Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/318568/40/No-free-lunch-Kingston-staff-enjoy-abundant-free-meals
TL;DR: Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA-01) says that schoolchildren who receive free school lunches should at least be required to pay a dime or nickel or sweep the floor, to make them understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
A bit of digging into public records shows that Kingston and his House of Representatives office staff have benefitted from at least $4,182 worth of free lunches in his career as a congresscritter.
Okay, fine, they're not just lunches, they're meals in general, and they're not free, they're paid for by the taxpayers of the entire United States.
I really really wish "Republican is hypocritical" was surprising news.
It would be quite heartless if the taxpayers of USA truly minded that underprivileged kids were benefiting from their money.
Well, if you were to ask someone who supports getting rid of free school lunches, here are some responses you might get:
1. There's people abusing the system and getting more than they deserve, such as by claiming benefits for children who don't exist.
2. Children ought to be taught the value of hard work, rather than just given a free meal. [citations of this reason will never account for fact that having to sweep the floors will take away from study time or will contribute to social stigma or such; if you raise the issue, the usual response is "they should learn to deal with it".]
3. The parents can surely find a little bit of extra time out of their day to pack lunch for their kids. [Sometimes followed by 'And since they can find some extra time, they're negligent/lazy/remiss to not do so.']
4. Policies shouldn't be enacted just because of compassion. [Of course neglecting the fact that pretty much every policy decision is an expression of a value judgement.]
Fortunately, there's quite a lot of common-sense people here who find such reasons to be bullshit. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be annoyed or angry enough at the people who spout the bullshit.
Oh wow <_<
How long do you have to live in a bubble to believe argue for any of those points though?
I dunno, #1 sounds reasonable to me. It's a window for corruption.
Though unless that turns out to be a big deal I'd still support free lunch.
Letting kids know shit ain't free sounds like hardly a bad idea, generally speaking, but point 2 highlights the pitfalls.
That, and it's a lesson better taught leaving food outside of it.
Also, how much does that floor need sweeping?
I wonder how statistically prevalent abusing welfare systems are. That kind of thing gets thrown about frequently with no facts to back it up.
As for learning the value of hard work, I'm glad I spent some time working at McDonalds in retrospect. That was the hardest I ever worked in my life so far, albeit for the lowest job satisfaction. I doubt people like Kingston actually know the value of hard work by the poor, since that kind of rhetoric tends to impose upper to middle class values.
Well, the Maine governor (known for the usual slash-and-burn tactics wrt welfare and assistance) did a massive statewide probe on it, and found that the rate of welfare fraud appears to be about 0.2%. Probably less, because a good chunk of that could just be regular ATM withdrawals near target areas instead of purchases.
Meanwhile, some Texans have inadvisably poor taste in comedy.
@Nyktos (in another thread): what even the fuck
Meanwhile, in the United States: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/27/trey-radel-resign-congress-cocaine/4934741/
Curious bit of insight into what the Republicans actually want: http://grist.org/climate-energy/house-republicans-just-passed-a-good-environmental-bill-believe-it-or-not/
TL;DR: No, they are not cartoonish anti-environment villains. They just don't want their favored constituencies (businesses) to feel like they're being forced to do anything.
(Also, a bit of a hateboner for government spending is implied.)
It's always healthy to remember, cartoonish villains are very rare in real-life, that's why they're called "cartoonish villains" and not "villains".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291107/-Louisiana-s-kissing-congressman-exposes-rank-hypocrisy-by-the-party-that-protected-David-Vitter
A quick summary comparing the Louisiana Republican Party's (a.k.a. GOP, for those unfamiliar with the abbreviation) response to the Vance McAllister scandal and the David Vitter scandal.
Background info: David Vitter is a Republican U.S. Senator from Louisiana. He was involved in the "DC Madam" prostitution scandal, getting their services, and at some point, diaper fetishism was involved, as was an escort's suicide. Vance McAllister is a Republican U.S. Representative from Louisiana (5th district); recent news has revealed his having an affair with a staffer. For reference, the Republican Party in the United States prides itself on social conservatism and family values, and is frequently aligned with conservative Christians.
Vitter is very much a member of the establishment wing of the party, and he was also broadly supported by his party when he ran into his scandal. McAllister, however, defeated the party's preferred nominee in the primary election, and has fewer friends in the establishment.
Hmm, a self-styled conservative Christian right-winger with a diaper fetish... Brings back memories, eh?
FYI, J.D. Winteregg is a candidate challenging Speaker of the House John Boehner in the Republican primary.
http://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-maker-linked-to-grassroots-campaign-against-free-simple-tax-filing
No honor among thieves.
This fail by Adam Kwasman, a Republican candidate for Congress in Arizona's 1st district, needs no explanation.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/brahm-resnik/2014/07/15/arizona-politician-mistakes-campers-for-migrant-children/12701279/
The best quote from the story: "They were sad too!"
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119019/civil-rights-movement-going-reverse-alabama
A story about the progress of civil rights for black Americans in the South, particulaly Alabama...
