11-02-2013, 05:18 AM | #3281 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Why should poor people think they have some kind of a right to eat?
Rand Paul would tell you this himself: Food, like healthcare, is not a right! If some Americans have to starve to death, this is what it takes to preserve our freedom! They call the poor “useless eaters” and seriously don’t give a crap if we all starve. This may be how the rich really feel about the working class. But they are not going to say that, at least not all of them, all of the time. They do have more palatable ways to get those of us who are not yet hungry to agree with their austerity measures. They have skewed, suspect and just plain "old" outdated data that they can use to spin fairy tales about the really, really well off poor people who live in the US. You know the ones who live in the realm of the Welfare Queen. For example the Washington DC based conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has been telling us for years that there are no poor people in the US. They say stuff like the average family with very low food security ( here is an even more innocuous term than food insecure, when did we stop saying hungry?) experienced disrupted food intakes in only seven months of the year, for one to seven days per month. They say it like it is a good thing. So if you only go without food for one week a month for more than half the year you are not really poor and your children are not really hungry. Hunger is what kids in developing countries suffer. According to the Heritage Foundation only 2.6% of American children’s growth is stunted by malnutrition compared to 42.7% in developing countries. And to these brilliant conservative minds that means we can take a lot more from the 99% than we have up to this point before we are on par with developing nations. A lofty goal indeed. They say that “the mainstream press and activist groups frequently conflate poverty with homelessness. They insist this depiction is seriously misleading because only a small portion of persons 'living in poverty' will become homeless over the course of a year. The overwhelming majority of the poor reside throughout the year in non-crowded housing that is in good repair.” Seriously. Good repair? They have statistics that say 50% of the poor live in single family homes and not in apartments or mobile homes. WTF? Really? I’ve never lived in a single family home in my entire life. Never. And I don’t consider myself as living below the poverty line. But all around me families whose incomes do fall under the poverty line own their own homes. Who knew? Conservatives that’s who! Not only that but “nearly all poor households have commonplace amenities such as color TVs, telephones, and kitchens equipped with an oven, stove, and refrigerator. WOW! The nerve of these people. In 2005, more than half of poor households had at least five of the following 10 conveniences: a computer, cable or satellite TV, air conditioning, Internet service, a large-screen TV, non-portable stereo, computer printer, separate freezer or second refrigerator, microwave, and at least one color TV. One-fourth of the poor had seven or more of these 10 items in their homes.” I wonder if when gathering all this skewed and suspect data these geniuses take in to account the reality that most poor households didn’t just manifest themselves into existence fully actualized as poverty stricken. Contrary to popular belief the poor are made not born. Many poor people were not always “useless eaters”. They actually had jobs back in the day when there were jobs to be had. Maybe they bought some of that stuff then? Back in 2005 (since this is when this data was compiled) before Wall St. destroyed the economy and then got the government to bail them out by taking the food out of mouths of the working class. Maybe even back before the government gave corporations humongous tax cuts for taking jobs and businesses out of the US and bringing them to other countries. Probably the very countries where the brains at the Heritage Foundation explain the “real poor people live” countries where the government doesn’t even have to pretend to give a shit about its people, where corporations can pollute, pillage and use up people to their hearts content. But we can all cheer up because if conservatives like those highly intelligent individuals at the Heritage Foundation think tank have anything to say about it soon enough the real poor people will live here as well. More austerity measures coming soon to a town near you. Crossing children off their laundry list for now, elderly people get ready, they're coming for you next. And our beloved veterans as well. You know all that supposed support we have for you? Well they forgot to mention that's just while you are actually troops, once you are no longer active then you are subject to being screwed like the rest of the 99%. I'm adding this link to show where I got some of my information. It is by no means an endorsement of or encouragement to read this shit. http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-americas-poor |
11-02-2013, 07:08 AM | #3282 |
Roadster Guy
How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
He Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,894 Times in 5,771 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858 |
Hey, Miss Tick. I saw that the article was written two years ago (9/2011), which they based off of 2010 census data (which no doubt that twisted into a pretty bow).
I am wondering why you are posting this now?
