The next American Taliban question was answered perfectly when I posed it on Quora. Up until this point, we have seen the answers point obviously at the Republicans. What we haven't seen is an example of a Republican answering the question and demonstrating its validity in action. With this question...
-Which US political party (the Democrats or the Republicans) views compromise as a weakness and why?
...we did.
There is a political theory out there (citation anyone?) that the party in power tends to fragment and engage in infighting, while the party out of control tends to become more extreme. It should be clear that a fragmented party as well as an extreme party would have difficulty with compromise, though in neither case is this because compromise is seen as "weak." It is because they disagree with the compromise position.
An extreme example: The Taliban would have gays put to death. In many states in America gays are allowed to marry. What compromise policy should one approve of, in the interest of avoiding deadlock? If the pro-gay marriage party, say, refused to accept mere amputation as a compromise policy, would you say they did so because they wanted to avoid appearing "weak"? I hope you agree that would be absurd. Sometimes you just need to accept that there are strongly and sincerely held views in this world that are irreconcilable and will only be resolved by one view prevailing and another position being utterly defeated. Compromise is not always a noble goal.
Initially, I made the error of thinking he didn't answer the question. But Rob is a well known conservative on Quora and the second time I read it, I realize that he did (see bolded emphasis), thus proving that Republicans are the ones that view compromise as weakness:)
Here's another answer.
Currently, the Republicans because their party has been taken over be extremists. Generally there are extremists on either side who view compromise as failure and a bunch of politicians in the middle who keep the lights on. Democrats are generally more likely to compromise because the Democratic party tends to include people who applaud diversity, which requires some level of compromise to begin with. The Republicans have certainly shown, in the past 6 years, that being uncompromising can reap huge electoral benefits in a country with an ill-informed populace.
The comments that follow this answer are great examples of reality versus bubble.
-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans) is more undeterred by facts and why?
The top answer (too long to reprint here) in that it indicts both parties ignorance of basic facts. His list is most impressive.
A couple of other answers...
At this time in history, that would surely be the Republicans, or at least the far-right of that Party, which currently seems to rule the roost. They deny climate change or at least deny human involvement, say the earth is 6000 years old, don't accept evolution, etc
The republicans by far. Thirty years of economic failure of supply economics, climate change denial, Birthers, thinking women swallowing thing goes to their uterus, young earth republicans, clueless about human reproduction, abstinence teaching only, clueless about contraception devices, to name a few of their many attempts at avoiding reality
I think our pattern has developed into the full blown truth:)
Showing posts with label American Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Taliban. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2015
Thursday, April 09, 2015
The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Three)
Next up in this series are the following questions...
-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) suffers from severe xenophobia and why?
There weren't as many views on this one so the answers should be taken with the smaller numbers in mind. My favorite?
I'm not sure either party suffers from severe xenophobia, although I would say the right wing of the Republican Party uses fear based appeals as a tactic more. Fear of Muslims, fear of undocumented immigrants, fear of socialism, fear of gays, fear of home invaders, fear of the government, fear of the collapse of America, fear of the United Nations, fear of economic collapse, and so on. Is it xenophobia? Not so much. Fear of change? Pretty much.
If they want to win elections, they are going to have to change this ideology.
-Which political party in the United States (the Democrats or the Republicans or neither) demonizes education and why?
Top answer?
Both and neither, really.
The Republicans, when playing to their base, like to deride their opponents' education as being uppity or out of touch all while poo-poo-ing scientific evidence which might point to a need to enact policies which could negatively impact Big Business (their donors) profit margins. I don't consider that demonization, though.
The Democrats tend to want what they consider to be thoughtful measurement with benchmarks and clearly defined objectives, which, when laid like a template over public education, becomes a strait jacket of regulations and teaching-to-the-test without much learning actually going on in the classroom. Again, problem that this is, I cannot label it demonization.
If I had to choose one or the other, though, which has less trouble convincing themselves education is "not important", it would be the GOP; the Democrats, from their consistent meddling, have always seemed VERY interested in exactly what goes on in every classroom, right down to the slightest zero for not turning in homework- the child obviously has problems which we all must help solve....
The rest of the answers are equally as thoughtful.
-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) suffers from severe xenophobia and why?
There weren't as many views on this one so the answers should be taken with the smaller numbers in mind. My favorite?
I'm not sure either party suffers from severe xenophobia, although I would say the right wing of the Republican Party uses fear based appeals as a tactic more. Fear of Muslims, fear of undocumented immigrants, fear of socialism, fear of gays, fear of home invaders, fear of the government, fear of the collapse of America, fear of the United Nations, fear of economic collapse, and so on. Is it xenophobia? Not so much. Fear of change? Pretty much.
If they want to win elections, they are going to have to change this ideology.
-Which political party in the United States (the Democrats or the Republicans or neither) demonizes education and why?
Top answer?
Both and neither, really.
The Republicans, when playing to their base, like to deride their opponents' education as being uppity or out of touch all while poo-poo-ing scientific evidence which might point to a need to enact policies which could negatively impact Big Business (their donors) profit margins. I don't consider that demonization, though.
The Democrats tend to want what they consider to be thoughtful measurement with benchmarks and clearly defined objectives, which, when laid like a template over public education, becomes a strait jacket of regulations and teaching-to-the-test without much learning actually going on in the classroom. Again, problem that this is, I cannot label it demonization.
If I had to choose one or the other, though, which has less trouble convincing themselves education is "not important", it would be the GOP; the Democrats, from their consistent meddling, have always seemed VERY interested in exactly what goes on in every classroom, right down to the slightest zero for not turning in homework- the child obviously has problems which we all must help solve....
The rest of the answers are equally as thoughtful.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part Two)
Next up in my American Taliban, Final Word series are these two questions...
-Which U.S. political party (Democrats or Republicans) has a fundamental belief in scriptural literalism? Why?
