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

[Tendrin]

I really enjoy this little nugget...

That as recently as 2011 the NYPD was exposed for targeting their surveillance specifically at what they called "ancestries of interest?" Using our tax dollars to spy on these people's everyday lives just going to the barbershop and the bookstore, and singling them out for this constant invasion of privacy based on nothing but where their ancestors were born?

"Ancestries of interest". Wow.

'Ancestries of interest'.

Wow.

That's just... wow.

[Tendrin]

Oh dear god.

In a speech to a Gladewater, Texas, conservative group last week, former Rep. Allen West blamed high school football injuries on the end of state-sponsored prayer in schools, saying that when he was in high school, “I don’t remember anyone getting carted off that field paralyzed.”

I think untreated, repeated concussions explain Allen West quite well, actually.

[Tendrin]

“the same rampage of ‘political correctness’ that attacked kelvin cochran's freedom to believe is coming to your state, your town, your church. Christians you know are targets . . . Maybe christians in your own home,” perkins writes. “the same rampage of hate that destroyed the career of kelvin cochran tells the killers in isis, who closely watch america's domestic affairs, that our government doesn't value freedom of belief.”

what.


Whaaaaat?

[Paradox]

You really need to drop a source link in there when you do that, Tendrin.

[Tendrin]

I usually do!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...der-christians

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...ate-separation

[Spike-X]

what.


Whaaaaat?

Didn't you get the memo? Christians are constantly being persecuted* in the most God-crazy country in the western world.



* prevented from constantly shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats

[Tendrin]

Didn't you get the memo? Christians are constantly being persecuted* in the most God-crazy country in the western world.



* prevented from constantly shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats

Yes, but somehow.... Isis!

[worstblogever]

Didn't you get the memo? Christians are constantly being persecuted* in the most God-crazy country in the western world.



* prevented from constantly shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats

Well, it's official. I need to finish up today's CSGOPOTD, because the timing is perfect.

[Arvandor]

Voters 'left in the dark' on plans to cut deficit, say IFS.

Four of the major parties have not provided "anything like full details" on plans to cut the deficit, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said.

"Broad outlines" of the choice on offer were on show, it said, but voters were "somewhere in the dark" over cuts planned by the main UK parties and SNP.

The report came as the Conservatives said a Labour government backed by the SNP would be "deeply unstable".

Labour said the Tories plan "the biggest cuts in the developed world".

In other election news:



◾Chancellor George Osborne received a pre-election boost with official figures showing he beat his target for reducing annual public sector borrowing for the latest financial year
◾The Liberal Democrats pledged a £150m support package for carers
◾Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown attacked the Conservatives and the SNP in a letter to voters and a speech in Fife
◾An east London election was declared void and will have to be re-run after the mayor was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices
◾The head of the UK's returning officers' organisation said the number of uncontested seats at some local elections has reached "epidemic proportions"

The IFS report comes after it analysed each of the party manifestos.

The think tank's deputy director Carl Emmerson said: "There are genuinely big differences between the main parties' fiscal plans.

"The electorate has a real choice, although it can at best see only the broad outlines of that choice."

Graphic
Graphic
It delivered ammunition for each side - suggesting the Tories would have to make cuts to services and Labour borrow £26 billion a year.

The analysis found Conservative plans for the next Parliament involve "a significantly larger reduction in borrowing and debt than Labour plans", Mr Emmerson said.

But the report said that was based on "substantial and almost entirely unspecified spending cuts and tax increases" and could involve "further real cuts to unprotected departments of around £30 billion".

Labour had been "considerably more vague" about how much it wants to borrow, the report said.

'Longer period'

It added that the Liberal Democrats had been more transparent about overall plans to 2017-18, saying they were aiming for tightening spending more than Labour but less than the Conservatives.

And it said the SNP's figures imply the same reduction in borrowing as Labour, although the reduction would be slower.

This means the party is proposing a slower but longer period of austerity, the think tank said.

The report said of the SNP: "Their stated plans do not necessarily match their anti-austerity rhetoric."

line
Analysis: BBC experts

Political editor Nick Robinson

Nick Robinson
Forget the dizzying list of stats - the millions, billions and percentages - for just a moment. Forget those clever folk at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Focus instead on what has been missing from this election campaign so far. That is the scale of the choice the electorate are facing. A choice that has been masked by deliberate evasiveness and obfuscation on all sides, by vague ambitions dressed up to sound hard and specific and, above all, by the political cross-dressing of the two big parties.

Read more on Nick's blog.

Economics editor Robert Peston

Robert Peston
The economic choice confronting voters is the starkest since 1992. That is the assessment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies of the main parties' deficit reduction plans.

The best way of seeing this choice is that, if the Tories and Labour deliver their plans, the national debt by 2020 would be £90bn lower in today's money under the Conservatives, but cuts to so-called unprotected government departments would be just £1bn under Labour compared with £30bn under the Tories.