__________________
-Dapper Are you educated or indoctrinated? |
11-02-2013, 08:16 AM | #3283 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
I posted the first article about the food stamp cut and thought it would be useful to examine and understand the process that goes into twisting yourself into believing its a good, adult, grown up decision (phraseology the GOP is using now in 2013)to cut food stamps at a time when more people than ever are using them to make ends meet. What I did was look at the ideas the GOP has long held to justify their belief in the non existence of poor in the US and the brilliant conservative minds who mold data and twist facts to support their beliefs. This is how they cut social programs, this is how they will cut social security and make our golden years financially insecure. It's the mind set i was trying to show. The article was just an afterthought to prove I don't pull this shit out of my ass. I hope this makes sense. It's not like anything has changed. This is what they believe whether it's 1972 or 2013. And it's only news in that it helps justify current cuts in social programs. I just want to add if you try to find data to prove there are no poor in the US in 2013 all that comes up are articles exploding with indignation at the cutting of social programs. Articles talking about how terrible it is and Republicans talking about how necessary it is and how grown up and adult it is. It's easy to talk about how insensitive the GOP is and how cruel etc. but it doesn't show how they think and why they believe what they are doing is perfectly fine and logical. I want to understand my enemy. I want to know what makes them tic. |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
11-02-2013, 08:21 AM | #3284 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
11-02-2013, 08:59 AM | #3285 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
GOP rep.: Slashing food stamps by $40 billion means ‘more money’ for the hungry
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MA) in September asserted that cutting $40 billion from the food stamp program over the next 10 years would actually provide “more money” to hungry Americans. A bill introduced by House Republicans this month almost doubled the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) proposed earlier this year after that plan was rejected by conservative lawmakers. GOP leaders were expected to bring the bill up for a vote on Thursday. CNN’s Carol Costello pointed out to Harris in a Thursday interview that critics had said that a $40 billion cut was “way too much” because the poverty rate in the United States has risen to more than 13 percent. “It’s a 5 percent decrease, when we know that there is 10.5 percent of the stores that take food stamps are engaged in trafficking,” Harris replied. “So we know the fraud stands at 10 percent of the stores. We only want to cut 5 percent.” “That ought to leave more money getting to the hands of the people who do need it,” he added. “And there are millions of Americans who need that benefit.” “But if you change the requirement, some people will be eliminated from qualifying for food stamps,” Costello noted. “There are critics who say that those people need them too. And how do you decide who needs food stamps and who doesn’t?” “Well, again, there’s the one study that showed — by the Dept. of Agriculture — 10.5 percent of stores are committing fraud,” Harris insisted. “And, you know what we’re doing, is we’re just saying, ‘Look, if we’re going to help you with food stamps — and we are — then we need you to either work, look for employment — if you’re able bodied, not disabled and able to work — either look for work or engage in job training.’ We think that’s a common-sense trade-off for getting help from the American taxpayer that needy people need.” “Well, some might say it’s easy to say, ‘Get some job training, get a new job, get a better paying job,’” Costello observed. “But there aren’t that many jobs available at this particular time in our economy to accomplish that.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that 14 million less people would be participating in the SNAP program by 2023 if the Republican House bill was enacted. “Critics’ attempts to justify big cuts by claiming that SNAP participants are eschewing work are unfounded,” according to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. “The fact that the majority of SNAP households with an adult who is not elderly or disabled work while they receive SNAP assistance, and that more than 80 percent of such households work in the year before or after SNAP receipt, makes clear the program is an important support for working families that fall on hard times.” “As the nation slowly climbs out of the deepest recession in decades, many families continue to face a shortage of jobs or to be paid wages too low to enable them to provide adequate food, and struggle to meet basic nutritional needs. The House SNAP proposal pays little heed to these economic conditions. Instead, it would deny food assistance to millions of low-income Americans and cause substantial increases in hardship.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/1...or-the-hungry/ How Republicans Who Took Millions In Farm Subsidies Justify Cutting Food Stamps http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...g-food-stamps/ There are a lot of justifications used to explain why it is okay to cut food stamps and social programs from invoking the soviet constitution and Lenin to misquoting the bible but the truth is that when conservatives bother to think of the poor they don't believe in them. This is why it is so easy to do what they do. They don't believe there are really poor people or rather I should say they don't believe there are any deserving poor. And to examine that we could actually go back to the early 1800s and see how decisions were made surrounding who is deserving and who is not. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
11-02-2013, 03:12 PM | #3286 |
Roadster Guy
How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
He Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,894 Times in 5,771 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858 |
Hey, Miss Tick. I had no concern you had any sort of "agenda" behind the posting of an older article. I was just curious. I suppose I was also surprised that an older article was posted, without the poster making a note of that fact. That's all.