Top answer?
Definitely the GOP simply because of the dominance of religious conservatives. Many of the GOP platform stances such as anti gay rights and anti abortion are rooted in scriptural literalism. When someone believes that an arbitrary historical text written by ordinary men is the divine word of God there is no room for compromise or discussion.
These people want clarity and certainty in their beliefs and mindset. Reality is black and white with no ambiguity. This is what makes all fundamentalist religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam identical to each other. All historical religious texts contain an increasily massive number of propagated human errors from translation and transcription that monotonically increases with time. The Bible and all other religious texts are all written by humans yet many attribute these texts as the word of God.
To me it is logically absurd that so many people can blindly follow religious texts in a literal manner that conflict drastically with each other. Each religion essentially invalidates itself and all others by declaring itself the one true religion.
No room for compromise or discussion...wholeheartedly agree! It's pretty sad when you think about it. Where is the room for progress?
-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) writes and passes legislation to control a woman's body?
The top answer (from my favorite responder!!) was filled with data and incredibly detailed. Save the link for future information. It will definitely be useful in the coming election.
-Which U.S. political party (Democrats or Republicans) has a fundamental belief in scriptural literalism? Why?
Top answer?
Definitely the GOP simply because of the dominance of religious conservatives. Many of the GOP platform stances such as anti gay rights and anti abortion are rooted in scriptural literalism. When someone believes that an arbitrary historical text written by ordinary men is the divine word of God there is no room for compromise or discussion.
These people want clarity and certainty in their beliefs and mindset. Reality is black and white with no ambiguity. This is what makes all fundamentalist religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam identical to each other. All historical religious texts contain an increasily massive number of propagated human errors from translation and transcription that monotonically increases with time. The Bible and all other religious texts are all written by humans yet many attribute these texts as the word of God.
To me it is logically absurd that so many people can blindly follow religious texts in a literal manner that conflict drastically with each other. Each religion essentially invalidates itself and all others by declaring itself the one true religion.
No room for compromise or discussion...wholeheartedly agree! It's pretty sad when you think about it. Where is the room for progress?
-Which political party in the United States (Democrats or Republicans or neither) writes and passes legislation to control a woman's body?
The top answer (from my favorite responder!!) was filled with data and incredibly detailed. Save the link for future information. It will definitely be useful in the coming election.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The Final Word On The American Taliban (Part One)
I've written extensively on this site about the validity of Aaron Sorkin's American Taliban description of the modern day conservative. Taken as a whole, it can seem overwhelming and perhaps even sensationalized. But what if you took it one characteristic at a time?
That's just what I did on Quora and the results were very interesting. Here are the first couple of questions.
By far, the most popular (36K views and counting!) was this one:
-Which US political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, denies science on a regular basis? Why?
Part of the reason for this was renowned sci fi author, David Brin, weighing in with a response.
Alas. Let there be no mistake. The American right, which used to admire science, is now in full tilt against science. Thirty years ago, 40% of US scientists called themselves Republican, now it is 5%. They are voting with their feet, the smartest, wisest, most logical and by far the most competitive humans our species ever produced.
And not just science. Can you name one profession of high knowledge and skill that is not under attack by Fox & its cohorts? Teachers, medical doctors, journalists, civil servants, law professionals, economists, skilled labor, professors… oh yes, and science. I defy you to name one that isn't under assault by a hijacked-insane version of what used to be an intellectual conservative movement. One that now screeches invective upon all of the "smartypants" professions, in the worst know-nothing movement in 150 years.
The anti-all-smartypants campaign has driven all of those professions away from conservatism and the GOP.
Do some liberals or (more often) their leftist allies sometimes do unscientific things? Sure. You can pile up anecdotes of leftist groups and persons doing/saying nostalgic tripe and romantic claptrap. But Democrats pour money into real science, and most non-leftist liberals do listen to it. Further more, among the billionaires, most all of the tech moguls (except for one or two) are Democrats, while the so-called resource extractors and Wall Street guys are Republicans.
His was the top response for awhile but has since been voted down to second because he is a poopy headed fat face whose face is fat! (side note: how can 422 upvotes be second to 41 upvotes?) Regardless, both of the top answers (and many others) resounding illustrate that it is, in fact, the Republicans.
-Which political party in the United States demands more ideological purity, the Democrats or the Republicans and why?
Top answer?
Absolutely the Republicans. There isn't any equivalent to the term "DINO" on the Democratic side, despite the existence of many it would well fit. The "Blue Dog" Democrats, who at times align with the Republicans, are a very real part of the Democratic party. They don't face rabid hatred and primary challenges even that being so.
I guarantee you that if a Republican crosses the aisle one too many times (or even once on some object of extreme hate like PPACA), they will face and possibly lose a primary challenge. At minimum, they will get derided as a "RINO". If Ronald Reagan were to run for office today on the same platform as in 1980, he'd almost certainly get that treatment. Conversely, the Democrats tend to run the spectrum from center-right to somewhat past center-left. Obama is more toward center-right, while someone like Elizabeth Warren is farther over to the left. Neither is run out of the party on a rail for it.
Second answer...
Republicans.
Democratic lawmakers face little fear of being primaried out of office by the far left fringe if they stake out a few moderate positions. In the republican party, the risk of being primaried out of a job is far higher, thus republican politicians are much more reluctant to challenge the party line (unless they are challenging it from the fringe instead of the center), and thanks to the Tea Party, the party line has shifted markedly rightward. The end result is that many republican office-holders have now backpedaled from former statements they've made taking somewhat moderate positions on issues like climate change, women's reproductive freedoms, restrictions on armour-piercing bullets, gun purchase background checks, support for renewable energy, an individual mandate to get health insurance, and a variety of other matters. Consider the case of South Carolina republican congressman Bob Inglis.
