An American taliban

[Prospero]

Tucked away in an otherwise bland and playful thread, that dear old warrior of the tea party OMK complained at the use of the word Taliban to describe the radical right in American today. His complaint in a nuthell was that Americans - including friends of his - have died fighting these vile fundamentalists in Afghansitan, so it is wrong to use this word in any other context.

I thought this topic needed more discussion so I've posted my response here.

OMK is a slippery character and here tries to tar those who point to the reality of the ideological insanity infecting a large part of the republican poarty with support for the taliban.

This won't do.

While the use of the word Taliban might be a tad clumsy, the point that was being made - actually in the final episode of The Newsroom (a rather smug piece of work by the once adept Aaron Sorkin) - is that the Republicans are increasingly dominated by a fundamentalist ideology.

This ideology is anti-women, anti-science, anti progress, xenophobic, religiously literalist, full of myths such as the US Government being in cahoots with the UN to repress the American people or the birther movement or the absyrd notion that Obama is a Muslim, obsessively enslaved to the right to bear arms, economically in thrall to ideas long since proven to be wrong, tavouring the wealthy the very rich with policies that are beginning to resemble the sort of ultra right-wing ultra individualist ideology outlined by the neo-fascist writer Ayn Rand (a favorite of Paul Ryan) and that it brooks no dissent in its blinkered vision of what is right. Those who actually step out of line are now ruthlessly rejected as candidates - even if they' have long and honourable service to the GOP.

Yep - Taliban is a poor choice of word as young Americans are indeed dying to fight this perniciousness ultra radical Islamist ideology. But the ultra radical Christin derived ideology of the new Tea party dominated GOP has yet to be given a convenient label. I think you could however finally call them Anti American.

[Stavros]

It might be best to use the word Taliban in the context in which it means most; otherwise we end up using it as a substitute for something else, in the way that people use words like 'Racist' and 'Fascist' without their original connotation. Fundamentalism or a 'literalist' application of biblical preachings to daily life is hardly new, but if anything they could be called Puritans, which does also have some American pedigree. An examination of daily life under Oliver Cromwell can make grim reading; it has been argued that it was the excessive Puritanism of the mid-17th century in England that gave rise to the hedonism of the 18th. There is nothing wrong with having fun, even on Christmas Day, apparently even Conservatives do. But Puritans?

[Prospero]

Good points Stavros, though puritans is way too mild a word to capture the full range of their ignorance, hypocrisy and viciousness..

[nina_lisa]

Which one would be more controversial.

1) american anti tea-party calling tea party an american taliban.
2) an Afghani anti taliban, calling the taliban an afghani tea party?

[loren]

I think you could however finally call them Anti American.
This from a non-American.:rolleyes:

[Stavros]

Which one would be more controversial.

1) american anti tea-party calling tea party an american taliban.
2) an Afghani anti taliban, calling the taliban an afghani tea party?

Probably No 1; they drink a lot of tea in Afghanistan, it's their whisky.

[Prospero]

Loren - spent a considerable part of my life in the US and have many family and friends there... but Loren do you have anything to actually say about the substance of my post?

[loren]

Loren do you have anything to actually say about the substance of my post?Just a simple question, how is it that people whom have an opinion which differes from the liberal left's (or I guess I could've said your own) are "Anti-American"?

[Prospero]

Oh no they're not Anti-American Loren. Free discussion - and the old Reoublican party were fine by me. But the GOP has been slip-sliding away for a long time now.

First you had the trickle down ludicrous economics of Reagan (the old Gipper whose convivial facade conned so many Americans into feeling good), then the Bush boys - the second of whom (now seemingly diswned by the GOP who want to forget the damage he did) invading without any justification Iraq and helping to destabilise the entire region, and now the present bunch. A succession of people who've presided over the gradual destruction of many of the things which made America great. Those who now embrace all the things which I mentioned there are, in my view (and that of a growing number of Americans) profoundly at odds with the values which America once stood for - and which most of the free West have long admired. So please justify the oppression of women now manifest in the GOP, it's virulent anti-scientific stance,its preparedness to allow the very rich to avoid taxes whilst impoverishing ordinary Americans, its cowering to the interests of big business etc etc......

