as a Mitt Romney-type Republican by drawing attention to comments made years ago in which he admitted spending most of his career outsourcing jobs. Rather than renouncing them, Perdue said he was "proud" of the work he did outsourcing jobs as an executive with Pillowtex Corp., a failed textile manufacturer." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/david-perdue-wins-georgia-senate-race_n_5839128.html

  • Boo Hoo, John McCain gets all upset about Americans protesting for a just society.   12 hours 52 min ago

    Hey Tellio, I clicked on the link. Oligarchs like McCain get SO bent out of shape over people exercising their First Amendment rights! I think democracy scares those little fascists more than ISIS. - AIW

  • Did the oil/gas companies suddenly become less greedy?   12 hours 59 min ago
    Quote LysanderSpooner:
    Quote ulTRAX:

    Gee Einstein... can it be because oil at $147 a barrel was a THREAT TO OUR ECONOMY... and $47 a barrel oil is not? Can it be that something was terribly wrong in the market when the sky-high price was disconnected from supply or demand?

    So in your mind... those factors do NOT warrant serious investigation?

    Thanks for another demonstration of how right wingers sabotage their own intellect.

    The complaint when gas prices were high had to do with greed and "price gouging". But were profits necessarily higher because prices were higher. Greed is a constant in human affairs. Why isn't the price always high if oil companies can just willy-nilly raise their prices?

    Are you having problems remembering what I wrote in post 2?

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2015/01/did-oilgas-companies-suddenly-...

  • Billionaires won't be happy until America becomes Greece...   12 hours 59 min ago

    No wonder Mississippi is the poorest state. It's also the stupidest. That dumb-ass cracker who says he's willing to starve for his "moral beliefs" oughta go right ahead and do that, and remove himself from the gene pool. We don't need another generation of those yahoos voting Republican, that's for damn sure! - AIW

  • Billionaires won't be happy until America becomes Greece...   13 hours 5 min ago

    The repugnicans and billionaires need to take a lesson from structural engineers:

    If you destroy the foundation, the bulding will collapse. They just don't realize how dependant they are on us "low life scum". (McCain has lit the match...the fires of revolution have started.)

  • Each of us scalped, each and every day, by publicly traded companies........   13 hours 5 min ago
    Quote Dexterous:....narcissistic fools that think they know everything.
    Seriously Dex... I've yet to see you eat crow.

  • Radical Left Wins in Greece, Leaving the Koch Brothers in a Cold Sweat   13 hours 8 min ago
  • Did the oil/gas companies suddenly become less greedy?   13 hours 21 min ago

    There is greed all the time. It's just that the amount of greed that can be exerted is impacted by the market.

    The "rocket and feather" pricing phenomenon, to me, proves that there is always greed in the pricing of gasoline, whether the prices are going up or down. Rocket and feather means when oil shoots up, gas prices shoot up like a rocket. When oil goes down, gas prices float lazily down like a feather. If you think about it, this is simply merchants getting as high a price as they can, for long as they can.

    When oil is up, it's highly publicized, and consumers expect higher gas prices, so prices shoot up like a rocket. When oil is down, it's publicized also, but all kinds of explanations come about: "Higher priced gas in the pipeline takes awhile to run out!" or "It's more complicated than just the oil price!" .."It's a global market!" ...etc. etc. However nobody ever figures out the converse that there is also low priced gas in the pipelines when oil prices go up. But gas prices shoot up immediately anyway as merchants know consumers expect higher prices. So they make a tidy profit, for awhile.

    Quote CNBC:In 2010, a Federal Trade Commission study found that on average, retail pump prices rise more than four times as fast as they fall. The effect was more pronounced with branded gasoline than unbranded gas. And the "rockets and feathers" phenomenon was worse in Midwest cities than elsewhere in the U.S.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102240451#.

  • Billionaires won't be happy until America becomes Greece...   13 hours 22 min ago

    The "right-wing" spin machine is so effective because there are so many clueless, racist Americans who buy into it. Let us not forget this short; but, very revealing piece by Bill Maher.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWcVSRXDpTY

  • Did the oil/gas companies suddenly become less greedy?   13 hours 35 min ago
    Quote Kilosqrd:

    I find it ironic that when a bbl of oil was selling $140, there were many people clamoring for Congressional hearings on price gouging, massive profits, etc. Now, when a bbl of oil is less than $50, there are zero cries for hearings on why oil is so cheap.