Initially a climate change skeptic, he studied the issue and became convinced that in fact there actually IS an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that the science is sound, so he changed his position and began advocating for taking the issue seriously. Result - in the next election he received only 27% of the vote, getting trounced by a more ideologically pure opponent who stuck to the climate denial party line. Many other republicans have lost primaries under similar circumstances - they were just not pure enough to avoid suffering the wrath of the far right fringe. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, considered a rising star of the party, was primaried out of office. Along the same lines, almost no republican is willing to publicly criticize the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes, on anything, ever. Many of them are known to loath the pledge, but they don't dare challenge it out loud - they know doing so will earn them a well-funded primary challenger.
I'm sensing a trend here:)
That's just what I did on Quora and the results were very interesting. Here are the first couple of questions.
By far, the most popular (36K views and counting!) was this one:
-Which US political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, denies science on a regular basis? Why?
Part of the reason for this was renowned sci fi author, David Brin, weighing in with a response.
Alas. Let there be no mistake. The American right, which used to admire science, is now in full tilt against science. Thirty years ago, 40% of US scientists called themselves Republican, now it is 5%. They are voting with their feet, the smartest, wisest, most logical and by far the most competitive humans our species ever produced.
And not just science. Can you name one profession of high knowledge and skill that is not under attack by Fox & its cohorts? Teachers, medical doctors, journalists, civil servants, law professionals, economists, skilled labor, professors… oh yes, and science. I defy you to name one that isn't under assault by a hijacked-insane version of what used to be an intellectual conservative movement. One that now screeches invective upon all of the "smartypants" professions, in the worst know-nothing movement in 150 years.
The anti-all-smartypants campaign has driven all of those professions away from conservatism and the GOP.
Do some liberals or (more often) their leftist allies sometimes do unscientific things? Sure. You can pile up anecdotes of leftist groups and persons doing/saying nostalgic tripe and romantic claptrap. But Democrats pour money into real science, and most non-leftist liberals do listen to it. Further more, among the billionaires, most all of the tech moguls (except for one or two) are Democrats, while the so-called resource extractors and Wall Street guys are Republicans.
His was the top response for awhile but has since been voted down to second because he is a poopy headed fat face whose face is fat! (side note: how can 422 upvotes be second to 41 upvotes?) Regardless, both of the top answers (and many others) resounding illustrate that it is, in fact, the Republicans.
-Which political party in the United States demands more ideological purity, the Democrats or the Republicans and why?
Top answer?
Absolutely the Republicans. There isn't any equivalent to the term "DINO" on the Democratic side, despite the existence of many it would well fit. The "Blue Dog" Democrats, who at times align with the Republicans, are a very real part of the Democratic party. They don't face rabid hatred and primary challenges even that being so.
I guarantee you that if a Republican crosses the aisle one too many times (or even once on some object of extreme hate like PPACA), they will face and possibly lose a primary challenge. At minimum, they will get derided as a "RINO". If Ronald Reagan were to run for office today on the same platform as in 1980, he'd almost certainly get that treatment. Conversely, the Democrats tend to run the spectrum from center-right to somewhat past center-left. Obama is more toward center-right, while someone like Elizabeth Warren is farther over to the left. Neither is run out of the party on a rail for it.
Second answer...
Republicans.
Democratic lawmakers face little fear of being primaried out of office by the far left fringe if they stake out a few moderate positions. In the republican party, the risk of being primaried out of a job is far higher, thus republican politicians are much more reluctant to challenge the party line (unless they are challenging it from the fringe instead of the center), and thanks to the Tea Party, the party line has shifted markedly rightward. The end result is that many republican office-holders have now backpedaled from former statements they've made taking somewhat moderate positions on issues like climate change, women's reproductive freedoms, restrictions on armour-piercing bullets, gun purchase background checks, support for renewable energy, an individual mandate to get health insurance, and a variety of other matters. Consider the case of South Carolina republican congressman Bob Inglis.
Initially a climate change skeptic, he studied the issue and became convinced that in fact there actually IS an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that the science is sound, so he changed his position and began advocating for taking the issue seriously. Result - in the next election he received only 27% of the vote, getting trounced by a more ideologically pure opponent who stuck to the climate denial party line. Many other republicans have lost primaries under similar circumstances - they were just not pure enough to avoid suffering the wrath of the far right fringe. Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, considered a rising star of the party, was primaried out of office. Along the same lines, almost no republican is willing to publicly criticize the Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes, on anything, ever. Many of them are known to loath the pledge, but they don't dare challenge it out loud - they know doing so will earn them a well-funded primary challenger.
I'm sensing a trend here:)
Saturday, April 04, 2015
Vicarious Patriotism
As the reaction to the framework deal on Iran's nuclear capability poured in from the various corners of the globe, I noted the reaction from the hardliners. It was a resounding no. Then it occurred to me that perhaps the hardliners from Iran, Israel and our own country should leave. Perhaps a desert island where they can all spy on and fight each other would be more suitable.
I've spoken previously of the similarity between our conservatives here in the US and the conservatives in Iran. Both groups are religious zealots who support a theocracy. Both are intolerant of dissent and want an authoritarian government. And they all want war.
I posed a question on Quora recently regarding the conservative reaction to the Iran agreement. The top answer say it all.
Let's see:
-The Prime Minister of Israel is upset because the United States of America is not doing what he ordered the United States of America to do regarding Iran.
-A U.S. Senator who once falsely claimed to have been named "Intelligence Officer of the Year" (in 2002) and who also falsely claimed to have served during Operation Desert Storm (which I did serve in) thinks the negotiations with Iran are like "Nazi appeasement".
-The Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose military service consisted of 8 weeks of Navy basic and a medical discharge for a bad back, wants to follow the orders of Israel's Prime Minister and move toward an eventual war between the United States and Iran as a means to protect Israel. Sorry, my cynicism is coming to the fore.
