Can see this meme with a screen shot of a car going off the cliff like Thelma and Louise
Printable View
Can see this meme with a screen shot of a car going off the cliff like Thelma and Louise
http://www.thedailybeast.com/content...554.cached.jpg
"In his inaugural address, Obama promised 'not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.' He promised to 'build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.' He promised to 'restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.' And he promised to 'transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.' Unfortunately the president's scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful." - Niall Ferguson, in his cover story in this week's Newsweek.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...eds-to-go.html
Niall Ferguson ~ Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT: Obama’s Gotta Go
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.
I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”
Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.
Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.
In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.
In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.
In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.
Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.
Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/content...149.cached.png
And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.
Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.
His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.
And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.
DOJ sues Gallup polling firm
Joel Gehrke Commentary Writer
The Washington Examiner
August 22, 2012 | 12:28 pm
Justice Department officials joined a whistle blower lawsuit and alleged that The Gallup Organization, a major polling firm, intentionally overestimated the amount of time it would take to complete a job for the government and was paid accordingly.
“Contractors who do business with the federal government must honor their obligations to provide honest services and products,” said U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. in a statement on the lawsuit. “Working with relators and federal investigators, we will do all that we can to act against those who illegitimately bill the American taxpayers.”
Gallup, known as one of the premier polling firms with respect to presidential politics, had contracts to conduct surveys for the U.S. Mint and the State Department in addition to other government agencies.
“According to the whistleblower’s complaint, Gallup violated the False Claims Act by giving the government inflated estimates of the number of hours that it would take to perform its services, even though it had separate and lower internal estimates of the number of hours that would be required,” the Justice Department explained. “The complaint further alleges that the government paid Gallup based on the inflated estimates, rather than Gallup’s lower internal estimates.”
The latest Gallup daily tracking figures show Mitt Romney leading President Obama 47-45.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/doj-su...7#.UDU1sKOBvoZ
Journo-tools For Obama
by Michelle Malkin
Can we stop calling the hosts of the presidential debates “moderators”? They’re left-erators. It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. And it’s time for the GOP to stop perpetuating these rigged exercises in futility.
Last week, the Commission on Presidential Debates http://www.debates.org/ announced the names of 2012′s chosen referees: CNN’s Candy Crowley, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and CBS’s Bob Schieffer will preside over the three presidential debates; ABC’s Martha Raddatz will host the sole vice presidential debate. While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.
Crowley has lived and worked in D.C. for liberal CNN for a quarter-century. Raddatz worked for liberal National Public Radio for five years before joining ABC News; she has been based in the D.C. bureau for the better part of a decade. Schieffer has been a fixture in the nation’s capital at CBS News, home of the faked Rathergate documents, for three decades. Lehrer, the liberal patriarch of PBS News, is nearly as aged a Beltway monument as the Washington Monument itself.
The presidential debates are the last bastion of “mainstream” media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle. Now, Democrats are lobbying the supposedly nonpartisan debate commission to disallow questions about President Obama’s phony dog-and-pony deficit panel.
Why does the Republican Party agree to play along with this ideologically stacked deck masquerading as an objective pantheon of disinterested journalism? The Romney campaign’s capitulation to the liberal debate racket and its narrative-warpers comes at a time when more and more members of the Fourth Estate itself are admitting that they have served or been treated as tools for the Obama administration:
–Just this week, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham that he “thought the media helped tip the scales” for Obama. “I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, (the) campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.” Duh.
–MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged this weekend on the “Today” show that the Beltway press corps is helping Obama drive campaign issues that most voters don’t care about: “I think the press still likes this story a lot. The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on (Mitt Romney’s tax returns). … Do voters care about it? I don’t think so. … I think it’s mostly something that the press and insiders care about.”
–Another MSNBC political reporter, Chuck Todd, disclosed that gaffetastic Vice President Joe Biden’s staff was trying to edit the press pool reports to cover for the second-in-command’s lack of rhetorical command. “This is an outrage that they do this,” Todd said.
–Independent political blogger Keith Koffler of whitehousedossier.com reported this week that Team Obama was dictating interview topics to local TV reporters in battleground states, just after holding a kabuki press conference on Monday to capitalize on the Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin “legitimate rape”/magical uterus debacle. “In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of ‘sequestration’ if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases,” Koffler reported.
