All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[worstblogever]

It does not seem reasonable to expect others to have an excel spreadsheet summarizing another guy's posts handy.

Considering when Paradox didn't even know I had one lying around when he made his post doesn't make this response that fair to him, at all.

[Jeff Brady]

For example, Republicans voted against a renewal of the Violence Against Women because they were opposed to relatively obscure provisions (giving tribal counsils greater power, and opening womens shelters to lawsuits if they don't open their doors to gay men claiming to be the victims of domestic violence)...

All of which are reasonable things that no one reasonable should vote against.

They were opposed to the Lily Ledbetter act because it allowed more opportunities for frivolous lawsuits, and required companies to undergo the additional costs of maintaining more records.

Those things are reasonable to ensure things like Justice and Equality, some ideas the nation was founded upon.

Republicans supported defunding Planned Parenthood because many believe that an organization that provides abortions should not receive public funding.

Abortion makes up 3% of what PP does. All kinds of women's health issues are dealt with, including the various types of cancer screening, providing care for wanted pregnancies, birth control, education, etc. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

*takes a bow*

There is also a barrage of claims to deal with. In order to challenge the notion that 97 Republicans in the series made racist comments, 52 made misogynystic comments, and that 51 believe Obama to be a secret Muslim plant, I'd have to reread his hundreds of posts and keep careful tallies to determine whether he has exaggerated at any point.

He doesn't have to exaggerate. He has links posted to support every single item. And you've gone over some them in the past and made dismissive comments about the claims.

Just own up to it. You seem to support a political party that shits on people over and over and over again for ideals that aren't based on facts or reality.

[worstblogever]

For example, Republicans voted against a renewal of the Violence Against Women because they were opposed to relatively obscure provisions (giving tribal counsils greater power, and opening womens shelters to lawsuits if they don't open their doors to gay men claiming to be the victims of domestic violence) Democrats believed to be important enough to jeopardize the passage of the entire bill. They were opposed to the Lily Ledbetter act because it allowed more opportunities for frivolous lawsuits, and required companies to undergo the additional costs of maintaining more records.

Those things are reasonable to ensure things like Justice and Equality, some ideas the nation was founded upon.

Jeff said it better/more brief than I might, but I just want to say...

How anyone can parrot the "we're protecting you from lawsuits" that the GOP are feeding on those two bills with a straight face rather than allow for some social justice to happen... I mean, why pass the Civil Rights Act, right? THAT WOULD JUST MAKE LAWSUITS!

It's ridiculous nonsense used to protect violent men over the rights of female victims, and to heaven forbid, allow them to be paid the same amount as a man.

[Mikekerr3]

Another poster, I forget who, told me a couple of days ago that "Mets does not troll."

The alternative, of course, is not very flattering, either.

Mets doesn't troll he is just a conservative republican, they are allowed to post here you know.

[o1pickleboy]

Mets doesn't troll he is just a conservative republican, they are allowed to post here you know.

Well his opinions on things are what really defines him and I believe he would be a expert on that. From what I have seen I am not sure the conservative part applies, he is republican but seems more like a pro business or free market type than a conservative.

[Mikekerr3]

Well his opinions on things are what really defines him and I believe he would be a expert on that. From what I have seen I am not sure the conservative part applies, he is republican but seems more like a pro business or free market type than a conservative.

there are two kinds of conservative, {they are currently at war with each other it seems} Social/Religious and Fiscal/Libertarians. I think Meta is mostly the latter

[heretic]

Has the new Kansas law been brought up yet?

Bill tightening restrictions on welfare recipients advances in Kansas Senate





I'm not even going to alleviate this: the bill is an outright death sentence for poor people in Kansas. Or as close to it as politically viable.

There are a fair number who sincerely believe that if only welfare is inconvenient enough people will spontaneously find jobs.

Of course, even setting aside the numbers on public assistance that actually have jobs, this indicates a poor understanding of why most people are on welfare.

In other news; clear desperation, probably illegal levels of utility company tightfistedness, and admitted poor judgement (classic example of how the poor have far less margin for error) kill a family of eight.

[worstblogever]

there are two kinds of conservative, {they are currently at war with each other it seems} Social/Religious and Fiscal/Libertarians. I think Meta is mostly the latter

There's a 3rd leg of the stool, now. The Tea Party/Constitutionalists. They can blend in with the other two, at times, but they're sort of their own thing.

[Michael P]

there are two kinds of conservative, {they are currently at war with each other it seems} Social/Religious and Fiscal/Libertarians. I think Meta is mostly the latter

Where have you been? There are many GOP leaders who qualify as both, as worst's daily missives have shown.

Really, it was the melding of these two into an unholy uber-bloc that signaled the beginning of the GOP's slide into insanity.

[worstblogever]

Where have you been? There are many GOP leaders who qualify as both, as worst's daily missives have shown.

Really, it was the melding of these two into an unholy uber-bloc that signaled the beginning of the GOP's slide into insanity.

