Republican Judgement

[Minor Axis]

Santorum is not electable

He must be a born again based on his changes in belief from back before 1990

Or just another political hypocrite

Either way not anybody I could even think about supporting

It looks more and more like Obama might do the unthinkable and get another term

Which I could live with if the reps control congress to contain him

I don't want any party to have control of things like in the past. Both dems and reps are abominable when they have full control

How about a part time congress? Send them fuckers home to shut up for 2/3 of a year

I'm curious if Santorum becomes the GOP nominee, would you vote or sit this one out? While Obama is saying everyone should have the ability to go to college if they desire in a normal tone of voice, Santorum angrily calls Obama a snob? Is this guy totally oblivious to what these positions do to his electability? They say angry politicians rarely win elections.

If you view a recent VP candidate, and consider W's disastrous reign and now look at recent GOP front runners (Bachman, the Slimey Newt, Mr Religion), with most of the semi-normal, more centrist ones pushed aside, you can see their party and their expectations are seriously ill. I have never seen the Democratic Party put forth such a freak show of candidates for National office. To me, Romney seems the most normal, but he has a bad habit of of saying whatever he thinks you want to hear. I have no idea what he really stands for.

Not everyone, just the Republocrats. They all have the same corporate sponsors, the same goals. The only difference is that the ones that fool you distract you by blaming one group, and the group you think is different distract you by blaming the other. Unfortunately you've bought their lie that there really are two groups.

There are two groups if you view intentions. As I said in the first part of this reply to Allen, I've never seen the kind of freak show the Republican's have put forth as candidates coming from the Democrats, never. While I might agree in some general terms they are alike, you don't see Democrats trying to slit the working class's throats while stuffing money in the pockets of the 1%.

One of the huge problems I see is that when one party really start dealing with our National budget issues, I believe the other party will attack them for it, and most likely the voters who don't like pain, will throw the incumbents out and expect course changes. I don't see Democracy offering a viable solution to our predicament, although I am not suggesting revolution as the answer. I don't see an answer.

 

[Accountable]

There are two groups if you view intentions. As I said in the first part of this reply to Allen, I've never seen the kind of freak show the Republican's have put forth as candidates coming from the Democrats, never. While I might agree in some general terms they are alike, you don't see Democrats trying to slit the working class's throats while stuffing money in the pockets of the 1%.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Actually, I think you have & just can't accept the obvious truth. Bank bailouts, GM bailouts, granting a debt-free GM special tax incentives, pumping Chrysler full of money so that it would look attractive enough for a foreign company to buy it, cutting the funding for the D.C. school voucher program ($8000 per student) which is credited with doubling the graduation rate, offering a $10,000 tax incentive to rich people to buy a Chevy Volt.

I suppose you have rationales for each of these, huh?

 

[Minor Axis]

Then you haven't been paying attention. Actually, I think you have & just can't accept the obvious truth. Bank bailouts, GM bailouts, granting a debt-free GM special tax incentives, pumping Chrysler full of money so that it would look attractive enough for a foreign company to buy it, cutting the funding for the D.C. school voucher program ($8000 per student) which is credited with doubling the graduation rate, offering a $10,000 tax incentive to rich people to buy a Chevy Volt.

I suppose you have rationales for each of these, huh?

I thought it was Bush who bailed the Banks with no strings. My understanding is that the car loans have been paid back or in the process of being paid back and it was about a U.S. industry with lots of U.S. jobs. You'll have to look into why the voucher program was cut. Could be a budget issue. The Volt... you got to be kidding... a car for rich people? You just proved you can't really distinguish, everything looks the same to you or you like pulling my chain don't you?

 

[Alien Allen]

The auto money is not paid back

and never will be

While I supported a loan what was done by Obama and his regime was to piss on the constitution. I doubt ever before you can find an example where bankruptcy law was so abused.

 

[Accountable]

I knew you'd try to rationalize.