__________________
-Dapper Are you educated or indoctrinated? |
The Following User Says Thank You to DapperButch For This Useful Post: |
11-02-2013, 03:46 PM | #3287 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
Sorry I didn't make a note of the fact that it was an older article. In retrospect I probably should have. I was side tracked for the reasons I explained. It wasn't about the time frame of the article it was the thinking behind the think tank. And in my defense i did say when introducing the information that "the Washington DC based conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation has been telling us for years that there are no poor people in the US." I also mentioned the dates of the data a few times: "In 2005, more than half of poor households had at least five of the following 10 conveniences" and "Back in 2005 (since this is when this data was compiled)" Anyway sorry if I gave too much information but I hope it at least makes sense why i would post the information. The article was not the post really, a lot of the words contained in the post were my words and not the words of an article, I Just posted the article for back up as reference for where i pulled some of the stuff i was responding too from. My wife often tells me that for such a clarity freak I am sometimes not very clear. Oh dear I hope I didn't do it again and say too much that it feels like well, like too much. Besides trying to explain my thought process for referencing the article my only other concern is trying to ascertain if my response makes sense to you? And honestly I didn't take it any way at all except as a question. I wouldn't take it as anything but a question from anyone, but from you I certainly wouldn't give it a second thought except to try extra hard to explain to you my thought process. |
|
11-02-2013, 04:37 PM | #3288 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
It was early and I had just woke up and was still sleepy and decided it might be too long and too confusing so I added the second post which was really an extension of the first and it ended up that the first post ended a page and the second post was the first post on a new page. So that really separated the first article from my post and the reference article. Maybe it would have made more sense if they had been together. Or maybe not. I'm just going to stop explaining now. LOL. I even tire myself out |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
11-02-2013, 05:14 PM | #3289 |
Roadster Guy
How Do You Identify?:
FTM, Stone Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
He Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast
Posts: 7,745
Thanks: 26,545
Thanked 26,894 Times in 5,771 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858 |
Wow. You are way worse than me. I love it. ha!
__________________
-Dapper Are you educated or indoctrinated? |
11-04-2013, 06:59 AM | #3290 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Be Very Afraid: The American Economy Is Cannibalizing Itself, and We the People Are Going to Pay a Huge Price
The bottom 90 percent of Americans have disappeared from official Washington. November 3, 2013 So how to explain this paradox? As of November 1 more than 47 million Americans have lost some or all of their food stamp benefits. House Republicans are pushing for further cuts. If the sequester isn’t stopped everything else poor and working-class Americans depend on will be further squeezed. We’re not talking about a small sliver of America here. Half of all children get food stamps at some point during their childhood. Half of all adults get them sometime between ages 18 and 65. Many employers – including the nation’s largest, Walmart – now pay so little that food stamps are necessary in order to keep food on the family table, and other forms of assistance are required to keep a roof overhead. The larger reality is that most Americans are still living in the Great Recession. Median household income continues to drop. In last week’s Washington Post-ABC poll, 75 percent rated the state of the economy as “negative” or “poor.” So why is Washington whacking safety nets and services that a large portion of Americans need, when we still very much need them? It’s easy to blame Republicans and the rightwing billionaires that bankroll them, and their unceasing demonization of “big government” as well as deficits. But Democrats in Washington bear some of the responsibility. In last year’s fiscal cliff debate neither party pushed to extend the payroll tax holiday or find other ways to help the working middle class and poor. Here’s a clue: A new survey of families in the top 10 percent of net worth (done by the American Affluence Research Center) shows they’re feeling better than they’ve felt since 2007, before the Great Recession. It’s not just that the top 10 percent have jobs and their wages are rising. The top 10 percent also owns 80 percent of the stock market. And the stock market is up a whopping 24 percent this year. The stock market is up even though most Americans are down for two big reasons. First, businesses are busily handing their cash back to their shareholders – buying back their stock and thereby boosting share prices – rather than using the