“The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. ‘The president invited me to talk about sequestration,’ NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at: ‘What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?’ she asked.”
These willing lapdogs and stenographers follow in the footsteps of the hallowed Fishwrap of Record, which ‘fessed up last month to allowing Obama campaign officials to have “veto power” over statements. “We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”
If not the 2012 GOP presidential ticket, then who? If not now, then when?
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/22...ols-for-obama/
Bias: WaPo ‘real reporters’ falsely claim Obama ‘O-I-H-O’ pic was photoshopped
Posted at 1:26 pm on August 22, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress...5&crop=1&h=675
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/22/bias-d...-photoshopped/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge
:clappingQuote:
Richard40
5:17 PM EDT
"We incorrectly stated the first one appeared photoshopped."
How about this for a more truthful retraction, we assumed initially that Obama could do no wrong, and repubs must be evil or lying, and invalidly charged the repubs with photoshopping on the first photo with the Obama mispelling. Then the repubs proved our bogus photoshopping charge was nonsense, and we had to retract it, and admit the first picture was real, and Obama really did mispell Ohio there.
Whoops! Obama supporters, please listen: Michelle Obama says ‘get to the polls on November 2′
Posted at 1:42 pm on August 23, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/23/whoops...on-november-2/
flotus encourages people to get out and vote nov 2.Quote:
jeffrey dennee@jeffdennee
@RadioGuyChris
Too bad the election is nov 6. Gaffe? Nah, only if palin said it.
23 Aug 12
Precisely. The media frenzy would be epic, if Palin had said it.
.
Barack is not impressed: The president’s reluctance to kowtow to the very rich
Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
Both parties have fixed beliefs about this presidential race that are so entwined with their DNA that they defy argument. Democrats, for example, possess an inner certainty that Mitt Romney deliberately molded his economic policies so that people like him (the mega-wealthy) would pay much less in taxes. In similar fashion, Republicans are welded to the conviction that President Barack Obama is mostly animated by a personal antipathy to the rich.
Paul Ryan expressed this GOP worldview in a speech yesterday on his initial second-banana swing through Pennsylvania. “Every now and then President Obama sort of drops his veil,” Ryan said. “He’s less coy about his philosophy. He sort of reveals his true governing policy, what he really believes.” Then Romney’s running mate rattled off a few familiar examples from 2008 like Obama’s claim that small-town Pennsylvanians “cling to guns or religion” and his comment to Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Two major journalistic efforts, published this week, emphasize the political consequences of Obama’s diffident attitude towards the billionaire class of campaign donors. Both a meaty New Yorker article by Jane Mayer and the best e-book in Politico’s series of campaign chronicles analyze why Obama, with all the powers of presidential incumbency, is so hobbled in the super PAC spending race.
The New Yorker succinctly summarizes the Democratic problem in its headline: “SCHMOOSE OR LOSE–Obama doesn’t like cozying up to billionaires. Will it cost him the election?” The Politico e-book, “Obama’s Last Stand,” by Glenn Thrush makes the identical point about the president: “He was also hurt by his own aversion to massaging demanding Democratic donors–many of them Clinton Democrats who never liked him in the first place.”
Most major political figures in both parties have grown adept at convincing donors with the net worth of King Midas that it is friendship–and not, God forbid, money–that has brought them together. Ryan himself flew to Las Vegas last week to pledge fealty to GOP super PAC impresario Sheldon Adelson. Bill Clinton, who embodies the gold standard in schmoozing with the wealthy, made a personal pitch to a VIP gathering of Democratic super PAC donors in New York last week along with David Plouffe, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager who is now on the White House payroll.
But Obama himself stubbornly resists the petty insincerities that are the coin of the realm when it comes to “donor maintenance,” a wonderful Clinton-era euphemism for events like White House coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers. (During the Clinton years, I recall a major donor, who had a penchant for displaying her cleavage, telling me in all sincerity, “The president respects my policy advice.”) In contrast, as Mayer recounts, Obama couldn’t even be bothered to pose for pictures with his most devoted contributors during the 2009 White House Christmas and Hanukkah parties.