We love our money, just like Jesus taught us to! And if any poors try and ask for a handout, slap 'em down with your righteous hand in his name! AMEN!

[Mister Mets]

Considering when Paradox didn't even know I had one lying around when he made his post doesn't make this response that fair to him, at all.

How would one readily access this information otherwise?

there are two kinds of conservative, {they are currently at war with each other it seems} Social/Religious and Fiscal/Libertarians. I think Meta is mostly the latter

I'd probably consider myself a moderate in most of those categories, although I'm well aware that moderate is very much in the eye of the beholder. A guy who wants to cut off the hands of anyone who was considered more likely than not to have stolen something is a moderate compared to the guy who thinks it's a death penalty offense.

The following are some of my political beliefs.

On fiscal issues, I think the government should spend money efficiently, in contrast to libertarians who think there should be no role for government, as well as the big government types and redistributionists (the latter category includes many social conservatives who want government subsidies in order to maintain an inefficent rural way of life).

Socially, I do believe that certain things that are currently illegal should be allowed to consenting adults. I am pro-life, although I think certain steps should be taken to significantly reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies before outlawing abortion becomes a workable policy.

I think gay marriage should be legal, but individuals who do not support it should not face fines/ jail time/ civil lawsuits if they don't want to paricipate.

I think immigration reform is necessary. I don't believe people who have come to this country illegally should be deported, but they're not entitled to full citizenship. I'd prefer some middle ground where they don't get voting rights or various entitlements. Legal immigration should be determined by the country's need, although I think the numbers of people we accept should be higher.

I'm cautious about raising or lowering the minimum wage. I'd favor Earned Income Tax Credits as a way to provide more money to people with greater need/ dependents.

I am concerned about public sector unions, as the government does not have sufficient incentives to control costs.

I think linking health insurance to jobs has been a disaster since it makes it harder for people to move/ change employers. The ACA should offer more bare minimum plans as a way to lower costs, and should raise costs for older Americans, who have more need for medical procedures.

I think tort reform is necessary. A system where the loser of a civil suit pays the expenses of the winner will avoid frivolous lawsuits.

I support the death penalty, although I don't care that much about various aspects that make it more palatable to the average American (IE- lethal injection VS firing squad.)

I have a low tolerance for bullshit, hence my concerns about political correctness. I prefer to have discussions about the least popular aspects of someone's political beliefs. Social conservatives should explain why they want policies that make premarital sex riskier. Supporters of affirimative action should explain why they want less Asian Americans in selective schools.

[worstblogever]

It's our latest reminder of what a crock the statement "Nuh uh. Both parties are just as bad," actually is...

It’s Your Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day!

(And please, for those who those who really felt the "Both Parties are Just as Bad" statement is defensible, remember, I'm still challenging you to write your own essays each day, to keep pace with me, if it's actually "just as bad". Keep in mind, you have to pick someone from politics who has either ran for, held office within the past 5 years, and have multiple verifiable news sources to any quotes/beliefs they might have to build a solid, established track record of stupid that clearly isn't a fluke. Hell, we'll even accept people who help write party platforms within that time frame. Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 270-12, since this was established on 7-18-14)


Warren Chisum

Warren Chisum is a former member of the Texas State House of Representatives, who served a whopping 12 terms in that body from 1989-2013. As you might expect if you know anything about politics in the Lone Star State, he’s got himself a God-fearin’ Christian pedigree that’s hard to top. I mean, at this point it would come as little surprise to learn that he voted for stricter Voter ID laws in Texas to combat the statistically non-existent problem of voter fraud and disenfranchise tens of thousands of people at the polls, or that he would vote for a medically unnecessary ultrasound procedure to be required before a doctor performs an abortion.

That sort of thing is normal for the GOP around the country, let alone in super red Texas, where Chisum would even catch little grief for voting to ban on requiring the HPV Vaccine to be administered for young girls, because Human Papilloma Virus is just part of God’s plan to scare all those young girls out of having premarital relations, right? (incidentally, he even pissed off Texas Gov. Rick Perry with that last move.)

Warren Chisum is probably most famous for pushing for Texas to adopt a ban on same-sex marriage back in 2005, and that’s but a week after he voted to ban gay couples from adopting in the state. He also led the state of Texas to uphold its sodomy laws in 1997 (they eventually would be overturned by the Supreme Court), consistently blocked the passage of hate crime legislation in the state, and I wish I could tell you those are the worst things Chisum ever did involving gay people. But it’s not. It would likely be how he would “gamble” in the early 1990s by paying men infected with AIDS a percentage of the face value for life insurance policies, that would pay out him as the primary beneficiary if (usually when) they died of the terminal virus. He told a reporter, “if they die in a month, you know, they (the settlements) do really good.” Chisum supposedly made $200,000 off of six people who died of AIDS this way.