cash to expand and hire. It makes no sense to expand and hire when most Americans don’t have the money to buy. The S&P 500 “Buyback Index,” which measures the 100 stocks with the highest buyback ratios, has surged 40 percent this year, compared with a 24% rally for the S&P 500. IBM has just approved another $15 billion for share buybacks on top of about $5.6 billion it set aside previously, thereby boosting its share prices even though business is sluggish. In April, Apple announced a $50 billion increase in buybacks plus a 15% rise in dividends, but even this wasn’t enough for multi-billionaire Carl Icahn, who’s now demanding that Apple use more of its $170 billion cash stash to buy back its stock and make Ichan even richer. Big corporations can also borrow at rock-bottom rates these days in order to buy back even more of their stock — courtesy of the Fed’s $85 billion a month bond-buying program. (Ichan also wants Apple to borrow $150 billion at 3 percent interest, in order to buy back more stock and further enrich himself.) The second big reason why shares are up while most Americans are down is corporations continue to find new ways to boost profits and share prices by cutting their labor costs – substituting software for people, cutting wages and benefits, and piling more responsibilities on each of the employees that remain. Neither of these two strategies – buying back stock and paring payrolls – can be sustained over the long run (so you have every right to worry about another Wall Street bubble). They don’t improve a company’s products or customer service. But in an era of sluggish sales – when the vast American middle class lacks the purchasing power to keep the economy going – these two strategies at least keep shareholders happy. And that means they keep the top 10 percent happy. Congress, meanwhile, doesn’t know much about the bottom 90 percent. The top 10 percent provide almost all campaign contributions and funding of “independent” ads. Moreover, just about all members of Congress are drawn from the same top 10 percent – as are almost all their friends and associates, and even the media who report on them. Get it? The bottom 90 percent of Americans — most of whom are still suffering from the Great Recession, most of whom have been on a downward escalator for decades — have disappeared from official Washington. http://www.alternet.org/economy/be-v...age=1#bookmark |
11-05-2013, 07:17 AM | #3291 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Lesbian non-stone femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She, her Relationship Status:
Committed to being good to myself Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast
Posts: 8,258
Thanks: 39,306
Thanked 40,789 Times in 7,290 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857 |
Senate passes ENDA
With 61 votes, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of cloture on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, clearing the way for a final up-or-down vote later this week. BY SUNNIVIE BRYDUM NOVEMBER 04 2013 6:18 PM ET UPDATED: NOVEMBER 04 2013 9:16 PM ET For the first time since it was originally introduced in 1996, the U.S. Senate took an important step toward passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, voting in favor of cloture — a procedural move intended to overcome any attempted filibuster — in a bipartisan vote of 61-30. Several senators from both sides of the aisle rose to speak in support of the legislation, which would make it a federal offense for employers to fire, refuse to hire, or decline to promote employees on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Following Monday's vote for cloture, the Senate is expected to take a final vote on ENDA after additional testimony is filed, likely on Wednesday. The bipartisan vote included 54 Senate Democrats (Missouri Democratic senator Claire McCaskill was absent), and seven Republicans, including some surprising "aye" votes from New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey, and Ohio's Rob Portman, who came out for marriage equality earlier this year. Among Republicans who had previously expressed support for the legislation were Utah's Orrin Hatch, Illinois's Mark Kirk, Nevada's Dean Heller, and Maine's Susan Collins. Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who voted for the bill in committee, was absent from the chamber when roll call was taken. The nation's first openly gay senator elected took the Senate floor first, asking her colleagues to vote in favor of ENDA and stand on the right side of history. "I realize that for some, this is not an easy vote," said Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin on the Senate floor. "I understand that for some, they may believe that it’s not good politics. But I want to say that I have a deep respect for those who choose to stand on the side of progress for our country this week. So for those that stand up this week and answer the call for courage, I can say with confidence your courage will be respected and remembered when the history of this struggle is written." Both senators from Illinois also rose in support of the bill, including Republican Mark Kirk, who has been largely silent and absent from congressional