While the after-shocks from the financial crisis created an inevitable distancing between the White House and Wall Street, Obama’s fund-raising problems have far more to do with atmospherics and attitudes than governing substance. Despite Ryan’s rhetoric, Obama’s economic policies reflect the mainstream of the Democratic Party–and not some alien ideology. Many liberals, from Nancy Pelosi to Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, believe with some justice that Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been too lenient and soft-spoken in reacting to the greed-is-good excesses of the financial community.
What it all comes back to is the idiosyncratic psychology of Barack Obama, who is probably the most elusive president since Woodrow Wilson. (The 28th president was such an enigma that Sigmund Freud— yes, that guy—co-authored a psychological study of him). Part of it is that Obama keeps the entire world, outside of his family and a few close friends like Valerie Jarrett, at a middle distance. There is an odd democracy to this since Obama ignores major Democratic donors in the same even-handed way that he neglects Senate committee chairmen.
Obama is unusual in politics—and here Republicans make a valid point—in his apparent refusal to be awed in the presence of billionaires. Unlike the Clintons and the Romney-Ryan ticket, Obama is not a devout believer in the gospel of wealth. As a Democratic fund-raiser, quoted in the Politico e-book, says about the president, “He doesn’t understand the rich. He’s an intellectual elitist, not an economic one.”
In Pennsylvania yesterday, Ryan disapprovingly cited Obama’s recent line, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The president was trying to make the political point that all types of government spending, from schools to roads, contribute to the success of any American business. The Republicans, though, are willing to go to battle over this point with the same enthusiasm they chanted, “Drill, baby, drill” in 2008. The political theme for Tuesday—the second day of the GOP convention—is “We Built That.”
Unlike most clashes in this campaign, this debate over the role of government in the creation of wealth and new businesses reflects abiding differences between the Democratic and Republican tickets as well as competing philosophies. As Mayer summarizes in the New Yorker, “Obama continues to see economic success as the result of many factors beside individual effort, and, consequently, he may be less awed by wealth than others.”
Campaign reporters, though, comprise a class that is awed by wealth in politics. The Politico e-book calls Obama’s failure to initially encourage Democratic super PAC spending the president’s biggest mistake of the campaign. Mayer shrewdly worries about the effects of the anything-goes culture of unlimited campaign donations (the new world in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision) on the 2016 presidential race when there may be no incumbent on the ballot.
While lamenting the thumb-on-the-scales powers of billionaires like Adelson in politics, I skeptically wonder if the heavy emphasis on the rival TV ad campaigns in this year’s Obama-Romney race is not exaggerated. With two conventions and three presidential debates, voters in swing states will go to the polls with a vast arsenal of information beyond the contents of 30-second attack ads.
Maybe, in fact, Obama will be proved right in his hesitation to offer homage to Democratic donors with yachts and four vacation homes. Of course, the president’s steadfast reluctance to schmooze-you-can-use with everyone else in politics may speak to a far deeper problem about using the full powers of the White House to govern.
http://news.yahoo.com/barack-is-not-...ery-rich-.html
comments
Obama doesn't kowtow to the rich? Shapiro, are you joking? This is the guy who took Wall Street money by the millions during his '08 campaign and repaid the big donors by bailing them out as soon as he got into office. This is the guy who hobnobs with the Hollywood elite and grabs ten grand a plate -- chump change to those people -- at fundraisers they organize. Please, don't insult our intelligence.
Another thing: Obama doesn't deserve any points for initially eschewing Democrat Super-PAC money. There wasn't anything noble or high-minded about that decision; it was simply a miscalculation on his part. He obviously doesn't have any ethical qualms about accepting money from wealthy donors. And remember, he's the guy who ultimately rejected public financing of his '08 campaign after explicitly stating that he would take advantage of it -- just one of his many lies.
..
Is that why he pals around with George Clooney and rich Hollywood actors. Pay attention Obama is the biggest hypocrit I have ever seen. He lies, just watch him and open your mind. He panders to the rich people his likes.
..
