^I don't have time to read that first link right now, unfortunately... I hope to do so after my drive back up to raleigh... but hopefully it explains this:

My question is what the "republican base" is considered to be. Is it trying to tell us that congressional republicans gone off the Palin-esque deep end and lost touch with their base of reasonable fiscal conservatives? Or do the bible-thumping social wingnuts think that congressional republicans just aren't crazy enough for their tastes? Or some combination of both?

10/25/2009 5:42:56 PM

Quote :

"Scalia Would Have Voted to Keep School Segregation In an appearance at the University of Arizona, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of 'separate but equal'; public schools," the East Valley Tribune reports. "He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better." "I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/27/scalia_would_have_voted_to_keep_school_segregation.html

10/27/2009 1:10:50 PM

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/CountyByCounty/CountyStories/2009/10/26/texas_woman_ticketed_for_not_speaking_english.html

Police in texas wrote 36 tickets to drivers who didn’t speak english.

10/28/2009 12:00:44 AM

^That's more a reflection on the state of Texas than on the state of the Republican Party.

10/28/2009 12:15:48 AM

^ I know but I don’t feel like it deserved its own thread, and the 2 things are close enough.

10/28/2009 1:07:29 AM

Texas is predicted to go blue in national elections by 2016.

10/28/2009 1:13:14 AM

^Lots of the younger demographic going to hit voting age around then, or something?

Though, shit, I guess that's a pretty good indicator of the GOP's decline... if Texas ever goes blue, you know the party is fucked.

10/28/2009 1:21:10 AM

i the 2016 date is based on the increasing hispanic population, given the current trends and voting habits.

some commentators say hispanics are shifting to a more conservative baseline, so maybe 2016 is optimistic.

10/28/2009 1:33:24 AM

Quote :

"some commentators say hispanics are shifting to a more conservative baseline, so maybe 2016 is optimistic"

Seems like it could easily be accurate to me... hispanics do tend to have a pretty high ratio of devout christians in their demographic, and seeing as the GOP is teetering harder and harder between the religious fundies and the fiscal conservatives, the "religious fundie" side of it could be appealing to a lot of people.

(CAUTION: Completely uncited and might-be-made-up statistic: I seem to remember a couple years back, seeing a study published that showed that... something along the lines of about 60% of all hispanic people [possibly just hispanic women? possibly just hispanic people who had semi-recently immigrated from Mexico?] over the age of [40 or 50 or something like that] believe that the second coming of Jesus will occur during their lifetimes. If that's not something the GOP can relentlessly exploit through religious pandering, I don't know what it. Anyway, I do remember that particular 60%-believe-jesus-is-coming-soon being the hook-line of the article and the rest of the stuff not being quite so crazy, so take this possibly flawed vague memory as you see fit.)

[Edited on October 28, 2009 at 2:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/28/2009 2:10:57 AM

How crazy would you have to be to vote for a party that actively demonizes you and wants to expel you from the country?

10/28/2009 9:34:51 AM

about as crazy as it is for poor people to actively vote for a party who simultaneously praises your values, yet does everything possible to make economic and class discrepancies as big as possible

10/28/2009 10:00:30 AM

True, but that's much less overt.

10/28/2009 11:35:00 AM

So how long has Rush been describing Obama as "evil?"

I was somewhat surprised to hear him use that exact word today.

10/30/2009 2:07:27 PM

10/30/2009 5:13:54 PM

Ok, this is where the perception of bias comes up in the media. Real stories are breaking all around Washington on a daily basis and CNN dedicates time to a South Carolina STATE legislator's sex life.

"Neither Corning nor the stripper was charged with anything," and yet it is somehow national news.

I'm not saying CNN doesn't have the right and my distaste for the Republican party has been no secret but . . . I'm just saying.

10/30/2009 6:34:08 PM

^^ At least Corning didn't leave the scene of a drunk-driving accident in which a pedestrian was struck and later died like Rick Sanchez allegedly did.

10/30/2009 7:13:51 PM

or tweeted: "do u know how much money i’d make if i’d sold out as hispanic and worked at fox news, r u kidding, one problem, looking in mirror."

10/30/2009 7:18:53 PM

since I simply despise Rush Limbaugh, here is all the more reason to do so . . .




Though the use of the term "pwnt" or as he said it "powned" by the host was pretty gay.

11/1/2009 4:34:26 PM

I'd say Limbaugh's reaction did more to "pwn" himself than the guy's call.