debate on the legislation through the past two years due to a stroke. "This is not a major change to law," said Kirk. "It's already the law in 21 states, and I think it's particularly appropriate for an Illinois Republican to speak on behalf of this measure, in the true spirit of Everett McKinley Dirksen and Abraham Lincoln, who gave us the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution." Kirk wasn't the only Republican to rise in support of the bill — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine also testified in support, saying ENDA provides all Americans a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. "I'm dismayed that so many years have gone by — more than a decade — and this bill still has not become law," said Collins. "It is time for us to enact this important legislation. Notably, no senators rose to speak in opposition to the bill, though that's unlikely to be the case in the Republican-controlled House, where the bill faces a much tougher journey to becoming law. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy closed his remarks with a none-too-subtle message for those lawmakers opposed to outlawing discrimination in the lower chamber of Congress. "So I hope my fellow senators will come together and support this important bipartisan bill without delay," said Leahy in his closing remarks. "And If the other body has the courage of standing up for America, to stand up for all Americans — every single american there is — and vote for the same legislation." Late Sunday night, President Obama published an op-ed in The Huffington Post urging the Senate to pass the legislation, and Monday morning, Nevada Republican Dean Heller announced his support for ENDA, breaching the 60-vote threshold needed for a successful cloture vote to move debate on the bill forward. http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...rocedural-vote Fired For Being LGBT: ENDA gets another vote BY NEAL BROVERMAN AND MICHELLE GARCIA MAY 08 2013 2:00 AM ET UPDATED: NOVEMBER 01 2013 7:33 PM ET 151 Sixty years ago, the federal government spearheaded a massive purge of gay employees, no matter how qualified or essential they were to their department's operations. The firings were the result of an executive order by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on April 27, 1953. As told in the documentary Lavender Scare, even LGBT private sector workers who were under contract with the federal government were also fired or forced to resign. Why? Because gay people were viewed as a godless, immoral group likely to work with communists to spill government secrets. After decades of activism, policy changes at federal agencies, and state laws protecting LGBT citizens, 94 percent of the top 100 companies in the U.S. — the top 50 federal contractors and the top 50 Fortune 500 companies — have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 78 percent of the companies have policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity. Nine in every 10 American voters believe that there are already laws to protect employees in the workplace, just like policies for women, people with disabilities, racial minorities, or people with particular religious affiliations. But that's not the case. An employee could still be fired in 29 states for being gay, and in 34 states for being transgender or gender non-conforming. So as we mark 60 years since the federal government's mass firings, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is finally set for a vote in the Senate on Monday (the 19th time Congress has considered it). With a Republican-dominated House of Representatives, ENDA might be tough to gain momentum even though, according to the Center for American Progress, 73 percent of voters support protections for LGBT workers (even 66 percent among Republicans voters). http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...lgbt?page=full http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...dies-enda-vote
__________________
~Anya~ Democracy Dies in Darkness ~Washington Post "...I'm deeply concerned by recently adopted policies which punish children for their parents’ actions ... The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable." UN Human Rights commissioner Last edited by *Anya*; 11-05-2013 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Update |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to *Anya* For This Useful Post: |
11-05-2013, 08:38 AM | #3292 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
I guess Rand Paul wants to challenge Rachel Maddow to a duel. He laments the fact that it would be illegal to shoot her in the face. I suppose it would definitely cut down on the amount of 'truth out' we would see from journalists if you could just challenge them to a duel and kill them if they caught you doing something wrong. Sheesh, wouldn't it be easier to just own it, apologize for the mistake and make sure it doesn't happen again? Politicians seeking public office need to be more careful that's all. And when caught screwing up they need to act like adults. I mean aren't the Republicans big on acting like adults or is that just when they are talking about having to starve children and steal money from old people.