...and how that progress is being undone, today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/08/20/the-mythical-swing-voter/
TL;DR: most shifts in poll numbers are likely more due to changes in enthusiasm level in the support bases of each candidate than to changes in opinions shifting support from one candidate to the other.
alternate TL;DR: the "unreliable voter" is a bigger deal than the "swing voter".
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386202/how-college-board-politicized-us-history-stanley-kurtz
TL;DR
1. America is the best! Shut up!
2. Stop forcing us to care about people who aren't American!
3. There are people running this who are taking steps to make America look bad!
And they're not even Americans! They're not wearing flags on their heads!I've actually been annoyed by ethnocentric history teaching and how every month is white history month for a long time, since it implicitly teaches white men that the world owes them something. Also, if the US was so concerned about not looking bad, then they should stop interfering in Chile, Iraq, and all the other countries they ruined in the name of anti-communism or anti-terrorism. Heck, Weird Al wrote a song about CIA human rights abuses.
Also, the "politicizing" accusation gets thrown around a lot. Couldn't we just make it simpler and adopt George Orwell's position that all issues are political issues? In that context, "politicizing" is a meaningless term.
So the Supreme Court of Kansas just ruled that Dem nominee Chad Taylor's name shall be removed from the ballot, for the United States Senate position.
What happened was that Taylor won his primary -- winning weakly against someone with no significant campaign presence -- and had basically no money (a five-figure sum, which for a statewide campaign is practically nothing). Meanwhile, independent candidate Greg Orman is a serious candidate with lots of money, ads, and significant poll numbers. In fact, polls have shown him beating incumbent Republican Pat Roberts in a two-way race. Likely in light of this information, Taylor decided to drop out of the race. Taylor wrote a letter to the Secretary of State of Kansas, Republican Kris Kobach, whose office informed him (Taylor) that his name would be removed from the ballot. Then, Kobach announces that Taylor's name would not be removed, because Taylor's letter was not worded properly according to state law on the matter. Furthermore, Kobach has apparently alleged that the Democratic Party of Kansas would need to substitute another nominee's name to replace Taylor's, if Taylor were removed.
The Kansas Supreme Court just ruled in Taylor's favor, saying that the letter was sufficient. Specifically, they said that the phrase "pursuant to [citation of a relevant piece of Kansas state law]" was sufficient (on the basis of a "plain language" reading of the meaning of the word "pursuant") to satisfy the legal requirement that a candidate declare that they are "incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected".
Also, enjoy this little gem:
I think I just heard the sound of someone getting pwned.
the full text of the ruling -- just ten pages wide-spaced -- is here: http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf
Holy shit this stuff is actually posted on Youtube:
Well this past evening has sucked royally.
I've been hearing that, yet I don't understand American politics that well. What happened that was so bad, and for who?
Repugs are winrars, it seems, which means more gridlock: http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/#.VFoXO_mG-So
In response to the election results.
You'd think that the shutdown fiasco would prevent the Republicans from being elected ever again, but then again, I cannot comprehend the scale of the anti-Obama propaganda since I still remember being baffled that people got mad at the Dixie Chicks for being ashamed Bush was from Texas. Modern democracy needs to work on that "checks and balances" thing.
FSJL:KDSJFKLSJL:SJRELIJF:LISJE:RLIJDX:LISJE:LF IJDL:I JSE:LFI JXL:IJESR:L ESIJF:LIJDF:L SIJFL: EIJSF:LDSJF L:IDJ i just wrote up a huge post here with basically a listing of every notable race and I used this window to search for something by accident and lost ALL OF IT
ALL OF IT
I STARTED IN MAINE AND HAD GOTTEN ALL THE WAY TO HAWAII AND HAD ALASKA TO GO
anyway, yeah, Team Blue got plastered across most of the country, losing most competitive senate and gubernatorial races, as well as several House incumbents, with a few unexpectedly weak showings too (such as VA-Sen)
Team Red picked up a few state legislatures (or padded them to supermajorities)
a few bright spots for Team Blue were CA statewide races, CT-Gov, MN-07, MN-08, NE-02 (gain), FL-02 (gain), CA-31 (apparent gain as far as I can tell), and AK-Gov (Indie/Dem fusion ticket gain), HI races, OR-Gov, CO-Gov, and KY-State House (somehow Team Blue managed to keep this one)
though that is compensated by the massive suck that is the re-election of Rick Scott (FL-Gov) and Scott Walker (WI-Gov) and Team Red going three for three in Kansas (Gov, Sen, and SoS) despite being massive jerks, FL-state house giving Team Red a supermajority, losing MD-Gov (because Anthony Brown sucks), going from majorities (supermajorities) in WV state legislatures to a tie and a loss, and neither GA major statewide race (Sen or Gov) going to overtime (i.e. runoff) due to Team Red getting >50% outright on election night
they even picked up MA-Gov and held onto ME-Gov (thanks Eliot Cutler)
also Team Red gained control of the U.S. Senate
the only silver lining of this is that now Team Red is in control and they have mandate to suck really, really badly