I served in the U.S. military for 27 years, and I hate war. I have killed for my country and I have taken two bullets in the service of my country and I also suffer from PTSD. If necessary, I would fight again or support younger Americans fighting in my stead - but not to serve the foreign policy efforts of any country other than the United States (be it Israeli foreign policy or Liechtenstein's foreign policy). All too many Republican legislators are financially supported by individuals and corporations who make their living constructing and supplying war materials and who need wars to sell their products.
These legislators see war as a means to help those individuals and corporations who helped them get elected, as a means to reduce unemployment by giving presently unemployed people jobs as soldiers or as workers making war materials and in many case they see war as a game played by others, like an American football fan who loves to watch the games but knows in their heart that if they put on a helmet and shoulder pads and actually played, they would get physically damaged - I call it "Vicarious Patriotism".
It's not just the legislators. Their base suffers from the same delusions...
I've spoken previously of the similarity between our conservatives here in the US and the conservatives in Iran. Both groups are religious zealots who support a theocracy. Both are intolerant of dissent and want an authoritarian government. And they all want war.
I posed a question on Quora recently regarding the conservative reaction to the Iran agreement. The top answer say it all.
Let's see:
-The Prime Minister of Israel is upset because the United States of America is not doing what he ordered the United States of America to do regarding Iran.
-A U.S. Senator who once falsely claimed to have been named "Intelligence Officer of the Year" (in 2002) and who also falsely claimed to have served during Operation Desert Storm (which I did serve in) thinks the negotiations with Iran are like "Nazi appeasement".
-The Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose military service consisted of 8 weeks of Navy basic and a medical discharge for a bad back, wants to follow the orders of Israel's Prime Minister and move toward an eventual war between the United States and Iran as a means to protect Israel. Sorry, my cynicism is coming to the fore.
I served in the U.S. military for 27 years, and I hate war. I have killed for my country and I have taken two bullets in the service of my country and I also suffer from PTSD. If necessary, I would fight again or support younger Americans fighting in my stead - but not to serve the foreign policy efforts of any country other than the United States (be it Israeli foreign policy or Liechtenstein's foreign policy). All too many Republican legislators are financially supported by individuals and corporations who make their living constructing and supplying war materials and who need wars to sell their products.
These legislators see war as a means to help those individuals and corporations who helped them get elected, as a means to reduce unemployment by giving presently unemployed people jobs as soldiers or as workers making war materials and in many case they see war as a game played by others, like an American football fan who loves to watch the games but knows in their heart that if they put on a helmet and shoulder pads and actually played, they would get physically damaged - I call it "Vicarious Patriotism".
It's not just the legislators. Their base suffers from the same delusions...
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
The Mindset of The Gun Cult
Check out Kory Watkins, the leader of Open Carry Tarrant County in Texas.
Punishable by death, you say? Hmmm...remind me again how these guys are NOT like Islamic extremists.
Punishable by death, you say? Hmmm...remind me again how these guys are NOT like Islamic extremists.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Stunning...
I've appreciated Frank Scaeffer's mea culpas over the years but this one is, hands down, fucking awesome. Soak it in deeply, readers, and attempt to answer the following question...
How are Christian conservatives different from Islamic conservatives?
How are Christian conservatives different from Islamic conservatives?
Friday, August 22, 2014
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Sowell Goes Full Moonbat
A conservative friend of mine posted this piece by Thomas Sowell on his Facebook wall. Check out this insanity.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt. Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
I've come to the conclusion that Jesus of the Right Wing Blogsphere is not as intelligent as I thought he was. Either that or he is just trying to play to his audience for dollars. He's certainly done that in the past. And I still can't figure out why he doesn't write "Liberals are stupid" for everyone of his books and columns. He certainly could save more time.
But if he does actually believe what he has written here, then he has officially gone full moonbat (as well as not understanding basic math). Raising the debt ceiling does not allow the federal government to spend more money. Congress authorizes how much money the government is allowed to spend and they have already done that. The debt ceiling only determines whether the U.S. government can borrow enough money to fulfill the spending obligations that Congress has already passed into law, like Medicare reimbursements or military pay not to mention unexpected crises that arise that may need funding.
He's not alone either. Politico has a piece up about the default deniers in Congress.
“Spending a day highlighting the debt and the deficit in Congress as part of raising the debt ceiling is probably a healthy thing,” said Tony Fratto, a consultant at Hamilton Place Strategies and a White House and Treasury official under President George W. Bush. “But the moment you start talking seriously about not raising the debt limit it becomes dangerous. And a lot of members of Congress are now saying things that give evidence that they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the debt limit and the way government financing works.”
The tax money the moonbats are talking about speak won't be enough to cover the daily expenses of the government. We already hit our debt limit last May and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has been doing things like tapping exchange-rate funds to raise extra cash. A recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows that the government will bring in roughly $222 billion and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15, assuming the government is open, hence the date of October 17th and the threat of default.
Of course, none of this takes into account the uncertainty factor and how that will play with the image of the United States and interest rates. Sowell simply ignores this. The treasury will be in the position of having to choose which obligations to honor and which ones it won't. And the drastic spending cuts will have an extremely adverse effect on the economy, cutting growth massively. it would lead to another recession.
Whether they choose to believe it or not, a $175 billion dollar cut in government spending would take about 1 percent out of the economy. Stock markets would likely fall. Household wealth would shrink. Consumer confidence would plunge as Americans would cut back on spending. Higher rates on debt would raise borrowing costs, including mortgage rates. That's just the cut in spending, mind you, not an actual default which would add fuel to the flames.