He hasn't met with his Jobs Council for months ... because he was too busy fundraising. Blow off the BSA 100 Year Jamboree because he had a fundraiser in New York.
Chris Matthews gets fact checked on claim that he lives in DC
By Doug Powers • August 30, 2012 05:08 PM
Tuesday night on MSNBC, perhaps to fill time while the cable net was avoiding showing any of the minority speakers at the Republican convention so as not to destroy their narrative, Chris Matthews said the following (transcript Newsbusters http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-co...village-less-1 via Ace of Spades http://ace.mu.nu/archives/332405.php ):
After reading that (video at the link http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-co...village-less-1 ) you might assume that Matthews lives in Washington, DC, right? If you answered “no” just because you don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth, award yourself ten points for attentiveness.Quote:
But I go back to living in DC all these years. I’ve lived there 40 years, a black-majority city, and anybody who wants to get up early in Washington and drive down North Capitol (Street) and drive past Florida Avenue, sees nothing but youn-, but black people up at 6:30 in the morning going to work. That’s where they’re going, to work, and not at big-wage jobs and not to get a welfare check, they’re out working hard all day and not coming home with a fantastic paycheck.
Matthews actually lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland — an affluent suburb several miles from DC. Which brings us to this: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-co...village-less-1
I’ll never again doubt Tingles’ black street cred.Quote:
According to census data at Maryland-Demographics.com, 1,953 people lived in Chevy Chase Village as of 2010. Of those nearly 2,000 residents, 10 were black. That’s right — ten. As in, one-half of one percent. Ninety-three percent of its residents were white, the remaining percentage other minorities.
How fast would Matthews be out calling Paul Ryan a racist and a phony if he lied about living in a black majority city just for effect?
This article from from Capitol File’s “A day in the life of Chris Matthews” also mentions that Matthews resides in Chevy Chase:http://capitolfile-magazine.com/pers...-kennedy-msnbcThe article also states that Matthews usually works from home and then heads to his office in DC after 1 p.m., so it’s unlikely he’s hanging around with DC residents at 6:30 in the morning or gets much of a chance to observe the working habits of anybody that isn’t employed by NBC.Quote:
Most evenings Matthews says he meets Kathleen for dinner at a local haunt near their Chevy Chase abode…
On a separate note, MSNBC is actually fact-checking Paul Ryan’s iPod playlist, which he says goes from AC/DC to Zeppelin. Yeah, okay, the latter band’s name actually starts with “L” and thus wouldn’t appear be at the tail end of an alphabetical playlist containing any artist starting with “M” or beyond. Artistic license in political speeches is only granted to those who say they can control the level of oceans:
**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/30...e-lives-in-dc/
comments
Having lived and worked in the MD-DC-VA area there was no way I was going to believe that Matthews “lived” in DC … just another example of the bald-faced lies the MSNBC bigots spew to make any threat to Obama look bad or irrelevant when in actuality they are the ones that are irrelevant …
..
Reminds me of my nephew, a lib who claims to be a Chicagoian and praises Rahm. Yet he lives 50 miles west of Chicago and sends his kids to a private school.
I told him that the day would come, when the state would look at those two unused bedrooms he has and put homeless families in them. Must spread the wealth around.
..
Ok, Chris Matthews is a lying idiot.
But remember, with leftists… it’s not the facts… it’s the narrative.
Which brings me to my second point.
The woman interviewer in the clip states “Can the republican party take away the most powerful narrative of the Obama campaign, which is the realization of the American Dream?”
IS SHE F&^#@NG KIDDING????
CRUSHING the American Dream is the narrative of the Obama campaign. Spread that wealth around baby.
OBAMA: “Hey there small business owner. I see you’ve managed to accumulate some wealth with this business you didn’t build. Enjoying the fruits of My policies? Hmmmm??? Not so fast buddy….. I’ll take that money and I’ll be handing it out to whom I see fit.”
That’s the reality of the Obama narrative. And the fools who believe otherwise… and you know who you are….. are simply that. Fools.