[loren]

The War in Iraq may have been waged on shaky evidence, I'm not going into that right now. I do say that it was mismanaged from the very begining. The idea that we were there to wage war only against Hussein and not the Iraqi army or people. Complete ignoring the operational concepts that you must deal with the enemies army (of course keeping in mind the political goals). Their idea that all they had to do is kick in Hussein's front door and the whole rotten facade would come crashing down. Does that sound familiar? It didn't work for the Allies at the Dardanelles and Gallipoli Campaigns and it didn't work for Hitler in 1941 on the Eastern Front. So guess what, it didn't work against Hussein. Sure, we went in and kicked some ass. However, that was part of his plan. He sacrificed a few divisions to draw us in, knowing we considered him and not his army as the target. His plan, which outlived him, was to wear us down with Guerilla Warfare. We should've went in hard from the start, engaged and destroyed the Iraqi army, and most importantly have a plan on what to do after the war is won. Whether the plan is joint occupation, sole occupation, breaking the conquered land up between it's neighbors, or any combination. There was no plan in place, entire divisions were bypassed, and there weren't enough troops.

As for the ecconomic front, taxation isn't the real problem, out of controll spending is. As of 2009, the Federal government could place a 100% tax (every penny that everyone makes goes to the government) and have a total freeze on spending, and it would still take 10 years to pay off the debt. Even if the questionable and controversial "millionare and billionare tax" were to be implemented, it would have NO EFFECT. The Federal government would spend 20 times as much money as that tax might bring in.

"oppression of women... anti-scientific" please clarify

[broncofan]

What a dubious use of evidence by Loren. We could place a 100% tax on people and wouldn't pay off the debt? Yes, well that's true since the debt is greater than GDP. I still don't see how that would lead you to the conclusion that tax revenues aren't relevant. If you really decide that you want to choose an economic recession as the time to impose a balanced budget (really fucking stupid timing btw), it helps to bring in more tax revenue. The national debt does not get paid down in one year regardless, but it eventually gets paid down if you use your spending to stimulate economic activity, which providing benefits to people who spend more tends to do and combine that with higher taxes for those with larger propensities to save. Of course, the clowns you support do not want to do that.

Anti-science? You really don't know what he's talking about? Have you heard of evolution? "The jury is still out, perhaps children should be taught an alternative called intelligent design. Then they can decide what they like better". Misogyny? Not wanting to take affirmative efforts to reduce the pay gap between men and women; that is women getting paid less money for the same work as men. I would say that's anti-women. I mean I wouldn't want to get paid less than someone else for doing the same work because of something unrelated to work.

[broncofan]

"As for the ecconomic front, taxation isn't the real problem, out of controll spending is. As of 2009, the Federal government could place a 100% tax (every penny that everyone makes goes to the government) and have a total freeze on spending, and it would still take 10 years to pay off the debt."


This statement does not appear to make sense. Why not use 2011 numbers since they are more current? The national debt is 15.8 trillion dollars. Our GDP is 15 trillion dollars. Our spending is 3.7 trillion about. These are 2011 numbers except for the debt which I think is a current number. The difference between what everyone makes and what we currently spend is about 12.3 trillion dollars, meaning in this hypothetical, a spending freeze would pay off about 3/4 of the debt.

Forget the insanity of the hypothetical as the economy would shrink precipitously without any reinvestment. The hypothetical is deceptive, sheds no light on anything and provides no policy recommendation. Deficits are created by a mismatch of taxes and spending. Taxes will never cease to be relevant.

[Prospero]

Loren - you neatly slid past the very essence of the issue on Iraq. Fought on some 'shakey evidence.' Indeed. Your nation and mine invaded without any excuse whatsoever a sovereign nation and took it over. The legitimate Government of that nation (loathsome as it was) was removed, its leader eventally killed and a situation of chaos left. Iraq was once a force for stability in the region and a bulwark against iran. Now it is a basketcase - and now plagued by Al-Queda elements that were never in that country before. The pretext for the invasion - the supposed presence of WMD - has long since been proved to be fallacious. This was a crime. Your last Republican President Bush has never explained exactly why this invasion took place after the evidence for WMD crumbled.