    Well, if you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you, kilo.

  • Paris massacre   13 hours 43 min ago
    Quote Zenzoe:

    Now you've changed the subject from "intolerance and unacceptance of cultural difference..." to "dictating" other people's "right to self-determination." Those are two different things, so how about sticking to the subject.

    I did not claim a "right to dictate" to other cultures, according to some debatable human rights standards. I claimed the right not to be tolerant, nor accepting, of practices by other cultures that by any sane and humane standards are objectionable, or just plain wrong. In other words, I can and will speak out, loud and clear, to wholeheartedly reject cruel, inhumane and ignorant practices wherever they occur.

    I claimed the right to the integrity of my judgment, Mark, not the right to invade a culture based on those judgments.

    Still, I do believe the community of nations has an obligation to also voice objections, where cultural practices violate human rights. Whether those practices occur in the United States or abroad, the human species must evolve everywhere on the planet with an eye toward advancement of our highest values and principles. This cannot happen without an agreement between nations that is based on fundamental human rights, rights that belong to every human person.

    Am I to believe that you think voicing one's objections is tantamount to dictating to others? I must say, speech seems to be the one thing you cannot tolerate, ironically so.

    You don't have to tell me what to understand about tolerance. One tolerates differences, as long as those differences do not result in the denial of my or other's human rights. As soon as a religion, or culture, interferes with or violates fundamental and universal human rights, or colludes with political powers-that-be in oppression and corruption, then it is no longer my obligation to adopt a "tolerant" attitude toward that religion or culture.

    Do you grok the difference between tolerance and indulgence? I don't have an obligation to indulge idiocy, cruelty, irrationality, ignorance and extremist delusion resulting in murder, then call myself "tolerant." To imagine oneself as being "tolerant," when one is simply being indulgent toward madness, is to engage in the pretentious self-righteousness of the sophomore.


    Zenzoe, please! Take a pill or something.

  • Paris massacre   13 hours 44 min ago

    Female castration is one of the most abhorrent practices I know and the one that most tempts me to violate the principle of cultural self determination. You don't understand, I'm not a relativist, I don't think either slavery or female castration is "justifiable" but I also am not the boss of the world.
    What happens when the U.S. government decides it's going to enforce its idea of "Universal Human Rights" on the world - and their definition of it is private property rights for the 1%, so that then Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are as terrible abusers of human rights as Augusto Pinochet or Pol Pot? So then nobody can try socialism.
    Human Rights are like free speech, everybody wants to enforce a single standard for it as long as it's their own idea of what it should be.

  • Progressives, If you didn't have to pay any taxes, would you give to charity?   13 hours 50 min ago
    Quote ulTRAX:There have been some defective studies done on the topic of comparative giving. The blue vs red state study is one.

    http://philanthropy.com/article/The-Politics-of-Giving/133609/

    But voting participation in the US generally falls in the 35-55% range. So if 45-65% of adults do NOT vote... the red or blueness of a state is rather arbitrary.

    Another defect of the “red state vs blue state” giving is the fact that blue states, federal taxwise, are donor states, while red states are moocher states. On average. So the money that red states are giving, that makes them feel so charitable and good about themselves, at least partially comes from blue state largesse courtesy of “big government” income redistribution. I will give the red states credit though…if they are indeed giving more, at least they’re spending blue state taxpayers’ money well.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spendin...

    http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/ftsbs-timese...

  • Do unemployment benefits discourage people from finding a job?   13 hours 53 min ago

    It’s cheaper for society on the whole to pay the Unemployment benefits, rather than paying the myriad of costs that society would incur as a consequence of People being completely up-ended as a result of their job loss.

    Believe it or not, it pays to occasionally tend to your country’s greatest assets – its People. But it is more profitable for corporations if their work force is made desperate to do anything at any wage because the alternative is sleeping out in the ditch and stealing to feed your kids. And that speaks in a manner to the problem of under employment – under employment means your economy is not maximally productive. Just like when your Government invests most of its resources in Corporations that don’t really return to American Society what the People who work in live in America return to American Society.

    Also, this is a America! EVERYTHING has to do with who can consume in the most enviable fashion! When was the last time you met somebody new and you weren't asked to the effect "So, where do you work?" or "So, what do you do for a living?" Unemployment in America connotes an air of being somehow personally defective. Nobody wants that. But then again, Republicans, and increasingly Democrats, are so stupid they'd fuck up a wet dream (can I say that out here?)