The American Taliban doesn't really care about any of this and simply wants to burn the house down at this point. They want American to fail on Obama's watch. I guess Sowell is has now joined them.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt. Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
I've come to the conclusion that Jesus of the Right Wing Blogsphere is not as intelligent as I thought he was. Either that or he is just trying to play to his audience for dollars. He's certainly done that in the past. And I still can't figure out why he doesn't write "Liberals are stupid" for everyone of his books and columns. He certainly could save more time.
But if he does actually believe what he has written here, then he has officially gone full moonbat (as well as not understanding basic math). Raising the debt ceiling does not allow the federal government to spend more money. Congress authorizes how much money the government is allowed to spend and they have already done that. The debt ceiling only determines whether the U.S. government can borrow enough money to fulfill the spending obligations that Congress has already passed into law, like Medicare reimbursements or military pay not to mention unexpected crises that arise that may need funding.
He's not alone either. Politico has a piece up about the default deniers in Congress.
“Spending a day highlighting the debt and the deficit in Congress as part of raising the debt ceiling is probably a healthy thing,” said Tony Fratto, a consultant at Hamilton Place Strategies and a White House and Treasury official under President George W. Bush. “But the moment you start talking seriously about not raising the debt limit it becomes dangerous. And a lot of members of Congress are now saying things that give evidence that they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the debt limit and the way government financing works.”
The tax money the moonbats are talking about speak won't be enough to cover the daily expenses of the government. We already hit our debt limit last May and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has been doing things like tapping exchange-rate funds to raise extra cash. A recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows that the government will bring in roughly $222 billion and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15, assuming the government is open, hence the date of October 17th and the threat of default.
Of course, none of this takes into account the uncertainty factor and how that will play with the image of the United States and interest rates. Sowell simply ignores this. The treasury will be in the position of having to choose which obligations to honor and which ones it won't. And the drastic spending cuts will have an extremely adverse effect on the economy, cutting growth massively. it would lead to another recession.
Whether they choose to believe it or not, a $175 billion dollar cut in government spending would take about 1 percent out of the economy. Stock markets would likely fall. Household wealth would shrink. Consumer confidence would plunge as Americans would cut back on spending. Higher rates on debt would raise borrowing costs, including mortgage rates. That's just the cut in spending, mind you, not an actual default which would add fuel to the flames.
The American Taliban doesn't really care about any of this and simply wants to burn the house down at this point. They want American to fail on Obama's watch. I guess Sowell is has now joined them.
Friday, September 27, 2013
A Tough Day for Extremists
During a number of interviews on his stateside trip, Hassan Rouhani has made many bold statements regarding the future of Iran and its place in the world. But the one that has everyone buzzing is his description of the Holocaust as a “crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews” He went further, calling it “reprehensible and condemnable.”
It's always special when a religious extremist can admit reality. I'm forever holding out hope that our own American Taliban can begin doing that (although I'm certainly not holding my breath). But this admittance is clearly the result of Iran feeling the pressure from the rest of the world in terms of sanctions. Of course, his statements will obviously send the extremists in his own country into full mouth foam. How dare he admit that the Jews were not at fault for something?
And our own moonbats here in the US probably ran screaming to their pillow for a long sob. What is the world coming to when all the bestest bad guys start acting all nice and shit?
Ah well, time to go demonize the liberals again. Look out! They're trying to steal our guns!!
It's always special when a religious extremist can admit reality. I'm forever holding out hope that our own American Taliban can begin doing that (although I'm certainly not holding my breath). But this admittance is clearly the result of Iran feeling the pressure from the rest of the world in terms of sanctions. Of course, his statements will obviously send the extremists in his own country into full mouth foam. How dare he admit that the Jews were not at fault for something?
And our own moonbats here in the US probably ran screaming to their pillow for a long sob. What is the world coming to when all the bestest bad guys start acting all nice and shit?
Ah well, time to go demonize the liberals again. Look out! They're trying to steal our guns!!
Monday, September 23, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
How Many?
So, how many quotes are there about homosexuality in the Bible?
Well, according to CARM, there are four. Given that they are one of the many wings of the American Taliban, believers in Republican Jesus, and have a direct line to what God thinks, saying that the Bible "doesn't speak of homosexuality very often" they should know of what the speak, right? So, four....that's 4 mentions of homosexuality.
How many times does the Bible say women should be submissive to their husbands?
That would be 29 times.
So, it seems to me that God places more importance on women submitting to their husbands as they do to Christ than homosexuality. If a woman does not do this, what happens?
This would be a great example of how the Bible is just plain wrong. Women are not second class citizens and should be treated equally (as everyone else is) in the eyes of God. Considering that the Bible was written by (flawed) men at a time long before equal rights, we have to adjust the teachings of the Bible and look past antiquated notions of gender and sex.
Oh, yeah...and how many verses are there on caring for the poor?
Anywhere from 100 to 300, depending upon how specific you want to get.
Well, according to CARM, there are four. Given that they are one of the many wings of the American Taliban, believers in Republican Jesus, and have a direct line to what God thinks, saying that the Bible "doesn't speak of homosexuality very often" they should know of what the speak, right? So, four....that's 4 mentions of homosexuality.
How many times does the Bible say women should be submissive to their husbands?
That would be 29 times.
So, it seems to me that God places more importance on women submitting to their husbands as they do to Christ than homosexuality. If a woman does not do this, what happens?
This would be a great example of how the Bible is just plain wrong. Women are not second class citizens and should be treated equally (as everyone else is) in the eyes of God. Considering that the Bible was written by (flawed) men at a time long before equal rights, we have to adjust the teachings of the Bible and look past antiquated notions of gender and sex.
Oh, yeah...and how many verses are there on caring for the poor?
Anywhere from 100 to 300, depending upon how specific you want to get.
Religious Bigotry Is Not Freedom
I've been putting up quotes from our founding fathers over the last couple of weeks to illustrate that they did not, in fact, believe that it was OK to be a religious bigot. Having religious freedom does not mean you also get to impede the rights of other people. Essentially, this is what the believers of Republican Jesus think is OK as they happily play the victim card, doing the very same thing they supposedly hate (not to mention employing the fallacies of misleading vividness and appeal to fear).