Odd that neither Bush nor any of his prime movers are at the the GOP Convention.

[Prospero]

Anti science? Well I'd mention two key things here. The pressure to teach creationism in schools nd to deny the long-since established idea of evolution.

This proceeds from a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Bible. It is identical in its effect to the Fundamentalist islamic interpretation of the Qur'an.

And the denial of climate change - a denial that benefits only short term business interests- and which flies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

[Prospero]

And women? Well your party is very shakey on this. Where are the great women thinkers and players in the GOP ranks? Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann?

Then here is pressure to repeal Roe v Wade. There are the lunatic assertions by several Key contenders for office that women should not be allowed abortion even when they've been raped.

Congress blocking equal pay for women.

Rush Limbaugh's attack on Georgetown university student Sandra Fluke as a "slut."

And let's not forget the genius Todd Akin who insists that women subject to "legitimate" rape have inbuilt biological processes that prevent conception. Try that on the huge number of women who became pregnant during the Balkan war after rape by Serbian troops.

[Prospero]

In my posting I forget to mention the cynical bid by a large umber of Republican controlled states to stem "voter fraud" by disenfranchsing some of the poorest voters (overwhelmingly democrats) if they don't have government issued ID... such as passports or driving licences. Many many poor Afrian Americans don't have these - so have lost their right to vote.

But then one republican controlled state - Texas funnily enough - recently suggested it was time to remove the vote from this group anyway and to repeal the civil rights legislation.


The GOP is now also opposed to gay marriage, to rights for gays, (and by extension those who constitute the primary membership of this forum).

Then there is the desire to build "a wall" along the borer with mexico to keep them damn latinos out...

The branding of a large of the democratic party as "communists.' Those who offer this challenge have clearly never -ever learned anything about the true nature of Communism.

The list does go on...

And how long after a GOP election victory will it be before a Joe McCarthy arises to silence all the critics. Here in Hung Angels the smirking OMK tries to fulfill that role.


Over to you Mr Loren to answer these issues point-by-point if you care to?

[loren]

Why not use 2011 numbers since they are more current?
The 2009 numbers were the ones I had in front of my face, the numbers for 2011 would be much worse considering the steady job loss that has continued to occur.

[trish]

The 2009 numbers were the ones I had in front of my face, the numbers for 2011 would be much worse considering the steady job loss that has continued to occur.Exactly the opposite. There is no steady job loss (only in certain specific sectors; e.g. the loss of public service jobs (firemen, policemen, teachers, postal workers etc.) due to the actions a few fanatic union busting governors. Indeed overall there continues to be, over the course of Obama's administration, a slow and steady job creation.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Why do you hate the American government so much? How can you be so unpatriotic? It's the government that supports the troops after all. It's the government that built the interstate highway system that business could not survive without. It's the government that made satellite communications possible. It's the government that maintains the infrastructure, helps fund education etc. etc. Romney and Ryan don't think we need as much education, we can cut back on basic research. Romney and Ryan look at the infrastructure, roads, communication, banking system, patent system, legal system to respect and protect business contracts and they think they built that. No. We built that. We are the government...of, by and for the people. You hate the government, you hate the people.

Newsroom - Tea Party, American Taliban - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pzqq9sxKkY)

[thombergeron]

As for the ecconomic front, taxation isn't the real problem, out of controll spending is. As of 2009, the Federal government could place a 100% tax (every penny that everyone makes goes to the government) and have a total freeze on spending, and it would still take 10 years to pay off the debt. Even if the questionable and controversial "millionare and billionare tax" were to be implemented, it would have NO EFFECT. The Federal government would spend 20 times as much money as that tax might bring in.


This has been countered fairly well by others, but I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that U.S. tax revenues are currently at their lowest level in over 50 years. In 2010, Mexico and Chile were the only countries in the OECD where tax revenues were lower than in the U.S. It is simply not the case, by historical or international standards, that U.S. taxpayers are "overtaxed."

[loren]

The pretext for the invasion - the supposed presence of WMD - has long since been proved to be fallacious.
No, not exactly, granted Hussein's nuclear ammament was a bluff. However in a bunker in the western part of the Iraqi desert, DOD personel found chemical weapons. They were "broken drown" into their base chemicals and could've been completely weaponized (assembled and loaded into either artillery shells or scud missles) in less than three hours.

