They are two "civilized" nations that defaulted on an international loan.
Goodbye Greece. It's time you left the EU. Please shut the door behind you so no one has to see you cry.
Maybe you can come back later when you've learned how to be a proper and responsible country again.
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho.
"The EU can't afford to let us fail so we should continue to say no and they will blink and give us a better deal." (BBC)
This statement might be correct if everyone in the EU were people that blinked. But not all do. Germans in particular. So this expression is wrong because of the basic premise that everyone will feel so badly for poor Greece that they will give the spoiled child what it wants because it refuses to eat the dinner that's on its plate.
As any good parent knows all children will eventually give in, because a bad precedent isn't acceptable. Don't want to eat now because you don't like the meal? Then the brat will go hungry until such time as its body won't let it any more.
Go on Tsipras, hold your breath and kick your heels. Eventually, once you pass out, you will start breathing again. Like it or not.
Tsipras thinks that he can avoid facing reality (and being blamed for the results) if he throws the burden of decision-making back on the population. It's almost as if he wasn't elected to lead but to bleed the country.
"Except everyone is naked," says Haskell Smith. "There's even a dry cleaner - I don't know what they dry clean though. Going grocery shopping or having your croissant and coffee in the morning in the nude was actually so weird it was kind of fun. And once you've gone to the wine store and talked about the local rose naked then anything is OK." (BBC)
Ooops, sorry, wrong article. Also a more interesting one I might add. Here's the actual, relevant quote.
Greek banks are to remain closed and capital controls will be imposed, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras says.[..]
Friday evening: Greek prime minister calls referendum on terms of new bailout deal, asks for extension of existing bailout
Saturday afternoon: Eurozone finance ministers refuse to extend existing bailout beyond Tuesday
Saturday night: Greek parliament backs plan for referendum on 5 July
Sunday afternoon: ECB says it is not increasing emergency assistance to Greece (BBC)
So, instead of making agreements, instead of negotiating for his nation Tsipras has decided to put the painful decision on the plate of the public. They are the ones who must choose their own fate and when they reject the deal it will be their fault, not his. Alternatively, if they decide that they need to eat and get paid, and that concessions must be made? Again it will be their fault, not the person they elected to lead them.
So why then must Tsipras even get paid? After all anyone can posture, preen and then turn to a quorum for the tough decisions. Maybe he's just there to look good? He's not looking very good right now.
Tsipras, buddy, you have Greece on the brink. You have the EU (and everyone else) gritting their teeth. If you think that will make you a hero once the history is in the past, think again. There are people who go down as the opposite as hero's. And then there are the incompetents that everyone realizes and no one writes about.
Mr Scalia flashed anger, railing against an elitist majority on the Supreme Court who were imposing their values on "320 million Americans coast-to-coast".
"They are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution," he writes.
He called the decision a "judicial Putsch" and "a threat to democracy", in which the majority discovered a right to marriage that all the US legal minds before them had overlooked.(AP)
Tony is a conservative autocrat who likes to lambaste those who disagree with him. However it's a case of Pot and Kettle, because he has always enjoyed imposing his values on the 320 million Americans without any regard for dissenters.
Sucks to be on the losing side, eh Tony?
Still let's take the time to dissect that little piece of "whaaa, I can't be wrong, I hate you all [sic]."
1. Judicial Putsch, meaning a coup, against the government. Really. Rather it seems like precisely democracy in action, where the case in question was considered thoughtfully and properly by many judges and many states. Whereas the clear majority of states said "sorry, you can't prove that allowing two people of the same gender to marry hurts anyone or anything other than your sensibilities" Tony takes umbrage when they are HIS sensibilities because HIS are more important and more valuable than the majority of educated decisions.
2. "unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies" I guess Tony decided to liberally interpret history in a one-dimensional way that once again suits him. Any student of history will tell you that there were plenty of societies that didn't interpret marriage as "one man and one woman", unless of course you just choose to discount all non-Christian societies and ooops, guess what, there's one of those too. It ain't hardly unanimous now is it?