  • Barac Obama is THE worst Environmental President EVER in US history.   13 hours 54 min ago

    Tellio, Your post is worthless without facts. Please post facts or post of interest to this subject. I'm not defending Obama. This has been going on for years without the interest of the commons.

  • Each of us scalped, each and every day, by publicly traded companies........   14 hours 2 min ago
    Quote Dexterous:As for Hillary and the progressives caving in, at least the Tea Party had the balls to work to get their candidates in office by removing some seated Republicans. The progressives sat around chanting in drum circles shouting "occupy something but we don't know exactly what yet".
    I think we’ve had the b8lls conversation before. Yes, the Tea Party had much more money to work with, I think you know that. Money can buy b*lls. More specifically, people with b*lls, i.e, (figuratively - don't get upset feminists) i.e., the experience in organizing, managing, messaging, etc. etc. etc. And all those busses that bused Tea Partiers into carefully planned PR appearances, and out in time to make the Early Bird Special at Denny’s, or back to the assisted living home before Dinner and that evening’s Walker, Texas Ranger episode. Not to mention all the free advertising on Fox News.

    There is a distinction between the two movements. Tea Partiers are largely older, whiter, and more established. On average, they already “got theirs.” Now they want to pull up the drawbridge on everyone else. I’m sure they supported the Ryan Plan to rework Medicare, it made great sense to them – because it kept Medicare as it is for those over 55 at the time. Of course.

    As far as Occupy, and the drum circles, well, that’s what a real protest looks like, without all the artificial money and corporate backing. Unfortunately, unlike the PR events that many of the Tea Party events were, things can get out of control and sometimes they did, to my disappointment.

    But what I still see, is you, in Bingo!ing Matt’s comments that Red State voters support GOP to simply block progressive candidates, that you celebrate the very same behavior you ridicule here – that is, progressives reluctantly flocking to Hillary for no other reason than to block GOP candidates. Just because you don’t see those Red State voters whining here doesn’t mean they’re not whining who they eventually vote for. Red State voters generally don't post here, so you don't see that. Just look at what happened in Mississippi with Thad Cochran. He defeated a Tea Partier in the primary but still won the election with 60% of the vote. I’d imagine many of those votes were from Tea Partiers.

  • The Republicans really are winning. What do the Democrats really need to do?   14 hours 6 min ago

    well put, leftwritelady.

  • The Republican Party & Psychopaths   14 hours 15 min ago

    the republican party is anti-social, caring little about the common good or the welfare of avergae people. th eshame of our age is how dumb workers and middle-class fools buy into the phony threats and charges of reagan and those that followed. psychopaths may be the term, but ignorant bigots will do for my characterization.

  • Obama’s Admin, and Congress cut Employment Benefits, Food Stamps, $1 Billion dollars instantly appears for Ukrainian Fascists.   14 hours 15 min ago

    There is no stimulus when government spends money.

    Blodget: Ron Paul’s Plan [cutting 1 trillion] Will “Destroy the Economy”

    As if Henry Blodget’s friends haven’t done a good enough job of that after a decade of artificially low interest rates, rebate stimulus, deficit spending, bailouts, etc.

    Here’s Blodget’s tweet on this, which I read about at Bob Wenzel’s blog, and here’s his follow-up: “DEAR RON PAUL FANS: Yes, Your Candidate’s Plan Will Destroy The Economy.”

    If the federal government doesn’t spend the $1 trillion Ron Paul wants to cut, evidently no one will spend it. So even if that money is going down a rathole, and/or paying a bunch of time-serving drones double or triple the median American income to obstruct production, this is essential to our prosperity and cannot be discontinued.

    Perhaps we should build some pyramids while we’re at it, since “spending” is all the economy is about. Not allocating resources in such a way as to satisfy consumer wants at the least cost in terms of opportunities foregone. Just “spending.” Nevermind all the micro-level corrections throughout the economy that need to be repaired, and which an extra $1 trillion would go a long way toward repairing. Let’s think instead in terms of a crude macro aggregate — “spending” — and see if politically determined, economically arbitrary “spending” will just happen to redirect resources to those sectors where consumer demand wants them, following the years and years of misdirected resources that occurred during the artificial boom.