Witnesses: MSNBC Producer Assaulted Chris Matthews Heckler for ‘Tingle’ Taunt
By Matthew Sheffield | August 31, 2012 | 12:50
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...#ixzz259VwtXPL
[b]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge
COMPARE AND CONTRAST - LEFT VS RIGHT
American Idiot 2: Jason Biggs knocks Christians; targets Ann Romney and Janna Ryan with vile tweets
Posted at 9:28 am on August 31, 2012
Favorite
Looks like Jason Biggs is still defiling that pie … if by “pie” you mean “contract with Nickelodeon.”
Yesterday Twitchy reported that the “American Pie” actor tweeted about sexually assaulting Paul Ryan’s wife. We know … shocking from an actor who made a name for himself by humping a pie.
But Pig Biggs wasn’t done tweeting misogynist filth about political wives. After a disgusting tweet about Ann Romney’s body, he targeted Janna Ryan again by retweeting his wife, Jenny Mollen.
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/31/americ...h-vile-tweets/
Revolting. Where is the Hollywood Left as one of their own tweets sexually degrading remarks about Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Ryan?
Crickets. As usual. Not surprising from a crowd that loves to rub elbows with the likes of Roman Polanski.
Biggs also got in a dig at Christians. How’s that for liberal tolerance? Gosh, he’s so much Smarter Than You, isn’t he?
i CAN'T POST THE ACTUAL TWEETS BECAUSE THE BBS CENSOR WILL NOT ALLOW. - JOLIE
Should Jason Biggs lose cartoon gig over sexual assault comments?
RNC August 31, 2012 By: Victor Medina
Nickelodeon is being pressured to fire actor Jason Biggs after he said he wanted to sexually assault Janna Ryan, the wife of vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. The American Pie actor made the comments on Twitter on Wednesday, earning criticism across the political spectrum and calls that he is unfit to provide the voice of Leonardo on Nickelodeon's new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon.
The situation brings up questions of free speech and personal responsibility in the public limelight. While everyone seems to agree that Biggs is free to say whatever he wishes, should he be allowed to keep his job on a children's show when he makes outrageous comments? In today's internet age, should he show more discretion should young fans be enticed to view his Twitter account and see inappropriate comments?
The controversy comes on the heels of congressional candidate Todd Akin's comments on "legitimate rape," which were widely condemned as well.
The furor began Wednesday evening after Rep. Paul Ryan spoke at the Republican National Convention. From his Twitter account, Biggs began slamming Ryan, first making a sexual joke about him, and then tweeting that he would like to sexually assault Ryan's wife, making graphic remarks about her anatomy. Because of the very graphic nature of his tweets, we will not repeat what he said, but they are still available to read on his Twitter account.
Some parents took to Twitter to protest, saying they will not allow their children to watch the network while they employ Biggs. Phil Kerpen tweeted that he doesn't want his kids watching anything with Biggs. "(He) has no place on a children's channel. We'll stick to Sprout," he said.
Trish Williams also took issue with Biggs. "Dear @NickelodeonTV, why do you employ someone such as @JasonBiggs who spews such vulgar hate as this," she tweeted. Katie O'Malley said "Hey @NickelodeonTV @NickelodeonPR thanks so much for introducing misogynist Jason Biggs to little kids."
Jonah Goldberg of National Review tweeted "I think this Jason Biggs buffoon deserves firing far more than the Yahoo News Director guy."
It is not unusual for public figures, including actors, to have morality clauses in their contracts when employed, for just this type of situation. Whether this is the case here remains to be seen. It will also be up to Nickelodeon to decide whether appearing on a children's show, where millions of dollars in merchandising are also at stake, requires actors to adhere to a higher moral standard in public.
For his part, Jason Biggs is unapologetic and continued to rant with offensive, bigoted tweets. On Thursday, he made a sexually graphic statement about Ann Romney, retweeted his wife's sexually graphic comments about Ryan's wife, and then took a shot at people of faith: "Clint Eastwood talking to a non-responsive stool sorta sums up Christianity in a nutshell, huh Republicans?"
On Friday, he attempted to blow off the controversy surrounding him by tweeting "To everyone freaking out about my tweets: you know i put my **** in a pie, right?"
Nickelodeon has yet to respond on the matter, and has not responded to our requests for a statement. They can be contacted via Twitter or by phone at 212-258-7500 (ask for viewer services).