The Volt... you got to be kidding... a car for rich people?

Do you know any poor people who are willing to shell out $40K for a glorified electric golf cart?

The average income of the Chevy Volt’s buyers is $170,000 per year, according to General Motors CEO Dan Akerson. “Some of them — I think roughly half — are either [Toyota] Prius or BMW owners,” Akerson said in a Dec. 16 interview with the Associated Press.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/obama-hikes-subsidy-to-wealthy-electric-car-buyers/#ixzz1njTF6IzU

Nah, that's not rich people.

 

[Alien Allen]

Unless I am mistaken I think GE also bought up a lot of Volts

Not that GE would have a hidden agenda eh

 

[Accountable]

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.

GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.

Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

 

[Minor Axis]

I knew you'd try to rationalize.
Do you know any poor people who are willing to shell out $40K for a glorified electric golf cart?
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/obama-hikes-subsidy-to-wealthy-electric-car-buyers/#ixzz1njTF6IzU

Nah, that's not rich people.

You have a pretty lose definition of what rich is. I'd say the Volt is a car for upper Middle Class people with incomes ranging from $75-$200k per year. Those are not "rich" people and no rationalizing is involved. If you want "rich" look at CEO's and multi-millionaires.

 

[Accountable]

you don't see Democrats trying to slit the working class's throats while stuffing money in the pockets of the 1%.

:24: :24:

Who took money away from a program proven to help low-income kids' education? Dems? Oh, it must be a budget issue. That's okay.
Who took even more money and gave it to a program to pay people making $150K+ to buy extra recreation vehicles? Dems? Wellll, they're not really THAT rich. That's okay.

You're fucking priceless!

:willy_nilly:

 

[Alien Allen]

I disagree about the Volt being a glorified golf cart

It is very nice car with some incredible engineering

Sadly it is too expensive for the average Joe

 

[Minor Axis]

Who took money away from a program proven to help low-income kids' education? Dems?

So who did and why? Democrats have always been for low income help programs. You can research it. I'll expect a report tomorrow...

As far as the Volt, that price will have to come down a lot for it to be a success. I admit $40k is outlandish for an average person car. The Prius started out at about $18k. Government has always given tax breaks to industries it thought was important, not that I always agree, especially the money that is being thrown at the oil companies with their record profits. Who should we blame for that? My knee jerk has always been business friendly GOPers, but there could be some Dems in there too.

 

[Minor Axis]

Proposed Wisconsin Law Considers Single Parenthood Child Abuse

Thats right GOPers, keep running for the cliff (and please don't stop).

A controversial bill targeting single parents came to the table at the Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services and Revenue public hearing in Wisconsin this week.

State senator Glenn Grothman, an admitted opponent of the social welfare establishment that he believes encourages women to have children out of wedlock, introduced Senate Bill 507, which would formally consider single parenthood a contributing factor to child abuse, if passed into law.

SB507 would require the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize that non-marital parenthood is a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.

Quote:

According to the bill: Section 1. 48.982 (2) (g) 2. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 2. Promote statewide educational and public awareness campaigns and materials for the purpose of developing public awareness of the problems of child abuse and neglect. In promoting those campaigns and materials, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect. Section 2. 48.982 (2) (g) 4. of the statutes is amended to read: 48.982 (2) (g) 4. Disseminate information about the problems of and methods of preventing child abuse and neglect to the public and to organizations concerned with those problems. In disseminating that information, the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.​

Single parents make up a third of Wisconsin parents, The Annie E. Casey Foundation reports. And according to a 2009 report from the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 13.7 million single parents across the U.S., with single mothers outpacing single fathers five to one.

Grothman's previous attack on the left wing contended that because social programs are available to the poor, liberals want people to be poor and use them, financial benefits he says are driving the rise in single motherhood among low-income moms.

