greatn posted:

Your surprised he's an old disgusting lech?

JonathonSpectre posted:

Yeah, I know if I had the chance to gently caress a hot woman 20 years younger than me I'd turn it down in a heartbeat to prove my superior morals.

quote:

How is Rubio helping the poor so much? Well, Rubio's plan would replace the standard deduction and personal exemption with a $2,000 credit ($4,000 for couples). That's a big increase. Currently, for a couple in the bottom, 10 percent tax bracket, the standard deduction and personal exemption is worth a maximum of $2,040. A $4,000 credit is a near doubling of that.

That helps people at the bottom end — but only somewhat. After all, many of the poorest Americans don't owe any income taxes in the first place. In 2015, 40.4 percent of tax units will have a negative or zero income tax burden. That's mostly the poorest Americans, and they're not helped at all by a plain old credit. But Rubio's proposal, as originally laid out, is not a plain old credit. It's a fully refundable credit. Think about that for a second. Rubio's original proposal would give any household in America $2,000 or $4,000, no questions asked. It was a basic income. It was a massive increase in the welfare state of a kind that no Democratic candidate, including Bernie Sanders, is proposing.

...

So it's perhaps no surprise that when I asked his team about this, they insisted that this was a mistake, and the credit was in fact much more limited. "Rules would be tailored to ensure that our reforms would not create payments for new, non-working filers," a Rubio aide told me in April.

It's unclear what exactly that means, especially since the aide insisted that the tax was nonetheless refundable. But one thing it definitely does mean is that millions of people who would've benefited from a simple $2,000 to $4,000 refundable credit won't benefit under Rubio's actual plan.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

I thought it was pretty much accepted that Obama administration trotted the youtube video out because the Benghazi attack was in direct contradiction to their claims of Al-Queda being weakened/beaten back.

I'm not trying to give legitimacy to conservative conspiracy theories but Benghazi was a embarrassment to the claims the administration were making.

I am not a book posted:

link?

quote:

Still, the broad contours of his condemnation of the ACA are creating a quandary here in remote Pike County, where 55 percent of voters supported Bevin even though the county benefits greatly from the health-care changes he plans to rescind.

Dennis Blackburn has this splintered self-interest. The 56-year-old mechanic hasn't worked in 18 months, since he lost his job at a tire company that supplies a diminishing number of local coal mines. "The old guy had to go home," Blackburn says of his layoff. […]

On Election Day, Blackburn voted for Bevin because he is tired of career politicians and thought a businessman would be more apt to create the jobs that Pike County so needs. Yet when it comes to the state's expansion of health insurance, "it doesn't look to me as if he understands," Blackburn said. "Without this little bit of help these people are giving me, I could probably die.... It's not right to not understand something but want to stamp it out."

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

Good poo poo. People voting against their own interest realizing what they did is always good.

zoux posted:

Link?

evilweasel posted:

even the most religious and conservative and distrustful of the liberal media republican voter still thinks that calling the pyramids granaries is so loving dumb that he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any power at all

FAUXTON posted:

Ford

Lotka Volterra posted:

If I'm understanding your point correctly, would it matter? St. Reagan would fall within those 40 years.

quote:

Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $3.6 trillion over the next decade. However, the plan would improve incentives to work and invest, which would increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 13.9 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 12.2 percent higher wages and 4.8 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would reduce tax revenues by $768 billion.

Fix posted:

itshappening.gif

Finally. Now we just gotta see the size of the crater this shithead makes.

A Winner is Jew posted:

This is basically what Rubio said, yes.

A Winner is Jew posted:

quote:

During a discussion on whether the U.S. should allow Syrian refugees into the county, neuroscientist and atheism advocate Sam Harris continued his personal jihad with author Noam Chomsky while finding common cause with Christian conservative GOP presidential candidates who want to keep the refugees out.

In his podcast interview with author Douglas Murray, Harris lamented the “demagoguery on both sides” by the political parties, while accusing President Barack Obama of being “politically stupid” in the way he addresses the threat of Islamic fanaticism. Harris did have kind words for Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, despite admitting that he is a “religious maniac.’

“The Republicans are right to be completely outraged by this — and they’re completely crazy,” Harris explained.”This is a terrible situation to be in politically.”

...

It was toward the end of the broadcast that Harris had to take a shot at author Chomsky with whom he has had a running battle over ideology and political worldviews.

“Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time,” Harris stated. “Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile, Ben Carson does not…the fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal…but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy.”

ComradeCosmobot posted:

September 28, 2014. This happened a year ago. Mr. Williamson is still on their staff, of course.

quote:

“Right now, the best candidate tackling race relations that I, with my beliefs could get behind, is [Florida Sen.] Marco Rubio,” Pearson told TheBlaze, adding that he doesn’t see himself working for any other campaigns this presidential cycle.

Pearson said that working for Cruz’s campaign had nothing to do with his decision to distance himself from the conservative label and admonished that he is “no Jonathan Krohn” — the 13-year-old who spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2009 but denounced conservatism just a few years later while attributing his previous views to his “naivety.”

To those who may criticize Pearson for once again changing his mind, Pearson said, “they’re smoking too much.”

“I have long been a champion of conservative principles,” Pearson said. “I’ve simply decided to remove a label and listen to both sides.”

pathetic little tramp posted:

The proper translation is miscarry, the "gives birth prematurely" was either a nicety added because miscarry is such a dirty word or it's a straight up political decision that cropped up after birth control came into existence.