    Blodget’s pal, writer Zeke Miller, warns that “cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget would be an instantaneous 7 percent cut to GDP.” So because of the way GDP is figured, we are to believe that all government activity is a plus, even though it takes place outside the profit-and-loss nexus (i.e., the money government spends is simply seized from the population, so government cannot determine whether what it produces is actually desired and/or whether it comes at the expense of things people value more). Since economic calculation cannot occur under these conditions, it is worse than arbitrary to claim government spending as an unambiguous contribution to human welfare. (See Robert Batemarco, “GNP, PPR, and the Standard of Living.”)

    But let’s grant ol’ Zeke this point. Let’s be sports. What about when the federal budget was cut by two-thirds after World War II? Then as now, Keynesians predicted catastrophe. Nine million would be unemployed! they said. We can’t just stop building tanks! (Alvin Hansen actually said that — we can’t stop building tanks even when we’re no longer fighting. Hansen was Keynes’ most significant American disciple.) I talked about this a bit in this video.

    The actual result? The single greatest year for the private economy in U.S. history, with civilian output increasing by 30 percent. True, the GDP figures didn’t look good, but that goes to show what a lousy proxy they can be. No one in his right mind thought the economy was poor in 1946 (though writers like Miller and Blodget use the same flawed figures to argue that the U.S. was prosperous during World War II — an equally absurd conclusion). And Keynesians shouldn’t bother pretending that “pent-up consumer demand” solved the problem — neither the timing nor the magnitudes involved will allow that conclusion.

  • Scotland: Yet another country bans Obama’s horrific FRACKING while his oil whore Sally Jewell touts fracking’s virtues.   14 hours 17 min ago

    i've given up on you; your exaggerations and simplism are intolerable. maybe it helps to rant, but it invalidates you with me.

  • Rev. Fischer's Rationalizations: Jesus would anally rape another person for the State.   14 hours 20 min ago

    Jesus was an anarchist. He wouldn't do anything for the State. This "reverend" Fischer is just another fake Christian like Falwell, Robertson, Sharpton, Jackson, etc.

  • Barac Obama is THE worst Environmental President EVER in US history.   14 hours 20 min ago

    you're way over the top in caling obama the worst.

  • Democrat Claire McCaskill Happily Votes for Keystone XL Using Fox News Talking Points   14 hours 23 min ago

    that's NOT why dems lost recent congressional election. it's msotly because dems don't vote as much in mid-term races. right wingers are evil, and liars. some dems are chicken-shit vote whores. the best thing we have going now is obama's lame duck adoption of progressive-pleasing policies.

  • Paris massacre   14 hours 27 min ago

    Now you've changed the subject from "intolerance and unacceptance of cultural difference..." to "dictating" other people's "right to self-determination." Those are two different things, so how about sticking to the subject.

    I did not claim a "right to dictate" to other cultures, according to some debatable human rights standards. I claimed the right not to be tolerant, nor accepting, of practices by other cultures that by any sane and humane standards are objectionable, or just plain wrong. In other words, I can and will speak out, loud and clear, to wholeheartedly reject cruel, inhumane and ignorant practices wherever they occur.

    I claimed the right to the integrity of my judgment, Mark, not the right to invade a culture based on those judgments.

    Still, I do believe the community of nations has an obligation to also voice objections, where cultural practices violate human rights. Whether those practices occur in the United States or abroad, the human species must evolve everywhere on the planet with an eye toward advancement of our highest values and principles. This cannot happen without an agreement between nations that is based on fundamental human rights, rights that belong to every human person.

    Am I to believe that you think voicing one's objections is tantamount to dictating to others? I must say, speech seems to be the one thing you cannot tolerate, ironically so.

    You don't have to tell me what to understand about tolerance. One tolerates differences, as long as those differences do not result in the denial of my or other's human rights. As soon as a religion, or culture, interferes with or violates fundamental and universal human rights, or colludes with political powers-that-be in oppression and corruption, then it is no longer my obligation to adopt a "tolerant" attitude toward that religion or culture.

    Do you grok the difference between tolerance and indulgence? I don't have an obligation to indulge idiocy, cruelty, irrationality, ignorance and extremist delusion resulting in murder, then call myself "tolerant." To imagine oneself as being "tolerant," when one is simply being indulgent toward madness, is to engage in the pretentious self-righteousness of the sophomore.

Currently Chatting

Billionaires won't be happy until America becomes Greece...

Billionaires don’t need a social safety net, so they’re using the right-wing spin machine to destroy it.