[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2009 8:33:26 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/students-suspended-for-racy-slumber-party-pics-file-lawsuit.ars

This kind of overreaction would become more common if Palin/Limbaugh/Hannity-esque conservatism ever gains more ground.

11/2/2009 3:41:43 PM

GOP credibility? It's looking pretty good tonight.

11/3/2009 10:26:10 PM

^^ how do you figure? Seems to me that both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of those kinds of shenanigans.

11/3/2009 10:44:56 PM

its not looking good for Hoffman in NY, but at least that liberal RINO bitch wont win

11/3/2009 11:52:15 PM

Quote :

"Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials -- that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork. The video the lawyer showed Carrie is extremely graphic and has never been released publicly. We know that, because TMZ obtained the video months ago but decided not to post it because it was so racy. Let's just say, Carrie has a promising solo career. We're told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to jettison her demand and essentially walk away with nothing. As we first reported, the Pageant is paying around $100,000 to her lawyers and publicist -- a fraction of her bills. She pockets nothing in the settlement. "

http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/04/carrie-prejean-sex-tape-settlement-miss-california-usa-pagneat/#ixzz0VuvoLXVi

ha

11/4/2009 1:36:45 PM

^ Why "ha" and why did you put that shit in here, douche?

11/4/2009 3:52:36 PM

The independents are defensive over Prejean. Interesting.

11/4/2009 4:26:02 PM

Quote :

"Why "ha" and why did you put that shit in here, douche?"

because Carrie Prejean, with help from Fox News and other conservative news/bloggers, has tried to position her as the Beauty Queen/Everywoman Spokesperson for the modern conservative movement in America.

to which the rest of america says: "Ha"

11/4/2009 5:22:58 PM

^ also because she tried to make it seem like her positions (not those ones...) are the Christian perspective, even though it's obvious she has no idea what Christianity is about, except that she must hate gays and liberals.

11/4/2009 7:38:42 PM

^^ and ^ It's good to know that you two are closely monitoring the political positions of beauty queens in our country. Keep us informed!



We're on the case.

11/4/2009 8:52:06 PM

thanks to fox news

11/4/2009 8:54:00 PM

^^ No need for us to keep track of her. The Values Voter Summit is doing that just fine, where she was a keynote speaker with the likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Bill O'Reilly, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and plenty more
http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/

11/5/2009 12:31:10 AM

http://nogovernmenthealthcare.org/
Hilarity to ensue.

11/5/2009 2:21:02 AM

Welp, the GOP Representatives' Health Care Plan is back from the CBO.

And instead of the Dems plan, which will cover 36 million by 2019, the Repubs have opted for a plan which will add coverage to an additional 3 million people by 2019.

Please note that when factoring in expected growth rates, that means there will be a net negative coverage to the tune of 2 million people.

Now, they DID show that it will reduce premiums of those that still manage to actually have insurance (God forbid you get sick under the Repub plan).

Unfortunately, the only ones that seem willing to mention either of these are FDL, Think Progress, and Free Republic. Since I don't like FReepers here are some FDL and TP links.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/05/gop-health-care-plan-pulverized-by-the-cbo/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/05/cbo-gop-uninsured/

In other words, thanks GOP guys for finally putting up a plan. I'm glad they put together a plan that so perfectly shows why we need a Dem plan with a public option.

11/5/2009 3:59:44 PM

wait. the republican plan LOWERS PREMIUMS, something the democrat plan fails to do, and you say it's clear the public option is what is needed? wat?

11/5/2009 4:03:06 PM

You get what you pay for. You'll have lower premiums and insurance companies will be given a free hand to deny you the coverage you're paying for. Plus a lovely increase to 52 million uncovered.

And God forbid someone get a job that doesn't provide insurance. My wife has a pre-existing condition, without health insurance she will be unprotected if her condition flares up. It severely limits our economic decisions. We would both like to own our own business, but that's not realistic under the current plan and absolutely unfathomable under the Repub's plans.

So let's review. Worse coverage, extremely difficult to get the bad coverage, and stifling economic progress. Way to go GOP, way to go.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 4:09:15 PM

where in the bill does it say that insurance companies don't have to honor the contract they entered into with a person? I'm just curious.

btw, I feel for your situation, but let's be honest. you aren't looking for insurance. You are looking for someone else to pay the bill.

Quote :

"So let's review. Worse coverage, extremely difficult to get the bad coverage, and stifling economic progress. Way to go GOP, way to go."