A quick bible lesson by someone who studied it for 4 years (mostly a total waste):

- The idea of a "literal" bible being the inspired perfect Word of God is really bizarre and has only cropped up in the last couple hundred years. Most likely the source of this was when slavery really started picking up. Until that point, biblical scholars who studied the bible for context would have been vehemently against slavery because it pretty much violated what they had agreed was the core message of the bible, i.e. "love thy God and love thy neighbour - everything else rests on this." Combine that with the later apostles writing about how we must test every tenet of our faith in the light of loving our neighbours and you end up with actually a pretty progressive interpretation of the bible.

- Back to the slavers of the 17th/18th century. The overarching idea up to this point was what I wrote about above, that the bible is a very complicated book full of nuance and open to interpretation best left to theologians who had new ideas about the bible and what it means constantly. Knowing that, slavery seemed like a pretty bad idea. So they pulled a "Steve Martin at the Carnival in The Jerk" and isolated the few quotes in the bible from the Law that talked about how to treat your slaves, saying that means the bible supports slavery.

- Of course, the prevailing theory about the bible was that "some books are the law, some books are poetry, some books are stories all reaching the same desired idea". No one would honestly advocate following the laws in Exo/Lev/Deut/Num to the letter except for Orthodox Jews. It was well-understood in the old days that the book of Job had not literally happened and was basically a Jewish parable about how the prosperity gospel makes no sense, the book of Jonah likewise except Jonah is supposed to be a funny story (those old Israelites had a reallllly dry sense of humour). The idea of the bible being literally written by God would have been met with derision (though they did believe the Holy Spirit guided the original bible compilers so that only God's selected books made it in)

- So all of this leads to the modern version of Christianity, heavily neutered from its history, where biblical debates devolve into "yeah but Matthew 24:6! So? Job 14:19!" Every verse in the bible is given ridiculous importance and is read through whatever conceptions the person who wants to read it reads it as. I like to call this "apothecary Christianity" because when you go to a druggist in the states, next to the prescription counter there are all these books that say things like "Hmm, your son's gay? Well remind him that Ecclesiastes 3:12-22. Dying of Cancer? Well don't forget Zechariah 10:1." The book of Jeremiah is obviously a story meant to show that God has a plan for us and uses flowery hebrew hyperbole ("I knew you even in your mother's womb" is probably trimmed down from an earlier version of the text that went through a series of "I knew you when you were a teenager, I knew you when you were a boy, I knew you when you were a toddler, hell I even knew you when you were in the womb!") and the idea that that single verse was included as a polemic against abortion would have been met by the old biblical scholars with looks of "Get the gently caress out of here."

Anyway, so that's a quick primer - modern Christianity is a bastardised religion of Christianity and very few Americans to this day actually study the bible, but rather get told by right wing radio to believe something and then get told by "Christian" radio which verses back that up. The problem is, those Christian left-wingers who study the bible the old way are also pretty smart and figure out pretty soon that you don't need the bible at all to be progressive / humans are hard-wired to be altruistic, helpful people without a book of morals / and a lot of stuff in the bible is goofy, so they just become atheists and it's pretty hard to convert right wing Christians from their idolatry when you're coming at it from the point of God plain old not existing.

Go Now in Peace.

Combed Thunderclap posted:

Ugh, I'm already preparing for a repeat of the VP debates, where the media went off every time about whether or not Biden was "bullying" and whether or not Ryan/Palin was "doing well considering".

It was still fun to watch Biden wipe the floor with everyone, but the "well, I guess it was a tie" mentality kills me every time.

deoju posted:

Cruz was on the debate team at whatever Ivy League he went to and he argued a case before the Supreme Court, albeit unsuccessfully. If it was him versus Clinton I wouldn't expect her to walk away with it.

JehovahsWetness posted:

Hey, I'm sure if we just took a moment to reflect we'd decide that everyone shares a little bit of the blame.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261431-carson-both-sides-in-abortion-debate-need-to-tone-down

DemeaninDemon posted:

Is Fiorina still relevant?

Despite that, Fiorina has stood by the statement, issuing a series of videos that ostensibly backed her claims.

Luigi Thirty posted:

Ted Cruz called the shooter a "transgendered leftist activist" according to this Texas Tribune reporter.

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/671088191139639298

xrunner posted:

What do you think obstensivly means?

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Police believe we're better off not knowing why this man shot up the clinic.

Jagchosis posted:

Sealing warrants esp in high profile cases like this is not uncommon (DA in Arapahoe moved to seal the warrants related to the Batman shooter as well) and not publicly speculating on motive is pretty common as well. The former because an unarrested accomplice could get notice and destroy evidence before the warrant is executed, the latter to have an untainted jury pool as possible/covering rear end for possible misconduct allegations/not say something that will come and bite them in the rear end later PR-wise (like when they said the motive for that guy murdering 3 Muslims was a parking dispute, did not work out well). But it's understandable why to view this with suspicion

Luigi Thirty posted:

I give you, Forbes!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/11/29/bernie-sanders-is-almost-totally-a-creation-of-the-wealth-he-disdains/


"Why would future rich psychology majors want to vote for this man, who would raise taxes on them and enact policies that won't help them???" I love Forbes. I love Forbes a lot.

quote:

Interesting about this is that to look at the Republicans vying for the GOP nomination, just about every single one (arguably to the detriment of every American worker, rich or poor) has called for erasing federal income taxes on the lowest earners

quote:

, all the while maintaining the highest rates for those whom Sanders would deem rich.

quote:

Sanders seeks even higher rates of taxation on the “rich.” What this should signal to the rest of us is that Republicans and Democrats are in a fight over who will tax the rich the most. More explicitly it tells us that both major political parties aren’t exactly seeking favor with the wealthy.

Epic High Five posted:

Catholic Hospital Argues Fetuses Are Not People In Malpractice Suit

Look the pro-life crowd is very serious and sincere about punishment being dealt out to people who transgress on the lives of the unborn

I mean unless it inconveniences them in any way