Yet this recent piece over at HuffPo shows that the atheists out there also get it wrong. The founding fathers were not atheists. They very much believed in God, the grand architect of the universe, and drew much of their inspiration for the core philosophy of this country from John Locke. Locke's Second Treatise of Government was the primary source from which Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence. It stated that individuals are born with the rights of life, liberty and property that come directly from our Creator. Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" but the spirit is still the same. Our freedom comes from God and atheists don't believe in God. So where does freedom come from in their eyes? Perhaps my atheist commenters can answer that question.
The quotes that I have been putting up illustrate this core belief. The people that believe in Republican Jesus have always had trouble understanding nuance (you are either with us or agin us!) so it's very likely that they would disagree with Lockian thought which holds that there is no such thing as original sin, for example. People are born as blank slates given only the rights I listed above. How they live their lives after that comes the choices they make with that freedom. Because of this, Locke was often accused of not being a "true Christian"...just like yours truly.
Yet he was clearly a true Christian because he loathed atheism and warned repeatedly that it could lead to chaos. In many ways, I agree with this philosophy and so did the founding fathers. The morality of Christ is what we base our laws upon in America. That doesn't necessarily makes us a Christian nation as many other religions have this same morality. Locke truly believed that reason and Christianity were intertwined and that fundamental human equality arose from this combination. Since all humans were created free, governments need the consent of the governed to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law. In short, practicing religious bigotry is not freedom. No one has the right to treat people differently because their religion tell them it's ok. Claiming victimhood, as a few jack wagons have done who are refusing to serve gay people at their place of business, is yet another nauseating example of this. The people who are supportive of such folks have yet to tell me where the line is drawn. Would they be allowed to not serve women who were not submissive to their husbands as the Bible says? Or not serve black people because of racial purity beliefs? As of today, all I hear are crickets on these questions. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
So, the quotes that I am putting from our founding fathers are examples of how religious zealots should never be allowed to hijack our government and curtail our freedom that comes directly from God. My beliefs about God coincide with those prevalent at the height of the Age of Enlightenment. The thinkers of the that time, many of whom were our founding fathers, scoffed at both religious zealots and atheists in the same breath. So do I. Our founding fathers sought to protect religion from government, no doubt a large problem as divine right of kings thinking was still quite prevalent at the time. God and Jesus were for everyone, not just those in the aristocracy. No one was closer to God than anyone else...just as the Bible says. That includes believers in Republican Jesus.
Isn't it ironic, though, that with the American Taliban running around, we now have to protect government from religion?
Yet this recent piece over at HuffPo shows that the atheists out there also get it wrong. The founding fathers were not atheists. They very much believed in God, the grand architect of the universe, and drew much of their inspiration for the core philosophy of this country from John Locke. Locke's Second Treatise of Government was the primary source from which Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence. It stated that individuals are born with the rights of life, liberty and property that come directly from our Creator. Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" but the spirit is still the same. Our freedom comes from God and atheists don't believe in God. So where does freedom come from in their eyes? Perhaps my atheist commenters can answer that question.
The quotes that I have been putting up illustrate this core belief. The people that believe in Republican Jesus have always had trouble understanding nuance (you are either with us or agin us!) so it's very likely that they would disagree with Lockian thought which holds that there is no such thing as original sin, for example. People are born as blank slates given only the rights I listed above. How they live their lives after that comes the choices they make with that freedom. Because of this, Locke was often accused of not being a "true Christian"...just like yours truly.
Yet he was clearly a true Christian because he loathed atheism and warned repeatedly that it could lead to chaos. In many ways, I agree with this philosophy and so did the founding fathers. The morality of Christ is what we base our laws upon in America. That doesn't necessarily makes us a Christian nation as many other religions have this same morality. Locke truly believed that reason and Christianity were intertwined and that fundamental human equality arose from this combination. Since all humans were created free, governments need the consent of the governed to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law. In short, practicing religious bigotry is not freedom. No one has the right to treat people differently because their religion tell them it's ok. Claiming victimhood, as a few jack wagons have done who are refusing to serve gay people at their place of business, is yet another nauseating example of this. The people who are supportive of such folks have yet to tell me where the line is drawn. Would they be allowed to not serve women who were not submissive to their husbands as the Bible says? Or not serve black people because of racial purity beliefs? As of today, all I hear are crickets on these questions. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
So, the quotes that I am putting from our founding fathers are examples of how religious zealots should never be allowed to hijack our government and curtail our freedom that comes directly from God. My beliefs about God coincide with those prevalent at the height of the Age of Enlightenment. The thinkers of the that time, many of whom were our founding fathers, scoffed at both religious zealots and atheists in the same breath. So do I. Our founding fathers sought to protect religion from government, no doubt a large problem as divine right of kings thinking was still quite prevalent at the time. God and Jesus were for everyone, not just those in the aristocracy. No one was closer to God than anyone else...just as the Bible says. That includes believers in Republican Jesus.
Isn't it ironic, though, that with the American Taliban running around, we now have to protect government from religion?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
How Fucked Up?
When children throw a temper tantrum, they usually end up breaking something. Mom's dishes or dad's sports memorabilia isn't quite on the level of the US Economy.
Republicans are far more likely to oppose raising the debt limit than anyone else; they say don’t raise it by 61-25. Republicans, however, also believe overwhelmingly that not raising it would cause serious economic harm — by 66-27.
At least we now have confirmation as to just how fucked up the Right is there days.
Republicans are far more likely to oppose raising the debt limit than anyone else; they say don’t raise it by 61-25. Republicans, however, also believe overwhelmingly that not raising it would cause serious economic harm — by 66-27.