Anti science? Well I'd mention two key things here. The pressure to teach creationism in schools nd to deny the long-since established idea of evolution.

And the denial of climate change - a denial that benefits only short term business interests- and which flies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
So, let me get this straight, if someone does not believe in evolution they're anti science? The theory of evolution has a number of holes in it. Why should evolution be the only thing taught in schools?

Planet Earth has been much warmer than today's climate in the past and it's been much cooler in the past. Considering that we've been keeping temperature records for only about 100 years, who knows what the normal climate for Earth is supposed to be?

And women? Well your party is very shakey on this. Where are the great women thinkers and players in the GOP ranks? Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann?
Then here is pressure to repeal Roe v Wade.
Congress blocking equal pay for women.
Rush Limbaugh's attack on Georgetown university student Sandra Fluke as a "slut."

FYI it's not my party. Let me get this out of the way first, Mr. Akin was mistaken in his understanding of biology.

Have you forgoten the attacks by your party against Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? Do you remember your party calling Backmann a slut, bitch, witch, stupid? And what about the visceral attacks against Palin, dumb bitch, slut, kill Palin, shoot Palin, she should be rapped. Even attacks against Palin's daughter (and yet, exoneration for Levi Johnson after he ran out on her) calling her a slut, a bitch, she should be rapped.

I do not support abortion at all, not even in the case of rape. According to my beliefs life begins at conception, therefore making abortion murder.

If you wanna complain about women not getting equal pay, need not look any further than obama's white house. The women (highest paid lady) on his staff makes a third less than the men.

Mr. Limbaugh was talking about her saying that the government should pay for her birth controll. Making the tax-payers pay for her to have sex, making her a prostitute - a slut.

In my posting I forget to mention the cynical bid by a large umber of Republican controlled states to stem "voter fraud" by disenfranchsing some of the poorest voters (overwhelmingly democrats) if they don't have government issued ID

The GOP is now also opposed to gay marriage, to rights for gays, (and by extension those who constitute the primary membership of this forum).

Then there is the desire to build "a wall" along the borer with mexico to keep them damn latinos out...
Almost everyone (I can't say everyone, because there might be a couple of Geico cavemen who don't have IDs.) has a photo ID or a satisfactory equivalent. Do you realize that currently in several States all someone has to do to prove voter eligibility (residence in the precinct they are voting) is to simply say they live in that precinct?

Ideally every American Citizen would enjoy the same freedoms and rights. In practice, this has not always worked. Sometimes laws need to be passed to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the same rights. That being said, many churches may never accept gay marriage. It would be wrong to try to force it on them. Marriage is a State and local issue and shoould not be encroached upon by the Federal government.

The branding of a large of the democratic party as "communists.'
Is that just like branding a large number of Republicans or even conservatives as "anti-American"?

[loren]

There is no steady job loss...Indeed overall there continues to be, over the course of Obama's administration, a slow and steady job creation.

Why do you hate the American government so much? How can you be so unpatriotic?
Job creation, do you seriously believe that? If there's job creation, then why is there more people losing their jobs, more companies going under, more food pantries that have to turn people away because they don't have any food left, more people that are on welfare and the list goes on. You see, I live in Realville. I would love it if things were getting better, I honestly do. Hell, just last week, a local company laid off most of their employees (that didn't make the newspapers).

Who said anything about hating the government? Tell me something, did you love the government as much when Bush was in charge?

[loren]

I forgot about this one.

Then there is the desire to build "a wall" along the borer with mexico to keep them damn latinos out...
I (again speaking for [gasp] myself) don't have anything against Mexicans or "latinos" immigrating to America legaly. My problem is with the illegal immagration and the spineless politians who will not do anything about it.

[loren]

Bill Maher, liberal pundits, and John Stewart to a lesser degree, (all Dems) regularly trash women, calling them stupid, bitches, sluts, saying they should be rapped and killed. But I guess that doesn't matter, because those women are Republicans or conservatives, besides they're only joking.