Rand Paul’s Wacko Public Meltdown The proven plagiarist trashes his “haters” and wishes he could challenge them to a duel. Just when Sen. Ted Cruz’s self-promoting extremism seemed to create room for a far-right 2016 rival who wouldn’t scare children (and the donor class), Sen. Rand Paul is blowing his big chance. Last week the New York Times reported that in the wake of Cruz’s implosion, Paul’s aides had taken to calling Cruz “the chief of the wacko birds,” using John McCain’s memorable epithet for the junior Texas senator. Paul himself, Jonathan Martin reported, “has quietly been reaching out to more establishment forces within the Republican Party, trying to prove to big donors and mainline Republican organizations that he is more than a Tea Party figure or a rerun of his father’s failed candidacies.” And establishment Republicans were beginning to use the word “grown” and “matured” to describe Paul. That’s not the word they’re using today, on the heels of a crazy appearance on ABC’s “This Week” where he wished he could challenge the journalists who’ve accused him of plagiarism to a duel. On the one hand, the revelation that he lifted material from several speeches as well as whole pages of his book from other sources, without attribution, isn’t necessarily a 2016 candidacy-ender. What’s most politically self-destructive is Paul’s bizarre reaction to the charges – which really aren’t “charges,” they’re fact. Instead of admitting he or someone on his staff made an error and promising to toughen his standards, he’s attacked Rachel Maddow, who found the first instance of plagiarism, repeatedly and personally. “This is really about information and attacks coming from haters,” he told ABC’s Latino-focused network Fusion. “The person who’s leading this attack — she’s been spreading hate on me for about three years now.” Ew, “spreading hate on me,” that sounds kind of disgusting, Rachel – really? And then, in a bizarre, likely candidacy-ending interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he began talking about a duel. “Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error,” Paul said. “But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.” He went on: “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.” “I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.” Paul’s assumption that normal people will hear his reference to fighting a duel and say, “Hell yeah!” betrays his permanent residency on the American fringe. He lives in a world where it’s always the 19th century south, and troubles are best handled with guns and guts, not government. Paul acts like nobody’s ever been either smart enough, or brave enough, to tell the plain truth – and once he does, common sense voters will recognize it and reward him. Instead, they recoil and go, “Huh?” It reminds me of his first run-in with Rachel Maddow, in May 2010, when he told her he didn’t think the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses. He bobbed and he weaved but when Maddow asked point blank, “Do you think that a private business has the right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’” He answered, “Yes,” and defended their “right” to discriminate as “freedom of speech.” (He also said he thought if he’d been alive back then, he’d have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) That’s the interview that made Maddow a “hater,” in Paul’s view. I saw the same thing in his under-covered response to the revelation that his aide Jack Hunter was a neo-confederate racist who’d written a column headlined “John Wilkes Booth was right,” defending the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Paul, of course, came out against assassination – but then he went on to describe Lincoln the way neo-confederates do, as a tyrannical racist hypocrite who fought the Civil War not to end slavery but to consolidate Northern power. He thought he could get away with repudiating the most extreme expression of neo-confederate beliefs while validating their core. And that time, at least, he did. There’s another problem with Paul’s over the top response to the plagiarism controversy: It suggests that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “plagiarism.” He has repeatedly insisted that he credited the original source of his speech material – the movie “Gattaca,” in one instance, and “Stand and Deliver” in another. But he does not seem to get that you can’t lift words directly from Wikipedia and claim them as your own – even though that’s something every sixth-grader knows. Only a few days after Tailgunner Ted Cruz seemed to be facing a credible Tea Party rival, that rival is melting down. For his part, in the Times piece Cruz was said to be telling GOP donors that Paul can never be elected president “because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father.” An even bigger problem: Rand Paul can never fully detach himself from himself. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
11-05-2013, 02:04 PM | #3293 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
'12 Years a Slave' Highlights America’s Shocking Record of Female Subjugation
