Dick Cheney defends the Tea Party, calls Obama the "most radical operator in Washington."

http://news.yahoo.com/dick-cheney-tea-party-123611175.html

10/21/2013 10:59:55 AM

Quote :

"Pandering to the Tea party is just incredibly unproductive. Their goals are just so unrealistic that it's embarrassing. It would be like a group of far left libs arguing for a 70% tax hike on the top 2 %."

That would be impossible, because some already pay over 60%.

10/21/2013 11:18:51 AM

a 70% tax hike on someone paying 60% (not even going to unpack that claim) is impossible?

10/21/2013 11:32:11 AM

I don't think he's too good with numbers

10/21/2013 12:09:18 PM

Not tax hike, tax level.

And for the love of god, please stop feeling sorry for millionaires.



[Edited on October 21, 2013 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ü]

10/21/2013 2:49:59 PM

I am 99.9999999% sure that no one in the US pays 60% taxes.

10/21/2013 3:07:12 PM

It's not just the Tea Party's goals are unrealistic, they are also extremely unpopular. When the Democratic party was it's low point during the Nixon/Reagan/Bush years, they responded by adopting policies that people actually wanted. The Tea Party is only digging itself a bigger hole by being on the wrong side of issues like same sex marriage, contraception/abortion, Wall Street regulation, and entitlements. No one wants what they're selling.

10/21/2013 3:18:52 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politics/cnn-poll-gop-boehner-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"Just over half the public says that it's bad for the country that the GOP controls the House of Representatives, according to a new national poll conducted after the end of the partial government shutdown. And the CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that more than six in 10 Americans say that Speaker of the House John Boehner should be replaced."

10/21/2013 3:54:40 PM

Replaced with who? For non-Tea Party types, Boehner is the best realistic Speaker right now.

I wonder what percentage of Republicans want Boehner replaced because he 'caved' on Obamacare?

10/21/2013 4:16:31 PM

Quote :

"And for the love of god, please stop feeling sorry for millionaires."

I know. fuck those guys. let's just take all their stuff, cause they're not us.

10/22/2013 11:57:08 PM

^ and also because they've been taking it from everyone else without any regard:

http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/fig2_prodhhincome.jpg

[Edited on October 23, 2013 at 1:10 AM. Reason : ]

10/23/2013 1:10:21 AM

^^if you weren't trying to defend the GOP, you'd be the first to point out that saying "don't feel sorry for _____" is not quite the same thing as "fuck them, let's take all their stuff". Isn't what that you'd call a straw man argument?

10/23/2013 9:37:40 AM

I'm not defending the GOP. I'm attacking the stupid notion that the only reason to support a given policy is because you "feel sorry for millionaires." It's entirely possible to think that high levels of taxation for one group of people are inherently immoral, even if you're not a member of that group.

10/25/2013 1:05:20 AM

That's ripe

10/25/2013 7:11:09 AM

High levels of taxation for one group of people who have a shitload of money earned from the opportunities society gave them and the toil of the common people.

Inherently immoral, that.

10/25/2013 8:48:02 AM

embed test:



I feel like this needs its own thread.

[Edited on October 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/25/2013 8:51:34 AM

^ mods, plz to convert that autoplaying video to a link. thx.

10/26/2013 11:51:32 PM

That does not autoplay for me.

10/30/2013 9:14:40 AM

doesn't autoplay for me either

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/ted-cruzs-father-in-2012-send-obama-back-to-kenya/?hpt=hp_t3

11/1/2013 11:36:28 AM

autoplays for me, its annoying

11/1/2013 11:58:14 AM

I beg all GOP backers to watch closely today. One Republican will romp to a win in a blue state because he represents compromise and is moderate. The other will get stomped in a purple state and represents an uncompromising far right ideology. Learn from this. We can't live in a single party country and if you keep fucking up we will soon.

[Edited on November 5, 2013 at 6:25 AM. Reason : C]

11/5/2013 6:25:44 AM

Yep.

11/5/2013 7:56:38 AM

not sure I agree with that... in the past 30 years, the only republicans elected president ran as conservatives... Reagan, Bush, Bush. The ones who ran as moderates were not elected - Dole, McCain, Romney.

[Edited on November 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2013 11:35:22 AM

that trend does not hold when you start looking at gubernatorial races or even congressional races

11/5/2013 11:55:56 AM

^^all of those elections were pre-facebook. everything changed since then.

11/5/2013 12:25:55 PM

Another Smath post where I want to bang my head against a door until my brain is outside of my body...

11/5/2013 12:35:04 PM

^oh. i guess i'm wrong. President Dukakis and President McCain were pretty good leaders.

11/5/2013 1:16:21 PM

The problem is not with the information you have presented. It is with the asinine conclusions you drew from that information.

You do realize that one of the biggest problems Romney faced was being dragged so far to the right in order to win primaries and he got caught flip-flopping, don't you? Please tell me you realize that. Remember the Etch-a-Sketch comments made by his campaign manager? If you think Romney's problem was that he wasn't conservative enough then you are a gigantic moron. Please, please, please lob Hilary that Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz softball in 2016. I will be laughing the entire time.