Update 9/1: Biggs has deleted his tweet about sexually assaulting Janna Ryan, but other misogynistic tweets about her and Ann Romney remain.
http://www.examiner.com/article/shou...sault-comments
comments
Legitimate politacal opposition fine. Vile talk about ANY woman reprehensible.
..
Jason's vulgar comments should not be associated with anything close to Nickelodeon. How do you explain this to your youthful fans as being okay?
..
Yes, he is disgusting! There is no way he should be associated with a children's program with such bad judgement and foul language.
...
Where is all the faux outrage from the Left and the Liberals ??
American Weasel: Jason Biggs quietly deletes vile tweets about Ann Romney and Janna Ryan
Posted at 1:40 pm on September 1, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
Doesn’t Jason Biggs know that Twitchy is forever?
Earlier this week, we called attention to the American Idiot’s knock on Christians and his vile, sexually degrading tweets about Paul Ryan, Janna Ryan and Ann Romney. We also highlighted the mounting pressure on Nickelodeon to fire the actor from his “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” voice gig.
Biggs dismissed his critics by tweeting, “You know I put my **** in a pie, right?” And completely misreading the First Amendment, his wife, Jenny Mollen tweeted, “How weird would it be if we all had freedom of speech?
But today all of the disgusting tweets are gone from Bigg’s Twitter account and his wife’s tweet has disappeared into the ether as well. No apologies, no acknowledgements of the sickening sexist attacks — just quiet, weaselly deletion.
Nickelodeon has not responded publicly to calls for the misogynist pastry-raper to lose his job. But Biggs cravenly deleting the evidence is unlikely to be enough for parents of young viewers. Many don’t want their kids watching anything associated with Biggs’ filth. And they find Nickelodeon’s continued silence appalling.
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/01/americ...nd-janna-ryan/
comments
Just imagine if Biggs said the same about Michelle Obama my guess is he would've been fired by now.
..
...fired?...more like firing squad...i'm surprised that nick' hasn't fired him on the spot but am also somewhat shocked to know they hired him in the first place to work on a children's tv network...
..
Even if it would have been towards Michelle Obama I wouldn't have been any less upset about his posts. I think I would have even been more upset that one of us would post something like that. This is wrong in too many ways.
..
Nickelodeon has gone pretty left throughout the last couple of years. Michelle Obama was on "ICarly" promoting her healthy eating campaign.
As far as Jason "Pig" Biggs is concerned, guess that idiot never heard of screen capturing, we have ALL Of his disgusting tweets, and if he had made those remarks about Michelle Obama the secret service would have paid him a nice little visit, but of course hey if your a lefty you can get away with ANYTHING, it will probably boost his resume
...
Just the fact that he 'wasn't' tweeting filth about Michelle Obama, but Conservative women, just goes to show that the White House was totally "down" with it. No one came out to defend Janna Ryan (I feel so bad for her too, she seems so nice & beautiful kids). No phone call from the WH to express their sympathy and outrage.
..
Liberals have convinced themselves that even sexist or racist attacks on conservatives are acceptable and even encouraged. I'm sure he expected nothing but pats on the back and howls of laughter from his liberal friends.
The fact that he has just presented himself as an intolerant sexist pervert who should be kept far from your children never crossed his sick little pea brain.
..
We need only remember that leftists have to degrade and dehumanize conservatives and Republicans to get their vile, hateful followers to vote. They see it as war and we see it as America, but as we catalog the sickness, more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that these Democrats are not like any they have seen in their lifetimes. the word progressive must be made to be as distasteful as liberal is today.
..
What on earth prompted the Biggs to tweet such hateful misogyny in the first place? I get that they probably think conservative women "deserve it," but don't they get that by printing such drivel they are being totally low, mean, intolerant and bigoted? Doesn't that matter to them?
Wow we do have freedom of speech but like with everything you do you also have to take responsabilities for what you say or do. Say whatever you like and those that think it is gross have the freedom to respond however they like you see unlike what you crazy libs believe freedom works both waysQuote:
And completely misreading the First Amendment, his wife, Jenny Mollen tweeted, “How weird would it be if we all had freedom of speech?