The all-inclusive "Republicans hate everything America stands for" thread

[Magic_Marker]

If you need a source (I hadn't heard it so I looked it up) here's Paul in 2007 basically repeating what POS just typed

[RobinStarwing]

So...I found at least one of the idiots responsible for much of the bullcrap in Washington D.C. & my home state of Minnesota (even if Indirectly but I'd rather it be DIRECT!).

Here is his Wiki entry (nothing else on him that I can find so far). His name is Grover Norquist and he is head of the Americans for Tax Reform; which is the group that makes the Republicans sign those Anti-Tax Pledges.

Grover Norquist Info

What brought him to my attention? Simple, an article in the third page of my local metro paper, Star Tribune from the AP. Link has a pic of the guy.

Anti-tax pledge gives Norquist reins in Capitol

* Article by: CHARLES BABINGTON , Associated Press
* Updated: July 4, 2011 - 7:29 PM

The president of Americans for Tax Reform has created a "brick wall" for leaders trying to reach a budget compromise.

And the text of the article.

WASHINGTON - Without a bipartisan agreement this summer to reduce the federal deficit and raise the debt limit, the economy could suffer a horrendous blow, leaders of both parties say. If that happens, some will point fingers at a bearded, slightly disheveled man who's barely known outside political circles in Washington.

For two decades, Grover Norquist has been the driving force in pushing the Republican Party toward an ever more rigid position of opposing any tax increase, of any kind, at any time. He has been so successful that some GOP officials fear they've let Norquist squeeze them into a corner where they'll be unable to declare victory even if they win the great majority of their budget demands in negotiations with congressional Democrats and President Obama.

Democrats, meanwhile, use Norquist to paint the GOP as an unreasonable party that kowtows to billionaires at the expense of middle-class Americans.

Obama is insisting that even if a deficit-reduction accord relies on spending cuts, it also must have some revenue increases. Democrats say they should start with eliminating some not-so-popular tax breaks that Norquist and his allies stoutly defend.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell "has decided to walk out on the same limb as Grover Norquist," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said last week. "It seems leader McConnell is willing to tank the economy for the sake of protecting tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jets."

Obama didn't name Norquist in his feisty news conference Wednesday, but he cited the same tax breaks.

"I've said to some of the Republican leaders: You go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them, are they willing to compromise their kids' safety so that some corporate-jet owner continues to get a tax break?" Obama said.

Republican lawmakers scoff at the notion that killing a $3 billion tax break for small jets would make a dent in the $14 trillion debt. But they have complicated their ability to parry the Democrats on such matters by signing the famous anti-tax "pledge" of Americans for Tax Reform, which Norquist heads.

All but a handful of House and Senate Republicans have signed it. By doing so, they vow to oppose any effort to increase marginal income tax rates and "any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

In other words, even a "temporary" tax cut cannot be undone. Even a tax break that seems to have lost its purpose, when economic conditions change, cannot be touched unless it is offset elsewhere.

Some Senate Republicans have grown weary of Norquist's strict interpretation of the pledge, and a mini-revolt occurred in mid-June.

Thirty-four of the Senate's 47 Republicans voted to end a tax break for ethanol production, which has come under political fire in recent years. Norquist strongly opposed the move and denounced its leader, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Coburn, who says some revenue increases must join deep spending cuts to reduce the deficit, claimed a turning point.

"You've got 34 Republicans that say they're willing to end this, regardless of what Grover says," he told reporters.

Norquist denies suffering a setback. He said the GOP senators willing to end the ethanol subsidy have also backed a proposed end to the estate tax, a favorite Republican target. The two tax moves would offset each other, Norquist said, fulfilling the pledge's demand to avoid "any net reduction" of tax breaks.

"We are pleased as punch. The pledge is defended," he said in an interview. With the 2012 presidential race gearing up and Congress facing big decisions on spending and deficits, the anti-tax pledge "has never been more important, and it has never played a bigger role," he said.

Few elected Republicans will openly feud with Norquist. His power derives from his relentless pressure on state and federal officials to sign his pledge, and his thinly veiled threats to support primary opponents against them if they break it. His website names 41 senators, 236 House members and 1,263 state legislators who have signed.

Norquist said he is delighted that the pledge is making it harder for Republicans and Democrats to reach a spending accord that might include small tax hikes along with larger spending cuts.

"The Democrats have run into a brick wall," he said, "and the pledge is there."

This guy is FUCKING HAPPY his pledge is making compromise impossible for anything in regards to budget deals! Does anyone have an idea in hell of what to do about him? Mine would involve violence on a massive scale.

[Amake]

Notice, of all the times the Reps could have voted to raise taxes, they only do it to make it more expensive to produce cleaner, renewable fuel. Methinks a few of those 34 may have stakes in an oil company or two.

[shiney]

This election is going to be mighty important. I suspect the GOP is still going to make some gains because the derp, strangely, isn't at full cycle yet. It can get worse, and it will get worse.