11/5/2013 1:39:39 PM

he tried to paint himself a conservative when he really wasn't.

11/5/2013 1:42:30 PM

so when they lose its because they are just pretending to be conservative, and when the win its because they are actually conservative? got it.

11/5/2013 2:11:53 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that one of the biggest problems Romney faced was being dragged so far to the right in order to win primaries and he got caught flip-flopping, don't you? "

Kinda reminds me of '08 when McCain brought Sarah Palin on-board to appease the "conservative" base when in reality it did nothing but alienate the moderates/libertarians/independents.

11/5/2013 3:06:16 PM

I always think that they can't possibly be so blind as not to see that they alienate a huge portion of the electorate by running these far right socially conservative fools such as Cucinelli. His numbers among females is laughable. How on earth do they expect to remain viable as a party when they are bleeding 70% of the female vote in a damn purple state??

It works on their minions obviously though..

[Edited on November 5, 2013 at 3:12 PM. Reason : X]

11/5/2013 3:10:58 PM

Quote :

"How on earth do they expect to remain viable as a party"

Easy, they just follow the model of Texas and change the voting laws to make it harder on those whom are less likely to vote for them.

11/5/2013 4:24:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/senate-lgbt-workplace-discrimination/index.html

Quote :

"Senate passes LGBT anti-discrimination bill Washington (CNN) -- For the first time, the U.S. Senate approved legislation that would protect gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, passed the Democratic-led chamber on Thursday, 64 to 32. "The workplace is simply no place for discrimination," said Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine just before the vote."

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/enda-passes-senate-64-32

Quote :

"“Today, a strong bipartisan majority of the United States Senate made history by standing up for a fundamental American truth. Each and every American worker should be judged based on the work they do, and never based on who they are. This broad Senate coalition has sent a vital message that civil rights legislation should never be tied up by partisan political games."

Having 64 yes votes means it's a super-majority with support from Republicans. Though I feel more strongly about not banning things (amendment 1, DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell), I'm still happy to see this pass with bipartisan support as a signal of growing support for LGBT equality in the US (along with all the states rushing to allow the freedom to marry for LGBT couples) since this is the first time this has ever passed in the US Senate.

I believe it uses the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just adding LGBT to the groups of race, gender, religion and national origin that might face discrimination in the workplace, which to me seems as realistic as any of the other groups listed possibly facing discrimination.

Kudos to the GOP for breaking into the double digit territory of support in the US Senate. Especially Senator Kirk, Senator Collins, and Senator Rob Portman who were some of the most public and high profile supporters.

11/7/2013 3:06:26 PM

now lets watch the house shit on it until the ACA is repealed.

11/7/2013 3:30:01 PM

^It passed the House before, back in 2007 during the Bush era. It'd have a decent chance of passing House if they let it come up for a vote. Earlier this year this GOP controlled House passed an LGBT inclusive violence against women act. ENDA polls really well too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/03/memo-to-senate-republicans-your-constituents-want-you-to-vote-for-enda/

Quote :

"Will ENDA receive the necessary votes? If senators listened to their constituents, the bill would pass overwhelmingly. Nearly all recent opinion polls indicate that a large majority of the American public — more than 70 percent — supports efforts to make employment discrimination against gay men and and lesbians illegal."

Quote :

"majorities in all 50 states support ENDA-like legislation "

Quote :

"Today, public support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/04/equal-rights-showdown-in-the-senate-with-historic-enda-vote.html

Quote :

" Still, a ban on workplace discrimination against LGBT Americans polls better than a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and the opposition is far less strident."

And there's an effort by some in the GOP, to modernize, to be less anti-immigrant, less anti-gay, and generally not turn off young voters and minorities. I think your concern about in the House is well justified, if they wouldn't pay the bills they already racked up, then how is this any more likely to get a vote.

But they can either put their stamp on it, get some credit for modernizing, and restrict the bill some if they want using language they craft, or it'll likely end up as an Executive Order from the President in 2014 or 2015. So why not take credit for something popular rather than obstruct something that you can't stop?

11/7/2013 4:36:33 PM

It was kind of a half-joke. I'm not really concerned that it won't pass the house, but part of me wouldn't be surprised after the shenanigans that have been going on there.

11/7/2013 11:43:07 PM

I heard some moron in a sound clip yesterday saying something about, "are we really going to make companies go against their religious beliefs"?

Are. you. fucking. kidding. me.

Companies don't have religious beliefs. A company is not a person. A person is not a company. The two are very different and are regulated very differently. I hate republicans.

11/8/2013 8:45:22 AM

Your placement of ^^^ this issue in this thread seems to indicate the GOP will increase their credibility if this bill passes, or may have already increased their credibility by having a few members openly support passage. My question, if this bill does pass with the necessary GOP support in the Senate and House, and discrimination against the new protected classes continues, whose credibility will be negatively affected as a result? Further, will this proposed legislation provide more or less incentive for employers to hire prospective employees who may be a member of the new protected class?