Furthermore, lets look at some of the Dems shining examples of champiosons for women's rights. Bill Clinton - a well known womanizer who had numerous affairs however never had sexual relations with that woman, John Edwards - had an affair and he's really the one who left his wife while she was on her deathbed, JFK - a well known womanizer who had numerous affairs, "Teddy" Kennedy - had an affair (I think I'm seeing a pattern here) and actually killed the woman and the goes on... So, I ask you, which party is conducting a war on women?




Mr Loren
:fu:Thank you miss, may I have another.:fu::loser:

[trish]

So, let me get this straight, if someone does not believe in evolution they're anti science?Yes. Just like anyone today who denies the validity of Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field is anti-science. Okay yeah, there's a couple of holes; i.e. it requires a small tweak or two to bring it into line with quantum field theory. But anyone who denies the general applicability and the general understanding of electromagnetic phenomena that is afforded by Maxwell's mathematical insight is a certifiable nutcase...just as are those who deny the general understanding of biological function and natural history afforded by Darwin's insight.

[broncofan]

Loren,
do not let the fact that I used 2011 numbers distract you from the the fact that what you said was completely wrong. You said that with a spending freeze and a 100% tax on total earnings (ie. GDP), it would require ten years to pay off our national debt.

Please tell me how you calculated this. May I suggest that you did not make any calculations and that what you said was just plain made up.

[broncofan]

"As for the ecconomic front, taxation isn't the real problem, out of controll spending is. As of 2009, the Federal government could place a 100% tax (every penny that everyone makes goes to the government) and have a total freeze on spending, and it would still take 10 years to pay off the debt."


This statement does not appear to make sense. Why not use 2011 numbers since they are more current? The national debt is 15.8 trillion dollars. Our GDP is 15 trillion dollars. Our spending is 3.7 trillion about. These are 2011 numbers except for the debt which I think is a current number. The difference between what everyone makes and what we currently spend is about 12.3 trillion dollars, meaning in this hypothetical, a spending freeze would pay off about 3/4 of the debt.

Forget the insanity of the hypothetical as the economy would shrink precipitously without any reinvestment. The hypothetical is deceptive, sheds no light on anything and provides no policy recommendation. Deficits are created by a mismatch of taxes and spending. Taxes will never cease to be relevant.
Actually, the number in your hypothetical would be 11.3 trillion dollars difference between GDP and spending. At that rate, in your highly unrealistic hypothetical, it's still fewer than two years. What numbers did you use to get more than ten years to pay off the debt? Were you just making shit up?

[trish]

Why should evolution be the only thing taught in schools?For the same reason we only teach the theory of universal gravitation. Would you rather give equal time to the theory that the Earth is flat, Heaven is above it and the Hell below it tugs on the sinful nature of all Earthly creatures and things (owing to Eve's fall from Grace) therefore giving rise to what we call gravitational pull.

Sure Newton's theory required some adjustment over the centuries. Einstein's theory affords us an even more fundamental and accurate understanding, but we still use Newton's good ol' inverse square law to send robotic vehicles to Mars. Could we use the sin theory of gravity in the future to tool around the solar system? Not on your life.

[trish]

If you wanna complain about women not getting equal pay, need not look any further than obama's white house.Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Tea Baggers opposed it with all their might.

[trish]

Considering that we've been keeping temperature records for only about 100 years, who knows what the normal climate for Earth is supposed to be?Supposed to be? What the fuck do you even mean by "supposed to be"? 4.5 billion years ago the Earth was a boiling mass of molten rock. During the last ice age glaciers extended from the poles to the temperate zones. The very phraseology of your question "who knows what the normal climate of Earth is supposed to be?" expresses a profound ignorance. The question for us is what do we need it to be in order to sustain our civilization and what can we do to maintain a sustainable climate.

[trish]

Job creation, do you seriously believe that? I linked the numbers. Do you seriously feel your gut is more reliable?

Tell me something, did you love the government as much when Bush was in charge?Of course I loved America then and I love it now. I am an American and we are not defined by our boundary, nor our geography, nor our religion, nor our ethnicity. We are defined by the government we chose, fought for and built together...the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, the three branches in check and balance...a representational form of government of, by and for the people. None of us stands alone. In this world no one can. We stand together.