3. The general argument that "because it has been status quo for a long time it must be right." Oh please. There are many things that "good and proper" (read: religious/conservative) people of the past thought were acceptable. From the inquisitions and crusades to slavery and discrimination that were justified as "rules handed down by god." Well God doesn't pay salaries, provide police and fire services, deliver the mail or even keep the lights on.
We are a society of men, providing for and supporting each other. We made the rules and improve on them as we learn from our mistakes. Some people will insist on clinging to hate and discriminatory ways because it comforts them. But future generations, the ones who get to cast the real judgement on what was right and wrong, will be very clear on why those fears were misfounded.
Scalia is on the wrong side of the argument and the wrong side of history but that's ok because he's entitled to it.
The guy at Avis was proud to tell me that the little black Chevy Cruz I was renting was brand, spanking new. A whole 71 miles on it. Yay. Guess what else? It had major electrical problems too. Not once, but three times during the 400 mile trip the electronics reset while I was driving. How could I tell? Well as I was doing 65+ mph on the highway all the gauges: tach, speed, gas, temp went berserk, waving back and forth from one end to the other. Then a series of warning lights would flash, "traction control error", "power steering error", yellow, yellow, yellow. It was freaky as hell, especially when travelling at speed. Basically it seemed as if the electronics were resetting periodically, and with no special circumstances (not hitting bumps, but travelling in a straight line at steady speed, starting the car, etc.)
Overall I was freaked out and wondered if the steering would just die or lock up.
So yeah, Chevy Cruz? I don't advise buying one. Not even at a major discount.
Follow-up: apparently GM knows this and doesn't give a fuck. Oh and also the problem has killed people.
?This is something that can be serious and I feel like they don?t care,? adds Kayela. If you go to the government website www.safercar.gov you'll see a number of people complaining their Chevy Cruze also had a flashing dash before the engine stopped and the steering wheel locked up as they were driving. Some have filed complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration saying they crashed because of it and were seriously injured. In one complaint filed in June General Motors responds saying it launched an investigation and denies any liability. (Fox)
See the Bible only acts as a contraceptive when you put it between his dick and your snatch. Using it as a pillow under your butt only gets you out-of-wedlock-pregnant. A second time.
At least the ones who want to see a volleyball tourney.
Activists in Iran are angry that women were barred from watching a volleyball game against the US, despite earlier indications they could attend.[..]
Religious hardliners had reacted angrily to the apparent softening of restrictions.
Ansar-e Hezbollah, a religious vigilante group, issued a statement earlier this week likening female spectators to prostitutes and calling on its supporters to prevent them from entering the stadium.
"We are taking a stand against legalising the presence of prostitutes? in stadiums," the group said in a flyer distributed in Tehran. "This Friday there will be blood," it added. (BBC)
Wow what a great religion and what fantastic believers it produces! Any woman who wants to attend a volleyball match (or soccer, or cricket, or any sport at all) is a whore. Fantastic. So where exactly in your religious texts does it justify demeaning, debasing and restricting the rights of women? Also, thinking logically (if possible), how does attending a sporting match relate to selling sex for money?
If muslims want to be taken seriously, meaning as a religion of sane people, then they really need to clamp down on the loonies in their midst. The right response would have been to have a group of women attend, escorted safely to and from their seats. The right response would have been to have this "group" lambasted for their retarded views in the media and by the government. The right response would have been a backlash that enabled and publicized women in sports, as participants and spectators.
But it wasn't the response. Which leads one to believe that yes, muslims are not only tolerant of such oppressive and ridiculous behavior, but they generally support it. Like this asshole for example.
Senior Islamic clerics and officials also denounced the proposals. "We didn't rise up in an Islamic Revolution for the right of women to enter sports stadiums," said Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Alavi Gorgani.
So women didn't support your islamic revolution? Or are you just trying to re-write history? Momo, you're not a gentleman and you're not even a man. You're a pussy.
I'm getting a lot of bicycle rides in.
I'm suddenly very qualified to sell insurance for State Farm.
The time has come for you to go suck it.
The political situation in Greece is dire. Feet are now to the fire: the officials elected on a fantastic platform of puppies and rainbows have run up against the iron gates of reason and reality. In brief, saying you want people to lend you money with the condition of not paying all (or any) of it back isn't a good idea. Most people aren't that generous. Especially when it comes to billions. Even more especially when the person asking does it with a nose-in-the-air sense of entitlement.