Getting back to Chisum’s passion for defending marriage, though? He also tried leading a campaign in the Texas Legislature to require couples seeking divorce to first be required to go through a minimum 10 hours of marriage counseling first. Because that’s smaller government at work, and could in no way ever force a person trying to flee an abusive spouse to escape that abusive marriage.

Believe it or not, he was so committed to hating divorce that it actually exceeded his dislike for gay people, like when he argued that the state should force a man who married his partner in Massachusetts to stay married to him and not let the state of Texas divorce him legally there. Maybe that would mean they would have to acknowledge she was married to another woman somewhere else, or something? I mean, come on, dude, you said you were AGAINST gay marriage, make up your mind!

Well, another one of Warren Chisum’s religious crusades is against the threat of schoolchildren being taught evolution. After numerous attempts by Fundamentalists like himself in the Texas State Legislature to teach a… shall we say… unique brand of both history and science, he was still desperate to find a way to have evolution thrown out of the textbooks. He couldn’t get Creationism into science classes of public schools in Texas, because that would almost certainly violate the separation of church and state, of course. Until 2007… he presented his colleagues with the loophole they all had been searching for! You see, Chisum had been forwarded an e-mail from a Republican state legislator in Georgia named Ben Bridges (I’d profile Bridges as well, but he got booted from office in ’09) who linked him to a website called FixedEarth.com that explained how “Evolution was actually religious doctrine… of the Jews, in the texts of the Pharisees! And also, while they were at it, they could see that geocentricism would be cast aside for heliocentricism, because Copernicus was in league with the Jews, too! So was Einstein, that Kabbalist! And the Holocaust is way exaggerated!” So because this website showed him evolution was preached by rabbis out to get Christians away from the Creationism tale (that ironically, also is still in the Torah, being Old Testament and all in the book of Genesis), Chisum could get it out of science class! Take that scientists! (And Jews!)

Well, suffice to say, someone else came along and let Warren Chisum know the website he chose to hit, “Forward All” to an e-mail to the entire Texas legislature was in fact, not as much an anti-science website as it was an anti-Semitic website that also hated science. He ended up having to apologize for his attempt to disseminate that information to his colleagues, saying he never meant to offend anyone and claiming he never had actually visited the website he was touting the opinions of.

After that shockingly stupid gaffe, Chisum, at the age of 72, attempted to run for Texas Speaker of the House in 2010. Predictably, with the reputation of being the guy who shared a website that teaches the Sun rotates around the Earth and Jews are lying to us about it, he lost that bid. Instead, he thought to run for Texas Railroad commissioner in 2012, but was defeated by Christi Craddick, a woman over three decades his junior who was the daughter of a former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Tom Craddick. Chisum was dumbfounded, and called his defeat “strange”. It really wasn’t, considering Craddick raised hundreds of thousands of dollars more than Chisum, had name recognition on her side (in a positive way), and she hadn’t even dabbled in anti-Semitism. Most laughed off Chisum’s “strange” comments as more of him being bewildered about actually having an opponent in an election, because he’d run in his district for years unopposed most of the time.

Currently, Warren Chisum is being monitored by the local Texas media for a reaction, or over-reaction to the upcoming inevitable news story that the most famous piece of legislation he ever worked on, the gay marriage ban, gets overturned by the courts. Let’s all hope this coot lives to see that day, so we can see video of the look on his face when it happens.

[Mikekerr3]

It is weird a cop in South Carolina murders an unarmed Black man running away on video and is charged with murder within two days, When NYC Cops murder an unarmed black man on video they are given a walk.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/sou...der/index.html

[WestPhillyPunisher]

There are a fair number who sincerely believe that if only welfare is inconvenient enough people will spontaneously find jobs.

Of course, even setting aside the numbers on public assistance that actually have jobs, this indicates a poor understanding of why most people are on welfare.

Poor understanding? More like an absence of empathy, or, to be more blunt, They don't give half a shit. In the narrow minds of Republicans, poor people are a plague that shouldn't be allowed to exist in their pristine version of America which died out with the 1950's. So these clowns are doing all they can to legislate the poor out of existence, as if those sorts of draconian measures will eliminate the problem. Newsflash, it won't, it'll simply make things worse.

In other news; clear desperation, probably illegal levels of utility company tightfistedness, and admitted poor judgement (classic example of how the poor have far less margin for error) kill a family of eight.

I just heard about this sad story. I've heard similarly awful stories where poor inner city people regularly risk catastrophe by using unsafe space heaters, even turning on range burners to keep warm during winter, only to die from carbon monoxide poisoning or burning down their houses. But that's what desperation does to the poor.

[worstblogever]

It is weird a cop in South Carolina murders an unarmed Black man running away on video and is charged with murder within two days, When NYC Cops murder an unarmed black man on video they are given a walk.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/us/sou...der/index.html

Isn't it just peachy the way he walks to Scott's body and places the taser he claimed the suspect tried to wrestle away from him, after having shot him multiple times? Man, it's almost like this sort of thing happens often, or something, with how casually he seems to do it...