[Prospero]

Curiously I agree with Trish's last statement although I am not an American. Substitute admire for love and i'd sign off on that.

So don't let a bunch of ignorant and vicious fools damage it.

[broncofan]

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Tea Baggers opposed it with all their might.
That's right and if you want to look at the way Title VII sex discrimination is enforced in federal courts you can often tell who appointed the judges in question based on the interpretation. In some decisions women have to be practically raped (no penalty for women being rapped though) in order for it to rise to the level of severe and pervasive required under the law. One gets the sense that Conservative justices have a bit more of a strict attitude about what constitutes actionable harassment. I'd be curious about finding some empirical studies on the voting patterns of different partisan appointees in sex discrimination cases. I will look for some later; many I've seen look at the voting pattern of female and minority justices who tend to on average have different voting patterns than white male justices and we know which party thinks that courts should be composed almost exclusively of white male judges, and the occasional white female.

[broncofan]

A two minute google search yields, "Gender Myths v. Working Realities" by Theresa Beiner. This appears in the sections of Ms. Beiner's book which appear available for preview.

"White male Republican Judges voted for a sex discrimination plaintiff 28% of the time....white female Republican Judges voted for a sex discrimination plaintiff 53% of the time....and white Democratic judges voted for the sex discrimination plaintiff 76% of the time."

Let me just say, who knows how often the plaintiff should have won. But we have an enormous disparity here based on the gender of the Judges within the Republican party and of course across party lines. In most of the hostile work environment cases I've read the issue is not so much whether there was harassment, but whether a Judge believes the sexual harassment rises to the level that makes it unlawful and/or whether the supervisor's actions can be imputed to his employer. So, the difference we are seeing in this polling by Ms. Beiner if her statistics are taken randomly are among Republican Judges who for instance might not think intentionally brushing against a woman's boob is severe and pervasive that a person of reasonable sensibilities would be distressed by it. But yes, the intuition follows that Republicans who want fewer protections for women legislatively also tend to appoint Justices who interpret the existing laws in ways that are not very helpful to a great many women.

[thombergeron]

However in a bunker in the western part of the Iraqi desert, DOD personel found chemical weapons. They were "broken drown" into their base chemicals and could've been completely weaponized (assembled and loaded into either artillery shells or scud missles) in less than three hours.

This is absolutely false; there is no truth to it whatsoever. Next month, it will be a full 8 years since the Iraq Survey Group released the Duelfer report, which definitely concluded that the Hussein regime had no chemical, nuclear, nor biological weapons, period. You can even read the Duelfer report yourself right here:

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/cia93004wmdrpt.html

No conscious adult has an excuse for being that poorly informed. This is a basic point of fact about a major historical event. You need to do a much better job of reading.


If you wanna complain about women not getting equal pay, need not look any further than obama's white house. The women (highest paid lady) on his staff makes a third less than the men.

There’s no need to be vague. White House staff members are public employees, so their salaries are a matter of public record:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011

You will see that the highest salary paid to any of the President’s advisors is $172,000 a year. Twenty-one staff members are compensated at that level, and 7 of them are women. Thus, as you can see in black and white, the highest paid women on President’s staff make precisely the same amount as the highest paid men.


Mr. Limbaugh was talking about her saying that the government should pay for her birth controll. Making the tax-payers pay for her to have sex, making her a prostitute - a slut.

Again, you are simply wrong. Sandra Fluke did not say that the government should pay for her birth control. She said that Georgetown University’s insurance carrier should cover contraceptive drugs. Georgetown is a private university. Its student insurance plan is underwritten by United Healthcare and administered by Gallagher Koster. Both are privately owned firms.

There are no taxpayer dollars involved at any point.

Further, Fluke’s testimony, which you plainly have not read, described the numerous medical applications of contraceptives beyond birth control; that is, ways in which contraceptive drugs can be a medical necessity for women who are not having any sex at all..


Almost everyone (I can't say everyone, because there might be a couple of Geico cavemen who don't have IDs.) has a photo ID or a satisfactory equivalent. Do you realize that currently in several States all someone has to do to prove voter eligibility (residence in the precinct they are voting) is to simply say they live in that precinct?

