U.S. Politics, 12

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I just drove under an overpass frequented by SC candidates for elected office (particularly during Rush hour). A guy in a trenchcoat with a hat like Mat Cauthin's wearing a V for Vendetta mask was waving while holding a Ron Paul for President sign.

That was different.

[Inigima]

And apparently 'smart' requires remembering the names of supreme court decisions. Any other indicators of intelligence are, apparently, irrelevant.

Swordfish, stop being a ridiculous troll. No one has made the latter claim and we are discussing the former with FLOW with reasonable civility.

[The Progressive]

Hard as it may be to believe, Shryke, I may frequently be inconsistent, illogical, certainly ill-informed, always anti-intellectual, and sometimes perhaps irrelevant, but I rarely troll.

To be fair, you do exhibit fairly sociopathic tendencies and has admitted that you're not very sane. Therefore you might not understand the meaning of the word "trolling" as it is socially understood.

I think that's absolutely true, and is exactly what I mean when I say that we have similar goals and disagree on methodology. We also have different views on what constitutes "freedom."

It seems to be the reverse, I think. TP has already pointed out how we really don't have similar goals at all with conservatives, but it seems to me that at least we agree on the methodology to reach those different goals is through the democratic process.

[Swordfish]

Swordfish, stop being a ridiculous troll. No one has made the latter claim and we are discussing the former with FLOW with reasonable civility.

I can only conclude from this that you aren't reading the thread.

Multiple posters are absolutely using his inability to come up with case names as an indication that he's not smart.

This is the exact point FLOW is arguing.

That's neither trolling nor ridiculous.

[The Progressive]

I can only conclude from this that you aren't reading the thread.

Multiple posters are absolutely using his inability to come up with case names as an indication that he's not smart.

This is the exact point FLOW is arguing.

That's neither trolling nor ridiculous.

Lol, I can only conclude that you can't read.

Multiple posters are also grudgingly admitting that perhaps he does agree with every single SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott .......... which makes him even more interesting as a politician.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

We would have to ask a conservative, but I don't think they would give away healthcare if they could do so at no cost.

Every conservative I know supports private charity, so if medical providers chose to give away their services for free, I don't know of anyone who'd object. To the best of my knowledge, we'd all applaud the sentiment.

I give away free legal services sometimes, but that's because they're mine to give. I don't know how you can give away something that must be provided by other people.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

That would necessitate him agreeing with Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board at the same time despite the fact that the latter overuled the former.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

That would necessitate him agreeing with Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board at the same time despite the fact that the latter overuled the former.

I know Scot .............. this guy is like a riddle wrapped up in an enigma, the perfect teabaggers' candidate. He probably has an even more scholarly grasp on the Constitution than O'Donnell, lol.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

That would be a very... nuianced position to say the least.

[Shryke]

And the Tea Party, like that no longer needed screw-driver-like-thingy you get with every piece of IKEA furniture, is discarded: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/gop-earmark-ban-tea-party_n_779480.html

GOP leaders in the House and Senate have both confirmed that they will buck calls from the Tea Party and not back a ban on federal earmarks.

Tea Party activists and some conservative legislators have aggressively opposed members of Congress carving out spending projects for their home districts and states, and some have publicly announced that an earmark ban would be a primary mission.

Just as predicted.

[Ken Stone]

And the Tea Party, like that no longer needed screw-driver-like-thingy you get with every piece of IKEA furniture, is discarded: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/gop-earmark-ban-tea-party_n_779480.html

Just as predicted.

And the Tea-baggers get Tea-bagged, just like Zap predicted.

[TerraPrime]

[OT]

So, what's the deal with using "being tea-bagged" as an insult, anyway? Like, don't the guys here (and elsewhere) like having their balls licked? Why is a pleasure act used as an insult? Say you're a straight man and your gf/date/one-night stand gives your balls a tongue bath. Do you then think less of her? Instead of, say, feeling grateful and appreciative?

Guess it's just one of those heterosexual things that I don't get.

{/OT]

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Because it's not about having your balls licked.* It's about putting your balls on the face of an unsuspecting (and unconsenting) other person in order to disgust and/or embarrass the second person. It's, I dunno, I guess a more extreme version of shoving someone's nose into your sweaty armpit.

*Let me rephrase that. I have never been aware that it's about that. I've always heard the version I just listed, but I could be out of touch and/or flat-out wrong on the term.

[Cuellar]

Plus you usually teabag your opponents' corpses in firt person shooters, especially oens where they don't resurrect.

[Shryke]

On the subject of Tax Cuts, Boehner lets the cat outta the bag on how full of bullshit he is:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/boehner_concedes_only_three_pe.html

the claim of many Republicans [is] that extending the tax cuts for the rich would have an adverse impact on many small businesses, creating widespread uncertainty for them.

Of course, then the facts come out that the repealing the tax cuts for those making over $250k would only effect 3% of businesses.