At least we now have confirmation as to just how fucked up the Right is there days.
Monday, September 16, 2013
A House With No Rules
It's been pretty obvious for quite some time now that the Right in this country behave like adolescents, specifically 7th graders. Two of the four quarters every year, I amble over to the junior high and teach a block at that level in US History. It is truly remarkable how similar they are to conservatives' words and actions (see: blurting, temper tantrums, bullying, game playing) that I see in that class. Specifically, they have real problems behaving and following the rules they don't like.
This point was driven home recently be a discussion on FB with Reverend Jim. He and I are good friends and do see eye to eye on some issues of the day but he has fully bought into the American Taliban line of thought. Recall that the people calling themselves conservatives these days can be accurately characterized by the following characteristics
Reverend Jim used many of these themes and styles in his assertion that religion was under attack by the state. Interestingly, he used the exact same examples that I have heard from other conservatives (wedding planners not accepting gay people etc). It's almost as if they get their news from the same source...hmmm...
Based on a couple of examples, religion was under attack everywhere...ahhh, the secular state...look out!!! (of course, the exact opposite is true). He employed DARVO and laughingly played the victim card. He seemingly threw out previous complaints about our country being too outraged at everything and became outraged himself (we hate in others what we fear in ourselves). He ignored the words of the founding fathers on the separation of church and state and proceeded to rewrite history. He took issue with a person's right to take to social media and other avenues to call out these businesses as prejudiced. Given his belief in the free market, this made no sense. He was adamant about taking away government power yet failed to realize that doing that would accomplish the exact opposite of what he desired: protection of the rights of the people. In short, he was completely irrational...just like a 7th grader.
The most glaring illustration of this was his disappointment that life wasn't fair and our system of justice isn't perfect. How many times have we told that to our teenagers? Very odd that we have to tell it to adults, especially ones that rail against self esteem culture and too much fairness.
Anyway, the discussion ended when I asked him to present his ideal, in terms of the law. If someone can turn someone away based on their religious beliefs, does that mean businesses can turn away women that aren't submissive? How about other beliefs? If I don't want black people coming in to my business, can I turn them away? Where do we draw the line? As of today, he has not yet responded.
At that point it occurred to me that the Right may not want to draw the line anywhere. One might think they would still like to have laws about murder and stealing. But given how much they love their guns and go into anaphylactic shock over financial regulation, it seems that they don't. Most conservatives take a dim view of police and think that people should just police themselves. Cops are slow and can't be counted on to get there on time. After all, nothing says civic justice like your local Oathkeeper. They have a direct line to what God intended to the law!!
Like the 12-13 year olds in my class, they want a house with no rules. In the same way they rebel against their parents and me, they only want to follow the laws they like which honestly seem like not very many. Like an adolescent that is told to be home by 10pm, they foam at the mouth about paying taxes and view it as stealing. Just like those same conversations with teenagers, the challenge is always the same: if you don't like it, leave. No one is keeping you prisoner here.
I used to think this way when I was their age. And then I grew up. They never did and they put the government in some sort of daddy-mommy role and then proceed to rebel against it, never taking into consideration that human nature is such that we do need laws otherwise people wouldn't behave themselves. The centerpiece of this is civil rights, the very foundation of our society. People should not be refused service because of the color of their skin, their gender, their physical and mental abilities, and their sexual orientation. We don't discriminate in this country. Period.
My entire conversation with Reverend Jim boiled down to his inability to accept the changes that were happening for the betterment of our society. We are constantly improving the way we treat people and that's exactly what we should be doing, especially if we consider ourselves a Christian nation. Jim doesn't get to decide who is better and who is worse in our country. No one does. That's why we have laws.
Maybe someday conservatives in this country will grow the fuck up and accept that simple fact.
This point was driven home recently be a discussion on FB with Reverend Jim. He and I are good friends and do see eye to eye on some issues of the day but he has fully bought into the American Taliban line of thought. Recall that the people calling themselves conservatives these days can be accurately characterized by the following characteristics
- Ideological purity
- Compromise as weakness
- A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
- Denying science
- Undeterred by facts
- Unmoved by new information
- Fear of progress
- Demonization of education
- Need to control women's bodies
- Severe xenophobia
- Intolerance of dissent
- Pathological hatred of government
Reverend Jim used many of these themes and styles in his assertion that religion was under attack by the state. Interestingly, he used the exact same examples that I have heard from other conservatives (wedding planners not accepting gay people etc). It's almost as if they get their news from the same source...hmmm...
Based on a couple of examples, religion was under attack everywhere...ahhh, the secular state...look out!!! (of course, the exact opposite is true). He employed DARVO and laughingly played the victim card. He seemingly threw out previous complaints about our country being too outraged at everything and became outraged himself (we hate in others what we fear in ourselves). He ignored the words of the founding fathers on the separation of church and state and proceeded to rewrite history. He took issue with a person's right to take to social media and other avenues to call out these businesses as prejudiced. Given his belief in the free market, this made no sense. He was adamant about taking away government power yet failed to realize that doing that would accomplish the exact opposite of what he desired: protection of the rights of the people. In short, he was completely irrational...just like a 7th grader.
The most glaring illustration of this was his disappointment that life wasn't fair and our system of justice isn't perfect. How many times have we told that to our teenagers? Very odd that we have to tell it to adults, especially ones that rail against self esteem culture and too much fairness.
Anyway, the discussion ended when I asked him to present his ideal, in terms of the law. If someone can turn someone away based on their religious beliefs, does that mean businesses can turn away women that aren't submissive? How about other beliefs? If I don't want black people coming in to my business, can I turn them away? Where do we draw the line? As of today, he has not yet responded.