 

[Minor Axis]

Grover Norquist on Morning Joe. I watched this guy this morning. He is a lobbyist and head of American's for Tax Reform who have gotten quite a large group of Republican politicians that they will not raise taxes under ANY circumstance, including War. Is that realistic or responsible? Although according to this article Who's Afraid of Grover Norquist at the NewModerate.com today only 26% of registered Republican's agree with the no new taxes under any circumstance pledge. But here is a case where the tail wags the dog where a minority in the Republican Party machinery has GOP Politicians quaking in their boots.

I have no problem with some one claiming he has all the answers, cut taxes, cut spending, lets fix it. But then it becomes apparent this guy pushes revisionist history, refuses to acknowledge the Republican's role in today's problems, claims that Obama picked on poor people by raising taxes on cigarettes and most citizens would have no problem returning the Federal government to it's level of oversight and spending it had in 1900, 8% of GDP before Income tax, Social Security, Welfare, and Medicare. The question is are voters willing to give up those things?

Norquist has never held public office. A child of relative privilege — son of a Polaroid VP and the bearer of two degrees from Harvard – Norquist insinuated his way into the Reagan administration back in the money-mad 1980s. The Gipper entrusted him with the birthing, care and feeding of a new organization – Americans for Tax Reform. This fledgling activist group was supposed to embody Reagan’s small-government philosophy, but under Norquist’s stewardship it grew into a monster… a take-no-prisoners anti-tax lobbying group with tentacles that gradually spread across the political landscape of the republic. The stranglehold persists to this day, to the extent that any Republican candidate with a whiff of moderation about him can forget about winning a GOP primary. Norquist sees to that.

Right now, at least 37 Republican lawmakers are expressing “buyer’s remorse” over their pledge. After all, some of them signed it back in the 1990s, an era of optimism and prosperity that, in retrospect, looks more and more like a lost Golden Age. In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that only 26 percent of Republican voters are in favor of freezing taxes under all circumstances. But try telling it to Grover.
For Norquist, Republican consistency on the tax issue is the same as establishing and maintaining a commercial brand. He compared GOP politicians who raise taxes to rats’ heads found in Coke bottles. One of those self-confessed “rats’ heads,” the aforementioned Senator Simpson, describes the Norquist philosophy as “no taxes under any circumstances even if your country goes to hell.” A Republican and a proud pledge holdout, Simpson fears no retribution. (O Norquist, where is thy sting?) More of his fellow Republicans should follow the old man’s example. Instead, the remorseful ones have been begging Norquist to release them from their pledge.

 

[Minor Axis]

Planned Parenthood Under Attack Fighting Back in Texas- Newsweek.

When the electronics company that 50-year-old Tena Price operated with her husband lost a major contract in 2007, the Waco, Texas, couple lost their health insurance, and she went several years without a Pap smear or a mammogram. Birth control was less of a concern as she got older, but she took the pill to help with her heavy, painful periods, and to make the supply last, she tried alternating one month on, one month off. “I found out that—I don’t know if it’s because I’m older—but that doesn’t work very well for your body at all,” she says. “And so I called Planned Parenthood and said I need help.”

Since contacting Planned Parenthood last year, she has received an annual exam, a year’s worth of birth-control pills, and a voucher for a free mammogram at a radiology clinic. “They did cholesterol testing—heart disease runs in my family,” she says. “And menopause is coming, so hopefully I will get some guidance through that. Without them, at this point, I would have none of that.”

But in Texas, the state with the highest rate of uninsured women in the country, such care is getting a lot harder to access. Last year, in a move targeting Planned Parenthood, the Texas legislature slashed family-planning funding by two thirds, from $111.5 million to $37.9 million. Now, the state is on the verge of eliminating its Women’s Health Program, which provides reproductive-health care for more than 130,000 poor women who don’t meet Texas’s narrow Medicaid eligibility requirements. It’s mostly paid for by the federal government, which contributes $9 for every $1 given by the state. But because federal law won’t let Texas bar Planned Parenthood (or any other qualified provider) from the program, the state is poised to discontinue it, refusing $35 million from Washington.