Worse coverage? How.
Hard to get coverage? How.
Stifling economic progress? How? btw, do you really think that adding trillions in new taxes won't stifle economic progress? just curious

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2009 4:12:15 PM

Actually, we're looking for health care. The problem is that in this country getting health care requires that you have insurance. Please call it what it is. And don't claim you "feel for" our situation. If you "felt for" our situation you would feel for the situation of the millions out there without health care. Nothing you've said has indicated that you have any compassion for those out there who cannot get appropriate health care.

For the record, you can read the CBO's analysis here:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf

I'm having a lot of trouble finding the text of Boehner's plan, so all I've got to go on is the CBO's analysis.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2009 4:32:36 PM

I would like for people to get health care as well. I, however, make the distinction between health care and insurance. Those who don't merely contribute to the problem. I will assume that your wife had insurance when her problem first arose. You'd probably be surprised to hear me say that whatever insurance she was on then should still be covering her condition now.

11/5/2009 4:40:50 PM

Not really, the problem first arose when she was a teenager. Parental insurance was able to cover through college, but after that it's either get a job that'll give insurance, or lose coverage completely because her condition means that no private insurer will cover her.

Ultimately, Healthcare is a matter of morality versus money. Either you want to save money and not worry about who gets covered, or you're willing to pay somewhat more to make sure that we're covering as many people as we can. Personally, I consider the desire to see my fellow citizens able to get health care when they need it and not going bankrupt from the health care system to be an important moral issue.

Heart vs. Pocketbook.

In this case, it's the Dems on the moral side and the Republicans on the money side. If money's all that's important to you, then that's your prerogative.

11/5/2009 5:02:04 PM

Quote :

"Ultimately, Healthcare is a matter of morality versus money."

that's a false dilemma, and you know it. and, hell, it's not even one that you've proven.

btw, her parents' insurance would still be paying for it, if I had my way.

11/5/2009 5:12:57 PM

She's older than 25, which is the cutoff for the Republican fan.

11/5/2009 5:13:48 PM

who said "my way" was "the Republican fan."

11/5/2009 5:14:35 PM

Well, those are the two options we've got right now. If you've got a plan I'd love to read it. Perhaps you could submit it to Senator Burr and actually get some use out of him.

11/5/2009 5:19:29 PM

you are being foolish right now. It's entirely possible to have ideas about fixing this gov't-created mess without having gone through the whole process of making a bill, you know

again, another fucking false dilemma

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2009 5:20:23 PM

11/5/2009 5:23:10 PM

I didn't ask for a bill, I asked for a plan. You're putting words in my mouth.

Give us a few bullet points, a paragraph, some sentences. Seriously, I would like to read it.

11/5/2009 5:28:21 PM

pretty simple.

1) end the business tax-credit for paying for healthcare. Thus, the employer-based system disappears
2) end the gov't restrictions on the number of internships. More doctors, lower prices.
3) insurance pays until a problem is solved. If it is never solved, then the insurance company never stops paying.
4) Massive penalties for intentionally denied benefits that are legally due. These penalties apply to both gov't and private insurance. Medicare shouldn't be able to rip off doctors.
5) Investigate pharmaceutical companies for anti-trust violations.
6) allow insurance to be purchased across state lines. actually allow competition in the marketplace.
7) Medicare pays the average going rate to doctors in an area. It must stop driving up prices, period.

that is only a start

11/5/2009 5:40:49 PM

Quote :

"hilarity to ensue"

As promised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGXyMdH9ESs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvKOQA6qrhE
Ooops. I also tried to find the video of Mr. Nasal, Mark Levin, asking "what the hell is this?" as the American flag toppled to the ground to which, in awkward haste, they merely stood it back up.

And now the not so funny.

When you have and allow people that display this at one of your little rallies how can you expect anyone to take you serious. Do any of you conservatives want to even try to defend this? Anyone?

11/6/2009 4:49:34 AM

Quote :

"that is only a start"

Here's some more...

1) Eliminate all laws that prohibit medical providers from advertising their prices.
2) Eliminate laws that forbid doctors from giving discounts for cash payments.
3) Allow limited liability contracts between doctors and patients.

11/6/2009 10:49:29 AM

^^Totally irrelevant. I don't care what signs some conservative has. It doesn't effect the validity of any argument I make against healthcare or whatever unconstitutional government program you want to talk about. It's a common fallacy to say, "you believe x, this person also believes x, that person believes y or exhibited behavior z, therefore you also believe y or support behavior z." You're not saying that exactly, but you're implying it. Pointing to lunies on either side isn't a good way to argue.

11/6/2009 11:01:13 AM