Here is a link to a PDF of a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law:

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

Eleven percent of adult American citizens surveyed did not have a valid government–issued photo ID. That’s 21 million people. You’re plainly a young white person, so obviously you have a photo ID. But 25% of voting age African-American people do not have a photo ID. Eighteen percent of American citizens over the age of 65 lack a photo ID. Just because it’s not happening to you doesn’t mean it’s not real.

You really need to get yourself outside of the bubble and start consulting some more reputable and accurate sources. Your post is just a disgraceful collection of very obvious falsehoods.

[broncofan]

Thombergeron,
tremendous collection of reputable resources that accurately rebut Loren's arguments.

Let me just say that you can see the animosity towards women in Loren's argument that a woman wanting the government to pay for contraception is a prostitute. Of course, thanks to the previous post we know some of the premises in Loren's argument are wrong, as it would not be taxpayer money, but let's look at how absurd the argument is to begin with. A college age woman wants her health insurance plan to cover contraception so that she (or other college age women) can avoid getting pregnant when engaging in sex.

This personal health issue is suddenly framed as the woman wanting to be compensated for having sex and being a common prostitute because she is so conscientious about avoiding an unplanned pregnancy. Of course if she were to get pregnant, she might want to get an abortion and we know that Republicans want Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that women will not have this choice in many states.

So, the responsible, perhaps non-Christian woman who does not have any moral qualms about having pre-marital sex is a prostitute for wanting to avoid pregnancy, and would be a child-murderer if she did get pregnant and had an abortion. Now if she were unfortunate enough to be raped and got pregnant, she would only be a liar. Thankfully, Loren does not believe women's bodies have built-in defenses to prevent them from getting pregnant when raped (this is the pro-science stance he mentioned). They are just prostitutes if they want their contraception to be covered by their health insurance plans, because this is the equivalent of selling their bodies for the grand consideration of (wait for it)....a pill that prevents them from getting pregnant. I have yet to meet a prostitute who expects so little!

What a lovely blend of callousness, religious fundamentalism, and outright misogyny brought to us courtesy of the GOP.

[hippifried]

So where the hell are all these damn sluts I keep hearing about?

[broncofan]

Job creation, do you seriously believe that? If there's job creation, then why is there more people losing their jobs, more companies going under, more food pantries that have to turn people away because they don't have any food left, more people that are on welfare and the list goes on. You see, I live in Realville. I would love it if things were getting better, I honestly do. Hell, just last week, a local company laid off most of their employees (that didn't make the newspapers).

Who said anything about hating the government? Tell me something, did you love the government as much when Bush was in charge?
You say that taxes don't matter but that deficits do. These are not the words of someone who would like to see jobs created. The economy is in a slump right now because of a lack of demand. When people lost their homes, had to file bankruptcy, and banks had to be bailed out (and yes they had to bailed out though we can argue about how it took place) this made banks less willing to lend and people less willing to consume.

Now when you have Republicans who were happy to spend billions of dollars on an unjust war, but who all of a sudden want to fight over every nickel that goes to people who are going to immediately spend that money because they have to (many are living below the poverty line), you cannot institute any feasible plan to create jobs.

In order to stimulate the economy we may need to run deficits, but the same deficits would result in more stimulus if there were a greater amount of revenue collected each year. But, one more hitch, the Republicans call every attempt to raise marginal rates for the extremely wealthy socialism, and they yell it louder when you talk about estate taxes ("death taxes") or dividend taxes ("double tax") or the capital gains rate ("class warfare"). And then to top it all off, the coup de grace to this whole economic disaster is that they've convinced fucktards like yourself to make impossible mathematical arguments. You argue that the debt has grown so large that taxes are irrelevant. I don't even know how that's possible. Oh wait, it's not. You cannot ever pay down a debt without taxes. And you cannot create jobs without encouraging people to spend.

And when I said fucktard, I meant that rhetorically not as an insult. I seriously don't understand the Republican economic arguments. Somehow we spend less, tax wealthy people who save most of what they make less, and this creates demand because the wealthy people you are taxing less will magically create jobs? What's in it for them? They have no fucking customers. You've bled them to death.