Read more on Robert's blog.

line
Chancellor George Osborne said: "People know from us we have a balanced and clear plan to eliminate the deficit, to invest in our National Health Service and to make work pay for working people, which is exactly what we have done over the last five years."

He said the IFS report showed Labour would borrow £90bn more.

But Mr Miliband rejected that part of the analysis.

Instead, he accused the Conservatives of engaging in a "grand deception", adding: "As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has today confirmed, the Tories are committed to extreme spending plans. And they have also confirmed that Britain would be facing the deepest cuts of the next three years of any advanced country in the world."




Policy guide: Economy


This issue includes the wider economy and deficit reduction but also employment and the role of business.


Compare parties' policies


economy


Q&A: Economy backgrounder - all you need to know

Liberal Democrat David Laws said the IFS had said "we get the tick for being more transparent clearly than the other political parties".

He told the BBC News Channel: "We've set out in more detail than any other party I think in British political history what we'd do on tax, what we'd do on welfare, what we'd do on spending, which areas would be protected.

"I think that gives us the credibility where we are saying we would invest more on things like education and the NHS for people to know we can deliver those pledges in government."

Scotland's Deputy First Minister John Swinney confirmed the SNP's plans to reduce the deficit "would take longer to achieve".

He added: "We're going to invest right away to make sure we have the necessary resources to end austerity and to start improving our public services."

A UKIP spokesman said the decision by the IFS not to examine its policies was "testament" to its decision to have its manifesto looked at by the independent Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Ahead of the publication of the IFS assessment, Mr Osborne told Today he "did not accept" the Tory campaign had too negative a focus.

He said: "The vast bulk of our campaign is promoting the positive - today we are setting out more of our plans for working people in different parts of the regions."

But he also repeated warnings about SNP influence on a Labour minority government.

'Real cost'

Labour leader Ed Miliband has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP if his party falls short of a majority on 7 May, but the Conservatives say there could be a looser arrangement with Labour relying on SNP support to win Commons votes.

The chancellor used an interview in the Daily Telegraph to cite a Treasury estimate of the SNP's spending plans that said they would trigger an extra £6bn in debt interest payments.

Labour called the chancellor's comments "ludicrous" and said they were "based on old figures".

Labour highlighted an analysis from the International Monetary Fund, claiming it showed Conservative cuts planned for the next three years would be "bigger than anywhere else among the world's 33 advanced economies".

Mr Miliband claims that spending cuts outlined in last month's Budget would be "double the pace next year than this year".

And he told supporters the Conservative plan was "so extreme that far from protecting the NHS they would end up cutting the NHS".

"It is a plan so extreme that it wouldn't mean three years of the good life, it would mean three more years of the hardest of times."

How the hell are we meant to know who to vote for? When all parties just make numbers up and vaguely promise to increase spending and/or cut the deficit with vague and empty rhetoric.

[worstblogever]

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

(Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 287-12, since this was established on 7-18-14)


Randy Forbes

Not long after winning in a special election to serve as U.S. House Rep. from Virginia’s 4th Congressional District back in 2001, Randy Forbes got the bright idea to start the Congressional Prayer Caucus. While you would hope that such a group would be more of a group that would find common ground in their faith outside the halls of Congress in a benign matter, that is not at all the case, Forbes and company seem to have a habit of infiltrating the House Science Committee, with predictable results from members like Paul Broun and Todd Akin. Of course, the fact that Randy Forbes himself ignores the concept of church and state being separated should come as little shock, considering one of his chief allies is exposed fraud (but GOP stalwart) David Barton, who literally argues that the Founding Fathers never intended for a separation of church and state in America in his alternate history lessons (also known as lies), and pushes the idea that Barack Obama and Democrats want to strip America of its Christian roots. Forbes frequently appears on television on Barton’s WallBuilders show, and then turns around and takes the ball Barton alley-oops to him to try and slam home and score one for Team Theocrat. Case in point, the above article where Forbes was on WallBuilders while Barton rambled about “In God We Trust” being taken away? Forbes was back in Congress later in 2011 and making it a priority to get a vote on a resolution to see that “In God We Trust” was reaffirmed as our national motto. A month after that appearance, Forbes made a failed attempt to get Barton’s version of history to be disseminated through his “Spiritual Heritage” Resolution.

And Heaven forbid anyone stand up to Rep. Forbes and his Prayer Caucus, as the American Humanist Association did back in December of 2012, by sending a letter to all incoming members of Congress asking them to not join it in the spirit of separating church and state. Forbes went on WallBuilders to claim that the AHA’s letter was a “violation of his First Amendment Rights” and that they’re trying to “censor” how he talks about his faith. Except the opposite is actually true. The AHA are allowed the right to speak freely against a conflict of interests they see in their government. But hey, as one of the biggest players of the “Victim of Christian Oppression Card” in Congress, you kind of have to expect it from Forbes.