ATHENS, Greece (AP) -- Two days before a crucial summit of Eurozone leaders, Greek ministers are huddling to discuss strategy and assemble a new package of proposals, officials say.
So Greece has done a Carmen act and Europe shrugged. Style may win you an extra audience, but if you don't balance the books then no one really cares if you're wearing a tie or not, something that Tsipras and his cronies are only starting to understand. I saw through the phony act at the start: "we look different therefor we won't honor the deals of our predecessors", and knew that the faint amusement it generated would be gone in a heartbeat: "we don't care if you come to the talks naked so long as you understand and adhere to the rules."
Now push has come to shove and in a few short days Greece will be insolvent. BBC laid out 3 possible options: Europe sucks it up and gives away the money, Greece sucks it up and adheres to the agreed conditions, Greece is tossed out of the EU on their keister. What BBC didn't provide was the odds of each, so I will fill that in.
A: Europe just gives away the money - 20%
B: Greece backpedals and offers enough (but not all) of the agreed changes - 50%
C: Greece leaves the EU - 30%
I think that while those in charge want their legacy to go down in history, they don't want to be the ones going down over the flaming rubble of Greece. It's not a simple thing to bite the hand that feeds when you have nothing whatsoever left to eat. Tsipras tried to play hardball and push back, just hoping that bluff would be sufficient, but you can't bluff the old dogs in charge of the EU and most certainly not the German pit bull.
It will be a painful compromise, but one will be struck. And Tsipras will have his place in history secured, as the Man Who Would Be King (but wasn't).
In a valiant attempt to avoid the topic of gun control, conservatives are trying to re-brand the attack in Charleston as an assault on faith, not an example of gun-empowered racism in America.
"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries," Mr Obama said on Thursday morning.[..]
And that's the reality of gun control in this country. As Mr Obama clearly understands, if a person can walk into a school, murder 20 children and public policy on this issue doesn't change - as happened in the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut attack - it's just not going to change. (BBC)
"We don't understand America's need for guns," said Philip Alpers, director of the University of Sydney's GunPolicy.org project that compares gun laws across the world. "It is very puzzling for non-Americans."
A frontier nation like the U.S., Australia had a similar attitude toward firearms prior to a 1996 mass shooting that killed 35. Soon after, tight restrictions on gun ownership were imposed and no such incidents have been reported since.
A similar effect has been seen elsewhere. (AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- They offered prayers and moments of silence. They sought to comfort. Some flashed with anger and frustration that, once again, America was forced to confront another mass shooting.
Yet less than 48 hours after nine people were shot to death in a South Carolina church, the nation's political leaders, from President Barack Obama to those Republicans who seek to replace him, as well as those in Congress, either did not call for a closer look at gun violence in America or said they didn't see one coming soon. (AP)
I can post a million articles that all say the same thing: as long as people have easy access to guns there will be mass killings, more deaths, and a lack of intelligent dialogue on flashpoint topics. Guns make it easy to make your point. How many people would be willing to trade their freedom or their lives for fame and a way to trumpet their beliefs? In the most extreme case, the success of the suicide bomber concept answers that clearly. In America, however, guns are cheaper and more accessible than dynamite and you also get free housing and further opportunity to promote your beliefs, so extremists don't need to go to all the trouble of actually blowing themselves up.
I have two points to make here: first the shitbags in the GOP turning a blind eye to both the cause and effect of their platforms. They have helped radicalize America by proudly pointing out the divisions: immigrants/citizens, gays/non-gays, women/men, conservative/liberal. It's part of their cause, their success, to draw the line and say *US*....them. The hate that's been leveled at the president because he's black has been severe and the country has pulled even farther apart because of the rhetoric. If you lump all non-democrats together (meaning to count libertarians, independents and republican-leaning with republicans) you will get less than 25% of all black voters. Why? Because they believe that the GOP hates them. And they're not far wrong when you read the quotes from conservative presidential candidates who use them as poster-fodder for welfare, drugs, joblessness, crime, gangs, and all the ills of our society.