It’s hard to remember now, but Planned Parenthood once had broad bipartisan backing; in 1964, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman served as honorary cochairs. Even as the abortion wars raged, its other reproductive-health services, which make up the vast majority of its work, remained largely uncontroversial. The Women’s Health Program was instituted under Gov. Rick Perry in 2007, though it was clear at the time that many women using it would patronize Planned Parenthood.

Then came the conservative sweep in 2010. “This new strategy, which is to end all preventative care at Planned Parenthood, is definitely a new development,” says Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. Last year, Republicans in Congress nearly shut down the government while trying to block federal funding for the organization, none of which goes to abortion services. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum want to abolish Title X, the Nixon-era program that provides family planning to more than 5 million low-income women, 36 percent of whom are served by Planned Parenthood.

One of the ironies of Texas’s anti–Planned Parenthood campaign is that while opposition to abortion sparked it, it leaves abortion clinics unscathed. There are 14 Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas that offer abortion and 51 that provide other sexual-health services. To avoid any commingling of funds, they are run as entirely separate corporations. Because the abortion clinics receive no public money, they’ve been unaffected by the state’s funding cutbacks. Women’s access to other services, though, has been seriously impaired. In Waco, Planned Parenthood’s reproductive-health clinic has gone from three full-time nurse practitioners to one, with another working a third of the time. This year, the clinic is only able to see half the patients it saw last year.

 

[Minor Axis]

More delightful reading: I've Spent 2 Days Trying To Convince my 16 Year Old She Is Not A Sluthttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ng-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-[b- Daily Kos.com

 

[Alien Allen]

I will set the dems have been very adept at setting the trap on this contraception issue.

The reps fell right into it

Once again the real important issues get ignored and this suddenly becomes of great importance

 

[Minor Axis]

I will set the dems have been very adept at setting the trap on this contraception issue.

The reps fell right into it

Once again the real important issues get ignored and this suddenly becomes of great importance

Thank the Republicans. This is not of Democratic making. The Dems are pretty clear about how they feel on the subject. It is the GOP which is compelled to focus on non-important social issues which they elevate to top priority while ignoring the important challenges this country faces. The GOPers are just too self centered or stupid to avoid their own traps and they are too afraid to speak out against the defacto leader of the GOP who has gotten too out of touch and too big for his breeches. The man is a disgrace and I am embarrassed to say I have a brother who listens to him regularly.

Oh, and then there is Pat Robertson who blames the out break in tornadoes on not enough prayer. This IS religion at its worst.

 

[Accountable]

Grover Norquist on Morning Joe. I watched this guy this morning. He is a lobbyist and head of American's for Tax Reform who have gotten quite a large group of Republican politicians that they will not raise taxes under ANY circumstance, including War.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-28-2012/grover-norquist-s-taxpayer-protection-pledge

 

[Alien Allen]

Thank the Republicans. This is not of Democratic making. The Dems are pretty clear about how they feel on the subject. It is the GOP which is compelled to focus on non-important social issues which they elevate to top priority while ignoring the important challenges this country faces. The GOPers are just too self centered or stupid to avoid their own traps and they are too afraid to speak out against the defacto leader of the GOP who has gotten too out of touch and too big for his breeches. The man is a disgrace and I am embarrassed to say I have a brother who listens to him regularly.

Oh, and then there is Pat Robertson who blames the out break in tornadoes on not enough prayer. This IS religion at its worst.

Look at where this started

Unless I am mistaken it goes back to a democrat posing as a journalist asking Romney about contraception back in January on ABC. Stephanapolus set it up quite nicely

This was well planned.. IMO

I don't think there is any doubt about it

And the reps fell for it lock stock and barrel

 

[MoonOwl]

Mitt's big night last night?

Obama gets another 4 years.:ninja