The Oompa-Loompa reponds:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you quarrel with that figure? Is that a right figure or a wrong figure?

BOEHNER: Well, it may be three percent, but it's half of small business income. Because, obviously, the top three percent have half of the gross income for those companies that we would term small businesses. And this is why you don't want to punish these people at a time when you have a weak economy.

So not only will the taxes effect only 3% of small businesses, but those 3% make up half of the gross income of so-called "small businesses". 3% of "small businesses" are making half the total money earned by all small businesses.

So really, how are these 3% "small businesses" in the first place?

[Crazydog7]

Man this thread is unreal. Didn't I see this in the final episode of the Wire? Omar was killed, Mcnulty left town and the wheels on the bus kept right on spinning.

Says the GOP to the Tea Party-Money on the dresser baby, see you in two years.

[Swordfish]

[OT]

So, what's the deal with using "being tea-bagged" as an insult, anyway? Like, don't the guys here (and elsewhere) like having their balls licked? Why is a pleasure act used as an insult? Say you're a straight man and your gf/date/one-night stand gives your balls a tongue bath. Do you then think less of her? Instead of, say, feeling grateful and appreciative?

Guess it's just one of those heterosexual things that I don't get.

{/OT]

For me it's a sensitivity thing. I find it uncomfortable.

[awesome possum]

[OT]

So, what's the deal with using "being tea-bagged" as an insult, anyway? Like, don't the guys here (and elsewhere) like having their balls licked? Why is a pleasure act used as an insult? Say you're a straight man and your gf/date/one-night stand gives your balls a tongue bath. Do you then think less of her? Instead of, say, feeling grateful and appreciative?

Guess it's just one of those heterosexual things that I don't get.

{/OT]

Aoife covered it. There is no consent involved in "tea-bagging". It's a ridiculously juvenile act that could be considered sexual assault.

On the subject of Tax Cuts, Boehner lets the cat outta the bag on how full of bullshit he is:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/boehner_concedes_only_three_pe.html

Of course, then the facts come out that the repealing the tax cuts for those making over $250k would only effect 3% of businesses.

The Oompa-Loompa reponds:

So not only will the taxes effect only 3% of small businesses, but those 3% make up half of the gross income of so-called "small businesses". 3% of "small businesses" are making half the total money earned by all small businesses.

So really, how are these 3% "small businesses" in the first place?

I found a partial answer searching the forum just the other day. I was looking for a link from an old politics thread and came up with this one from #8, posted by you actually:

Report: Big business turns small for tax purposes

From your post:

a variety of sources including court documents confirm that when republicans talk about the small businesses they're trying to help with their tax cut , they're actually talking about some of the biggest companies in the world and some of the richest people in this country. mr. boehner admitting this summer that his tax cuts only benefit 3% of so-called small businesses

"according to the joint committee on taxation, 94% of all u.s. businesses in 2007 were "s" corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. pass-through business types commonly used by small businesses." they call them pass-through companies because they file no taxes, passing through profits to the owners who report them on their individual tax returns instead. in short, they are considered small, not because they have a small payroll, but because they have a small number of owners. it's not the income that's small, it's not the number of employees that's small, it's just the total number of owners that's small. in the case of "s" corps, up to 100 owners. when politicians talk about small businesses, they are including any company that pays taxes as a pass-through.

So, basically loopholes is the answer. Multi-billion dollar corporations can be classified as "small businesses" through the use of loopholes. And, from the link:

Fewer than 750,000 people, less than 0.25 percent of the country, would be affected by the top (tax) rate, according to Joint Committee on Taxation

[IheartTesla]

Apart from the health care bill (which Democrats had been promising since Nixon), there is very little shake-the-boat legislature that seems to get passed. Things like banning abortion, eliminating pork/entitlement funding or (to be fair and balanced) getting DADT repealed are useful carrots to dangle in front of the electorate every 2 or so years. I'd say health care was an outlier in all this.

I'd be shocked if Republicans start touching agricultural subsidies or force the Pentagon to make cuts. There'll be some cosmetic changes made, and Congress will continue to do stuff incrementally rather than have some profound spending freeze. There might be some collateral damage, like funding towards fundamental research and whatnot.

[Kelli Fury]

Apart from the health care bill (which Democrats had been promising since Nixon), there is very little shake-the-boat legislature that seems to get passed. Things like banning abortion, eliminating pork/entitlement funding or (to be fair and balanced) getting DADT repealed are useful carrots to dangle in front of the electorate every 2 or so years. I'd say health care was an outlier in all this.

I'd be shocked if Republicans start touching agricultural subsidies or force the Pentagon to make cuts. There'll be some cosmetic changes made, and Congress will continue to do stuff incrementally rather than have some profound spending freeze. There might be some collateral damage, like funding towards fundamental research and whatnot.

never in a billion years, not if we were otherwise completely bankrupt. Don't you know cuts to military spending are unAmerican?