I'm really starting to believe that nothing is going to change until a very high profile person, be it politician or mogul of some variety, winds up shot dead. Then it will change for the very worse, briefly, and then probably open revolt.

Makes me feel like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but at the rate we're heading into corporate slavery and actual fascism, does there seem to be any other outcome? Find me a single example in the history of the human race of a small handful of super rich minsanthropists ruling an enormous horde of poor and underprivileged that didn't wind up with those super rich getting to be very extremely dead...

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by shiney

This election is going to be mighty important. I suspect the GOP is still going to make some gains because the derp, strangely, isn't at full cycle yet. It can get worse, and it will get worse.

I'm really starting to believe that nothing is going to change until a very high profile person, be it politician or mogul of some variety, winds up shot dead. Then it will change for the very worse, briefly, and then probably open revolt.

Makes me feel like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but at the rate we're heading into corporate slavery and actual fascism, does there seem to be any other outcome? Find me a single example in the history of the human race of a small handful of super rich minsanthropists ruling an enormous horde of poor and underprivileged that didn't wind up with those super rich getting to be very extremely dead...

Nope, and welcome to the Society for Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theorists now. *puts his on as it looks like a Wizard's hat*

[Marc v4.0]

-sigh- Sign me up too...

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by shiney

This election is going to be mighty important. I suspect the GOP is still going to make some gains because the derp, strangely, isn't at full cycle yet. It can get worse, and it will get worse.

I'm really starting to believe that nothing is going to change until a very high profile person, be it politician or mogul of some variety, winds up shot dead. Then it will change for the very worse, briefly, and then probably open revolt.

Makes me feel like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but at the rate we're heading into corporate slavery and actual fascism, does there seem to be any other outcome? Find me a single example in the history of the human race of a small handful of super rich minsanthropists ruling an enormous horde of poor and underprivileged that didn't wind up with those super rich getting to be very extremely dead...

Won't happen in our lifetimes because of this:

Originally Posted by shiney

ruling an enormous horde of poor and underprivileged that didn't wind up with those super rich getting to be very extremely dead...

The average American is still rich as fuck compared to most of the world. We still live in basic comfort. It's going to take a lot to motivate average Joe Blow to give up their 24/7 internet, fast food, cable TV, and air conditioned climate controlled house holds to risk getting shot for something as ephemeral as 'more freedom'.

Not to say it won't happen EVENTUALLY the way things are going. Just not for... I'd say at least two generations. Maybe more.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

-sigh- Sign me up too...

Guess we need our own thread for this...

[shiney]

To be fair Krylo we've seen our freedoms and wealth scaled back immensely over the past decade. We're still rich compared with the rest of the world, but there are a great many Americans who are struggling like fuck just to make ends meet, robbing Peter to pay Paul on a biweekly basis, and who are unable to compare their situation to those who are worse off. Without that comparison it still makes them feel like they are the in the worst position possible, and that leads right to desperation.

It's not going to take a million man march, it's only going to take a few shots and enough of the downtrodden in the country will take up arms. There are still millions of people hwo are poor and without basic necessities and that number continues to grow as policies set in place as a safety net are continuously eroded to protect corporate tax subsidies and tax breaks.

No, we're not at the breaking point yet, and hell we sure can step back from this ledge, but that would involve actual governance and maybe a step back from the bitterly divisive political stance the GOP has taken. We're supposed to be one country united, we're supposed to have strong ideological differences that can be resolved without going to extremes of lies, manipulation and outright violence, and yet instead of doing that there is a current of name-calling and purposeful division (and occasional outright violence! Isolated incidents, all of them!) that is being employed opn a daily basis by one of the two major parties in the country.

The other party either doesn't have balls, or doesn't want to join in what is becoming the fomenting of a different type of civil war; red vs. blue. The writing is on the wall.

[Kim]

Michelle Bachman is... just... I almost want to believe she's a parody of Republicans...

Michele Bachmann thinks that black families were better off during slavery than they are now.

The pledge from Iowa's conservative FAMiLY LEADER group that Bachmann signed yesterday is full of all kinds of wacky stuff -- Shariah law! Porn! Protect soldiers from showering with gays! -- but nothing more absurd than the clause about black family life.

Not only is the statement that black families were more stable during slavery than today ridiculous and insulting on its face, it's also already been proved inaccurate.

In a section of the pledge meant to show that marriage is in a "crisis," the first bullet point reads:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

Even for Bachmann, this is shockingly ignorant. Let's parse.

"African-American families"? As in the families that were broken up and sold to different slave owners?

"Two-parent"? Like the female slave and the white master who raped her?

"Household"? Do you mean the wood shacks out back where slaves lived?

It's also not even true. The statement is footnoted to an academic paper called "The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review."

Nate Silver actually went and read the paper, and then tweeted: The "source" for the dubious statistic in pledge Bachmann signed comes from here. It refers to 1880-1910, not slavery.

brb lolling