Second point: instead of dealing with the problem WHITE GUY GOES NUTS KILLS BLACK PEOPLE IN A CHURCH, the GOP literally whitewashes it to "GUY GOES NUTS KILLS PEOPLE IN A CHURCH". Because they want to repaint it as an attack on faith. That might work if the killer was a non-Christian, but he wasn't. He's a racist, color-hating fucktard. Religion has NOTHING the fuck to do with it. It was just the easiest way to get into a group big enough to satisfy his bloodlust.
Finally, MY point. Guns. Yes, I'm back to that. We don't need them. The fact that people feel they do highlights a problem with how our society feels and how we're told we feel. Unless you're in the backwoods hunting for your daily meal you don't need one. Unless you're a collector putting them in a box on the wall you don't need one. The fact that people feel threatened enough to carry all the time means we've failed, as a society and as a nation.
As previously stated: our peer nations can get along just fine without mass killings to make their points and guns to enable the mass killings. Why the fuck can't we?
Generally I'm not on the side of those who feel that women and the military can't mix. But that's not the case here.
The original remarks came as he spoke about why sexual harassment was still an issue.
"It would be a trite answer, but it's because we're biologically wired in a certain way and there will be those who believe it is a reasonable thing to press themselves and their desires on others. It's not the way it should be," he said.
The forces are largely professional, he added, but "there will be situations and have been situations where, largely, men will see themselves as able to press themselves onto our women members".
New Democratic Party defence critic Jack Harris said Mr Lawson's remarks were "shocking" and decried a "backwards attitudes about sexual assault". (BBC)
If you read the quote and I mean READ THE FUCKING QUOTE WORD FOR WORD then what Lawson says is: sexual assault happens because SOME people can't keep their dick in their pants. The reason WHY they can't keep their dick in the drawers is because their self control sucks.
I'm not sure why anyone finds that offensive. People like to fuck. Some people like it a lot. Most people have it under control so they only act on that desire when it's appropriate. Other people can't. Those people have a problem and then they get thrown in jail. It also goes without saying that biology plays a factor.
So I'm back to thinking that people didn't take the time to really read or understand the quote. They basically jumped to the false conclusion that Lawson was justifying assaults through biology, inferring that there was nothing that could be done. The truth is that he was lamenting the fact and stating quite clearly that it's sad but it happens and won't be tolerated: "it's not the way it should be".
So to all the R-tards out there bashing away, the only thing Tom Lawson needs to be sorry for is that he didn't use words that idiots won't misunderstand.
I guess that means Liz ain't all that smart herself because for most of us it doesn't even *need* explaining.
CHICAGO (AP) -- An appearance by Kim Kardashian on the National Public Radio show "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me!" has angered some listeners.
NPR received hundreds of complaints about last week's episode of the humorous quiz show. Kardashian was in a segment called "Not My Job," in which she answered questions about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. She answered two of three questions correctly.[..]
In a response posted on NPR's website, ombudsman Elizabeth Jenson said she wasn't sure what to make of the outrage over Kardashian's 11-minute appearance.
Here, let me spell it out for ya: to a smart person (meaning an NPR listener) the Kardashians represent everything that is wrong with our society. They are trash. They became famous and continue to enhance their coffers based only on sleaze. They have contributed nothing of value, any more than "Girls Gone Wild" has contributed to our culture. Worse, millions of poor, uneducated, drudges idolize them BECAUSE famous organizations give them a platform.
By inviting Butt-lady you made two very serious errors: first by completely misunderstanding your supporters and second by insulting them with the notion that they would be amused by the metal droolings of a despised "reality" star.
So don't act like you don't know what you did wrong, either own up and apologize or get ready for your supporters to go elsewhere. Duh.
Go fuck yourself you misogynist bastard.
Today there was another killing somewhere in the world. Unstable/Insane person A didn't like person or group B and decided to kill them. Person A obtained the gun/explosive/knife/spork required for the deranged plan and then went to place C to execute it. Person or Group B was injured/died.