At that point it occurred to me that the Right may not want to draw the line anywhere. One might think they would still like to have laws about murder and stealing. But given how much they love their guns and go into anaphylactic shock over financial regulation, it seems that they don't. Most conservatives take a dim view of police and think that people should just police themselves. Cops are slow and can't be counted on to get there on time. After all, nothing says civic justice like your local Oathkeeper. They have a direct line to what God intended to the law!!
Like the 12-13 year olds in my class, they want a house with no rules. In the same way they rebel against their parents and me, they only want to follow the laws they like which honestly seem like not very many. Like an adolescent that is told to be home by 10pm, they foam at the mouth about paying taxes and view it as stealing. Just like those same conversations with teenagers, the challenge is always the same: if you don't like it, leave. No one is keeping you prisoner here.
I used to think this way when I was their age. And then I grew up. They never did and they put the government in some sort of daddy-mommy role and then proceed to rebel against it, never taking into consideration that human nature is such that we do need laws otherwise people wouldn't behave themselves. The centerpiece of this is civil rights, the very foundation of our society. People should not be refused service because of the color of their skin, their gender, their physical and mental abilities, and their sexual orientation. We don't discriminate in this country. Period.
My entire conversation with Reverend Jim boiled down to his inability to accept the changes that were happening for the betterment of our society. We are constantly improving the way we treat people and that's exactly what we should be doing, especially if we consider ourselves a Christian nation. Jim doesn't get to decide who is better and who is worse in our country. No one does. That's why we have laws.
Maybe someday conservatives in this country will grow the fuck up and accept that simple fact.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Retraction
The other day I posted this photo thinking that it was a real Michele Bachmann quote. It was actually from a Bachmann parody page so it isn't something she actually said. My mistake.
Speaking of photo mistakes, I'm still waiting for an admission of error from Kevin Baker and his merry band of American Taliban members on this photo.
I won't hold my breath.
Speaking of photo mistakes, I'm still waiting for an admission of error from Kevin Baker and his merry band of American Taliban members on this photo.
I won't hold my breath.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Hit the Road!
I'm sure that when Scott Phillips took the job at Prattville East Memorial Christian Academy as athletic director he thought there might be some leeway on which church he decided to attend.
Nope.
The school’s headmaster, Scott Easley, said that it was expected that Phillips attend East Memorial Baptist Church, the church affiliated with the school, even though there was no written agreement that Phillips was to do so.
So much for the freedom to worship freely. And it's not like he was an atheist or anything.
It was only when Phillips took on the additional role of being the school’s athletic director in June 2012 that the church requirement was placed on him. Phillips and his family had been attending Church of the Highlands, which is where he and his family (wife and two children) were “growing spiritually”.
Phillips attending both churches for a year, but felt dishonest about doing so. “We would go to the 9 a.m. service at East Memorial, then head over to Montgomery for the 11 a.m. service at Church of the Highlands,” he said. “It was just not working at all.”
I sense the devil at work here! Everyone knows that there is only one way to worship Jesus and any other way is pure evil!!
It's simply amazing to me that in this day and age, we still have people that think they can tell their employees how they have to worship and where. But this would be the American Taliban at work, folks!
Nope.
The school’s headmaster, Scott Easley, said that it was expected that Phillips attend East Memorial Baptist Church, the church affiliated with the school, even though there was no written agreement that Phillips was to do so.
So much for the freedom to worship freely. And it's not like he was an atheist or anything.
It was only when Phillips took on the additional role of being the school’s athletic director in June 2012 that the church requirement was placed on him. Phillips and his family had been attending Church of the Highlands, which is where he and his family (wife and two children) were “growing spiritually”.
Phillips attending both churches for a year, but felt dishonest about doing so. “We would go to the 9 a.m. service at East Memorial, then head over to Montgomery for the 11 a.m. service at Church of the Highlands,” he said. “It was just not working at all.”
I sense the devil at work here! Everyone knows that there is only one way to worship Jesus and any other way is pure evil!!
It's simply amazing to me that in this day and age, we still have people that think they can tell their employees how they have to worship and where. But this would be the American Taliban at work, folks!
Sunday, January 13, 2013
They Just Can't Resist Rape
In case anyone was wondering, the Republican Party is not done talking about rape.
First, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not remind everyone that this is not , in fact, an Onion headline. It's very real. Apparently, yet another old, white man with a two dollar haircut (Georgia Rep Phil Gingrey) felt the need to clarify a few things about Todd Akin.
“We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate,’” Gingrey said.He also said that Akin’s definition of a “non-legitimate rape” could be “a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents.”
See, this is what happens when you believe in Republican Jesus, folks, and allow men, over the last 2,000 years, to be in charge of your sexuality. You get the American Taliban.
This was the icing on the cake...
And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments that may have helped ruin Republicans’ chances of winning the Senate.
A "training" program? (sniff sniff). Sounds like a re-education camp to me. Don't do it, old white men with two dollar haircuts!! Stay true to your core beliefs!!! They's a comin'!!!!
But seriously, they have to have a training program? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments
First, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not remind everyone that this is not , in fact, an Onion headline. It's very real. Apparently, yet another old, white man with a two dollar haircut (Georgia Rep Phil Gingrey) felt the need to clarify a few things about Todd Akin.
“We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate,’” Gingrey said.He also said that Akin’s definition of a “non-legitimate rape” could be “a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents.”
See, this is what happens when you believe in Republican Jesus, folks, and allow men, over the last 2,000 years, to be in charge of your sexuality. You get the American Taliban.
This was the icing on the cake...
And it may have added new urgency to a training program that’s already being launched by an anti-abortion group — the Susan B. Anthony list — to keep candidates and lawmakers from continually making the same kind of comments that may have helped ruin Republicans’ chances of winning the Senate.
A "training" program? (sniff sniff). Sounds like a re-education camp to me. Don't do it, old white men with two dollar haircuts!! Stay true to your core beliefs!!! They's a comin'!!!!
But seriously, they have to have a training program? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)