The U.S. has not yet reckoned with the trauma of enslaved and oppressed women. Excerpt: Did Patsey survive to have children? We’ll never know. Enslaved women sometimes used abortion and infanticide to undermine their oppressions. If she did have children who survived, it’s sobering to imagine where their descendants might be today if chance had kept them on Louisiana’s bayous. For African Americans living in Louisiana, hunger rates are twice the national average, and the poverty rate is 45 percent. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, Louisiana is the worst place to be a woman in the nation. Women get paid 67 cents on the dollar compared to men, their jobs are more insecure, they hold fewer public offices, and they fare worse in health outcomes. Louisiana ranks ninth in the rate of women murdered by men. Louisiana is one of the only states in the country that does not have its own minimum wage law. It is a state that relies on the service industry, and we can imagine a descendant of Patsey finding herself in a job—if she could even find a job at all— without health benefits or basic protections, like paid sick leave. Maybe she’s a domestic worker. Or perhaps she packs boxes at a Walmart factory. She would have to stay at work regardless of whether there were sick children at home. With high job insecurity, saying no to whatever her employer’s demands might be could easily lead to firing, so she works extra hours without overtime and tries to ignore it when her manager eyes her lustfully. Patsey’s descendant would face the fact that in Louisiana, her right to control her own body is constantly under assault. She would be forced to undergo an invasive and unnecessary ultrasound procedure before a doctor could perform an abortion—if she could even find a clinic. In the very state where her foremother was tortured, deprived and violated, Patsey’s descendant would stand a good chance of getting trapped in unrelenting poverty, health crises and humiliation. During slavery, many Americans justified oppression by claiming that black people were naturally inferior and thus deserved their condition. Today, conservative Republicans suggest that the poor are poor because of their own inferiority, and do not deserve any better than what they have. The ideology of slavery posited a false God who instated a natural order in which some human beings were made to suffer at the hands of others. The ideology of capitalism proposes the supernatural force of the "market," which can never be wrong. Those whom the invisible hand crushes deserve their fate. http://www.alternet.org/culture/12-y...age=1#bookmark It's easy to watch a movie about particular times in history and believe the past is the past and these injustices no longer exist. The truth is the same ideology that allows one human being to erase the humanity of another is alive and well in our society. Many still believe there are deserving and undeserving people and we are taught to care little for the undeserving among us. Their fates are of their own doing. Soon many more people will learn first hand how unfair and unjust that belief is. |
11-05-2013, 02:07 PM | #3294 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
TG Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Loner Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 366
Thanks: 1,414
Thanked 1,198 Times in 320 Posts
Rep Power: 12203814 |
Isn't Ted Cruz ineligible to be president? That alone makes the prospect of him ending up the GOP frontrunner extremely amusing, and would make me feel much more confident in a Democratic win in 2016. More confident than I already am, I mean.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Allison W For This Useful Post: |
11-05-2013, 02:13 PM | #3295 |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He Relationship Status:
Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859 |
Cruz would be eligible the same as Obama was eligible. The only thing keeping Cruz from running right now is his dual citizenship. If he doesn't get that cleared up in time then he will be ineligible.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee) |
11-05-2013, 02:23 PM | #3296 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Ya, his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. A natural born citizen includes those who are entitled to US citizenship at birth. And I'm sure Canada will be more than happy to cut him lose.
|
11-05-2013, 04:43 PM | #3297 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
TG Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Loner Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 366
Thanks: 1,414
Thanked 1,198 Times in 320 Posts
Rep Power: 12203814 |
Thanks for clearing that up. I'd heard he's Canadian. Apparently that's true, but not in the way that I had thought. I don't doubt he'd give up his dual citizenship for the presidency, so the prospect of him being the Republican frontrunner is now considerably less amusing. The man is batshit--Paul is at least right about that, in the same way that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
|
11-05-2013, 05:27 PM | #3298 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Stonefemme lesbian Preferred Pronoun?:
I'm a woman. Behave accordingly. Relationship Status:
Single, not looking. Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,467
Thanks: 9,474
Thanked 7,151 Times in 1,206 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
Well, not exactly the same way. President Obama was born in the U.S., (Hawaii to be exact), to an American mother and a Kenyan father. Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Canadian father. If Cruz does run it will be interesting to see the Tea Baggers and crazed Birthers tie themselves in knots about why that's OK when they never stopped nattering about Obama's supposed Kenyan birthplace.
__________________
Cheryl |
11-05-2013, 05:39 PM | #3299 | |
Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?:
Human Preferred Pronoun?:
He Relationship Status:
Very Married Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859 |
Quote:
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee) |
|
11-05-2013, 05:41 PM | #3300 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Butch Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,617 Times in 2,489 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Actually I think Cruz's father was born in Cuba. Doesn't change anything but it is interesting I think.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post: |
Tags |
breaking news, news |
|
|