This story happens regularly. And you can almost see the orgy of excitement in the faces of the 24 hours news moguls. They love this. They get to examine person A and group B and take reaction videos from everyone who ever knew anyone remotely involved. In the era of cellphones, they have a decent chance of getting footage from somewhere that they can broadcast with grisly warnings about the graphic nature of the following footage. They can hunt down photos of the victims and perpetrator and try to psychoanalyze everyone and everything. They have to manufacture spurious statements about intent and ideology. They have days of news filled off this single event.
People have died. And the media are masturbating to the corpses.
Texas is always touted as the conservative ideal, where "smaller government" doesn't dare interfere with the will of the people.
Unless there's big money involved, in which case The People can go fuck themselves.
DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Leaders of a North Texas university town that was the first in the state to ban hydraulic fracturing repealed the voter-approved measure early Wednesday, sounding a tone of capitulation to the state's powerful oil and gas interests after a seven-month battle.[..]
Adam Briggle of the Frack Free Denton movement said fracking opponents are taking the fight statewide by pushing for the repeal of House Bill 40, the law Gov. Greg Abbott signed last month barring local ordinances that prevent fracking and other oil and natural gas activities harmful to the environment unless they are deemed commercially reasonable.
"Initially it was about health and safety and protecting our neighborhoods, and those continue to be our goals, but it's now also about democracy and supporting people's voices and their votes," he said.
Poor Adam, don't you know that the myth of "conservative" government is that the people are free so long as their votes coincide with the desires of big money? It has nothing to do with rights, nothing to do with votes and most of all it has nothing to do with the illusion that government is for the benefit of anyone not firmly within the 1%.
And here you thought your little vote meant something, funny! Well Texas showed you who's really in charge eh? Just because you live in your community doesn't mean shit Bucko, you're lucky they even let you live there. So what if your water starts to taste funny or you get cracks in the walls of your house. You're damn lucky to even have those things.
Heh, Texas, "Land of the Free" my ass. Land of Guns and Money is more like it. Don't like it? Don't live there. I sure the fuck never will.
Even if SCOTUS has taken the sting out of the punishment.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from North Carolina to revive a requirement that abortion providers show and describe an ultrasound to a pregnant woman before she has an abortion.
The justices left in place an appeals court decision that said the 2011 North Carolina law was "ideological in intent" and violated doctors' free-speech rights. The measure was championed by conservative Republicans in the state legislature, who overrode a veto from the then-Democratic governor to approve the law.
The North Carolina law would have required abortion providers to display and describe the ultrasound even if the woman refused to look and listen - a mandate that the court found particularly troublesome. The law did not include any exception for cases of rape, incest or severe fetal anomalies.
Jamming shit down a pregnant woman's mind, a-la Clockwork Orange, was the North Carolina way of saying "we hate bitches, especially pregnant ones." Imagine a guy being forced to listen, much less see the equivalent? Hardly. Since women are obviously ignorant they NEEDED to have the ultrasound forced into their consciousness, whether they wanted to or not. Criminals? Yes, a woman having an abortion is clearly either evil or ignorant, something the conservative legislature was intent on "fixing".
Until the Supreme Court told them "NO".
I wonder if politicians will ever get tired of pretending they know more about medicine and a woman's privacy than doctors and women themselves? Probably not. It's too lascivious, too voyeuristic, too obscene a topic to let go. Conservatives love bashing women, it comes easy, and it keeps the audience awake. Who cares if it's right or wrong?
Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of the NC Values Coalition and a supporter of increased restrictions on abortion, said it made no sense to her that federal judges would block a woman's access to what she described as life-saving information.
"In any other medical procedure, doctors would have a duty to disclose all of the relevant information, and, yet, a procedure as destructive and life-changing as abortion is held to a lower standard," Fitzgerald said.
Tami you fucking cunt. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But don't pretend to presume what other women need to hear and see from their doctors. Also "life-saving" applies to the woman and her future, not to the fetus which is NOT a human when it's still embedded.
Values? Yeah no. They may be your "values" but they're not America's values. Maybe you should spend some time with the unwanted and underprivileged children in this nation. Maybe then you'd have some respect for what it means to have a child you can't afford.
Eight states exhibited statistically significantly higher household food insecurity rates than the U.S. national average of 14.6% between 2011-2013[..] North Carolina 17.3%. (www.feedingamerica.org)