You would hope that a guy who is so into Jesus to make a Prayer Caucus would take care of the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the downtrodden, right? Well, unfortunately, Randy Forbes is still a Republican, so he has an interpretation of the gospels that amounts to, “F*** off, I got mine,” as established by his 15 year voting record. Does he support the poor? Oh, hell no. He’s too busy arguing to keep the rich enjoying the Bush Tax Cuts, or voting against Wall Street Reform to protect the big banks (even after they tanked the economy), as well as the CEOs responsible for it to think about poor people. Does he want to take care of the sick? Nope, he voted against the Affordable Care Act, and has participated in the dozens of futile attempts at repealing it. All of them. Hell, he doesn’t even care about sick children (Jesus is shaking his head at Randy Forbes) because he voted against the renewal of the CHIP program, too. He couldn’t even be bothered to place a vote on the Zadroga Bill to get healthcare for 9-11 First Responders. He’s not too much better for the hungry, voting against restoring money to SNAP assistance. And for the downtrodden? Would you believe he also was one of the members of the GOP who voted against Disaster Relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy? Because yeah, he was.

[worstblogever]

Now, given what we already know, you would probably also guess that Randy Forbes is one of those social conservatives who worships at the altar of the Sacred Zygote. You would be correct. For starters, you can look at his record on Stem Cell Research and see that since he first arrived in Washington, D.C., he’s tried to place bans on any and all kinds of cloning, while blocking stem cell research whichever way he can, often as a sponsor or co-sponsor.

He’s somehow even worse on abortion, including voting to defund Planned Parenthood, (on the same day he voted for funding to go towards NASCAR Sponsorships), pushed a national ban on abortion at 20 weeks (as co-sponsor of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Act), and at the start of this session of Congress, when many members of the Republican caucus balked at an anti-abortion bill because of the language being used in it to discuss rape, Forbes still voted “YEA”, unconcerned with the phrasing. Heck, when you combine that with his vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, you’d almost think Forbes has some kind of a problem with women.

And by far, the issue where Randy Forbes’ theocratic extremism seems to run deepest is on LGBT rights. Forbes was a GOP trendsetter back in 2004, calling for an amendment to be added to our Constitution to ban gay marriage. In 2007, he gave the final floor remarks (at the time) in his passionate support of ENDA. Forbes also argued in 2009 against the expansion of protections against hate crimes for the LGBT community in the most asinine ways, voted against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2010, freaked out in March 2011 because the State Department changed passport applications so they said “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of “father” and “mother”, and in 2013 voted against the version of the Violence Against Women Act that would have given protections to lesbians, before making the demand that the National Republican Congressional Committee should not support any openly gay candidates they might have (which would indicate there are some still in the closet). Based off of all that, it should come as little surprise that Rep. Forbes has a bit of a chubby lately over all the talk about “religious freedom” laws that would allow Christian businesses the right to discriminate against gay customers, using the excuse of their “corporate conscience”. Because if there’s one thing that corporations are known for, it’s their sensible restraint in matters of conscience.

And again, when you see that anti-gay rights history, it’s easy to figure out once you realize who Randy Forbes associates himself with. If David Barton wasn’t a conspicuous enough pal, Forbes also hangs out with Tony Perkins of the American Family Association regularly, which has put Rep. Forbes on the radar of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who monitor Perkins and the AFA as an anti-gay hate group. He's even appeared at fundraising events for the AFA.

So how is Randy Forbes in his eighth term in Congress? Well, he gets a lot of credibility for his work on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, catering to the interests of all the defense contractors, government employees, and stateside members of our military in his district. Of course, his zealotry has started to push the limits of what those folks would tolerate when he voted for the 2013 Government Shutdown, then when it came time to vote to reopen the government 17 days later, he voted against doing so. His constituents were nonplussed about getting furloughs, but still, it was a banner year for GOP turnout, and he pulled down 60% of the vote. Going forward, however, it’s hard to see how a man who’s clearly on the wrong side of history on about every issue, and allied with some of the biggest charlatans and hatemongers in politics can continue to find himself returning to Washington.

[worstblogever]

In other GOP anti-gay hysteria news... Rep. Steve King of Iowa is trying to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to rule on gay marriage, a few days before the bans the final 15 states have against it are to be ruled on by the SCOTUS.

The move is unprecedented, in that way that it violates how our government's system of checks and balances are supposed to work. And it does so on the noble cause of being discriminatory d***s to gay people. But hey, we're talking about Steve King, here.

[Malvolio]

WBE, you've often mentioned how a given Congressional Republican voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood and to fund NASCAR sponsorships on the same day. So I think we should give Speaker of the House John Boehner some kind of Special Award for scheduling those two votes for the same day.

[worstblogever]

WBE, you've often mentioned how a given Congressional Republican voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood and to fund NASCAR sponsorships on the same day. So I think we should give Speaker of the House John Boehner some kind of Special Award for scheduling those two votes for the same day.

He was either trolling, or is sadly that clueless. I can't tell which. I guess it depends on how much he drank that morning.

[Malvolio]

Do you think Boehner needs an intervention?