Bills with simplistic, pleasing titles don't always produce the effects promised by their proponents. But the legal community thanks you.

[Edited on November 8, 2013 at 8:46 AM. Reason : ....]

11/8/2013 8:45:59 AM

so you're against the bill?

11/8/2013 2:38:33 PM

Yeah, that's a really long-winded way of saying that you're a bigot.

11/8/2013 2:40:34 PM

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/06/Paul-to-footnote-writings-like-college-papers/UPI-89991383721200/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said he would now footnote his writings "like college papers" and said if people were tired of him he would "go back to being a doctor." "What we are going to do from here forward, if it will make people leave me the hell alone, is we're going to do them like college papers," the Kentucky Republican and possible 2016 White House hopeful told The New York Times after his office announced a more diligent system to attribute material. "We're going to try to put out footnotes," Paul said after a growing number of accusations suggested he used plagiarized material in speeches, an opinion article and a book. Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford said in a statement footnotes on "collaborative works" would now "be available on request." "Ultimately I'm the boss and things go out under my name, and so it is my fault," Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" late Tuesday. "But I will say that people need to also understand that, you know, I never have intentionally ever presented anyone's ideas as my own." He told the Times the criticism was "coming from haters to begin with, because they want the implication to be out there that you're dishonest." That sentiment then "bleeds over into regular press," he said. The opinion article that included material Paul failed to attribute appeared in The Washington Times Sept. 20. It copied language from an essay published in the magazine The Week Sept. 14. The newspaper, whose editorial slant is generally conservative, said Tuesday it was canceling Paul's weekly Friday column by mutual agreement. "We expect our columnists to submit original work and to properly attribute material, and we appreciate that the senator and his staff have taken responsibility for an oversight in one column," Washington Times Editor John Solomon said. "The standard I'm being held to is a little different than everybody else," Paul told CNN. "They're now going back and reading every book from cover to cover and looking for places where we footnoted incorrectly and don't have quotation marks in the right places or we didn't indent correctly." Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 2008 and a critic of Paul for the past six months, said the standard Paul is being held to is the standard of a politician building a national profile. "I think when you have a high visibility in America politically, you've got to understand that you undergo scrutiny that you don't even as a senator," McCain told The New York Times. He said he wouldn't judge Paul's political fallout until he knew "how much there is of it." Paul told The New York Times this sort of scrutiny is "what people hate about politics, and it's why, frankly, members of my family are not too interested in politics, period, or wanting me to do more of this." "To tell you the truth, people can think what they want," he continued. "I can go back to being a doctor anytime, if they're tired of me. I'll go back to being a doctor, and I'll be perfectly content.""

Aww, you guyyyyyyyyyyyssssssss. I think we really hurt his feelings this time.

Please don't leave Sen. Paul, we didn't mean to hold you to basic standards of accountability.

11/8/2013 9:32:36 PM

In before Biden

11/8/2013 9:44:33 PM

Quote :

"It passed the House before, back in 2007 during the Bush era."

Ya don't say... A bill that supports a major liberal voting bloc passed the House when the House was run by Democrats? stop the presses! And as for this having majorities in all 50 states, then why aren't all 50 states voting for this? I think this legislation should be passed in the states, because it's a state matter in the first place. And yes I support it at the state-level. If Georgia wants to be ass backward and lose even more competitiveness, then let em.

11/8/2013 10:44:27 PM

Quote :

"Easy, they just follow the model of Texas and change the voting laws to make it harder on those whom are less likely to vote for them. "

They also Gerrymander the fuck out of their congressional districts when they take over state legislatures. Rolling Stones had an article about this in the issue from 2 weeks ago. Forgot the exact number but essentially in the 80's the ratio of votes going to democratic congressman and GOP ones about mirrored the distribution of the representation in congress.

Since then the districts have been gerrymandered so bad that even though 54% (approx number) voted for a democrat congressional candidate the GOP won 12 of 16 seats.....

11/10/2013 4:06:36 PM

BOTH SIDES DO IT! THEREFORE THIS TIME IT'S NOT AS SHITTY OR SOMETHING.

11/10/2013 5:14:38 PM

So after all the press Chris Christie has been getting I've come to a conclusion that the GOP will not when the presidency ever again unless they make some serious changes. Basically anyone that wins the GOP primary is way too conservative to ever win a general election and any moderate Republican able to win a general election is way to moderate to win a GOP primary. They are shooting themselves in the foot over and over again.

11/12/2013 3:02:29 PM

The most beautiful part about it is that the stupid, crazy faction don't even realize why it's happening. They think the country wants them to be even more radically conservative. I'm honestly not sure whether it's hilarious or sad.

11/12/2013 3:15:27 PM

^It's hilarious, I assure you.

^^Thank you for that amazingly unique insight.

^^^You're right; Democrats suck at gerrymandering. They're too benevolent to seriously explore such methods.

11/12/2013 4:02:02 PM

^ thank you for being a dick

11/12/2013 4:35:23 PM