So Justice Scalia thinks the Congress voted to re-authorize the Voting Rights Act without dissension, only because not a one of the Congress people were willing to be considered "racist" if they voted no.
But he explained, it's perfectly ok and socially acceptable for them to vote their consciences, that is to vote no, on women's rights, LGBT rights, poor people's rights - I mean entitlements.
But voting against black people, they only do that, because they fear ostracism. Not because voter suppression still exists, not because black people are still disenfranchised. No, every thing is peachy keen now. Jim Crow is dead and all people are equal. Amen.
Here is Justice Scalia's reasoning: In the beginning, only a few Republicans voted for the original act, then a few more voted for the first re-authorization, and a few more after that, until today when they all voted for it. Why? Because they feared the delicate sensibilities of - Who? fill in the blank - would be offended, and gentlemen that they are, they would not want to offend anyone.
No sir. Even though they have no problem denying women their reproductive rights or to be free from violence; it bothers them not one wit to find gay people getting married an abomination and as for poor people - Are there no prisons, no workhouses?
OK, we get it. Republicans are scardy-cats, on certain issues. It's hard to play Supreme Court Roulette, because you never know whose head the pistol is pointed at. Never mind where the bullet is.
And that reminds us, voting against gun safety laws is also just jim dandy. Not wanting to look like a sissy in front of their peers is all the excuse the pro-gun Congress dudes need.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Friday, March 01, 2013
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Poor Little Desperate Debra Saunders
Really Reaching Saunders:
Poor Debra Saunders, she's getting a little desperate this week. It must be tough being a Republican in a Democratic Town, but she gets a column in the San Francisco Chronicle at least twice a week, and more this week. (One of these days they'll get around to firing her and hiring me, or at least inviting me to post my blogs as a counter point, but I'm not holding my breath.) First there was her column taking the Democrats to task for saying that the Republican's (Mitt's) economic plan was to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while taxing the middle class more to pay for it. Well, says Debra there's no evidence for that. The Dems just use the analysis provided by the Tax Policy Center.
Well, Debra, where's your evidence that it's not true? She doesn't cite a single reference for her supposition. What the Tax Policy Center did was analyze what they know of Mitt's plan pointing out they have to take what he says and make assumptions based on that because "Governor Romney has not offered a fully-specified plan. He has been explicit about the tax cuts he has in mind, including a one-fifth reduction in marginal tax rates from today’s level, which would drop the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and a cut in capital gains and dividend taxes for families with incomes below $200,000. He and his team have also said that reform should be revenue-neutral and not increase taxes on capital gains and dividends. But they have not provided any detail about what tax preferences they would cut to make up lost revenue."
Such a revenue neutral plan would logically "reduce taxes for high-income households, requiring higher taxes on middle- or low-income households. I doubt that’s his intent, but it is an implication of what we can tell about his plan so far." Understanding TPC’s Analysis of Governor Romney’s Tax Plan by Donald Marron.
Even Debra was forced to admit that Romney was vague about his policies, and that the Tax Policy Center's assumptions were logical given the information provided. But, she continues, Romney would never raise taxes on the middle class. Don't hold your breath.
Pro-life Saunders:
In today's column, she asks "where are the pro life Democrats." Newsflash for Debra, we are all pro-life. We are also mostly pro-choice. As in women should be able to make their own choices about their own bodies. It's not one or the other. The anti-choice crowd calls themselves pro-life, but they are for the most part, anti-life, after that life is a born human being anyway.
Easy to love the fetus. No muss, no fuss. No cost except for pre-natal care, which the I'm not sure how the Republicans feel about paying for for poor women, but I can guess. Obamacare, as we are all now calling it, is a truly pro-life program. Just ask that mom of the little girl with the heart condition who won't be kicked off her insurance plan by the time she's five - unless Romney is elected.
Two Faced Republicans
I guess flip flopping and contradictions are natural to Republicans. Romney was for Obamacare, when it was called Romneycare, and he instituted it in Massachusetts, before he was against it, and Paul Ryan, who is ready to disembowel Obamacare if he and Romney are elected, in 2010 requested a grant that would be funded from that program for his own State. What's that old song from the cold war era - the era the Republicans want to take us back to? Oh yeah, "Two Faces Have I"
Poor Debra Saunders, she's getting a little desperate this week. It must be tough being a Republican in a Democratic Town, but she gets a column in the San Francisco Chronicle at least twice a week, and more this week. (One of these days they'll get around to firing her and hiring me, or at least inviting me to post my blogs as a counter point, but I'm not holding my breath.) First there was her column taking the Democrats to task for saying that the Republican's (Mitt's) economic plan was to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while taxing the middle class more to pay for it. Well, says Debra there's no evidence for that. The Dems just use the analysis provided by the Tax Policy Center.
Well, Debra, where's your evidence that it's not true? She doesn't cite a single reference for her supposition. What the Tax Policy Center did was analyze what they know of Mitt's plan pointing out they have to take what he says and make assumptions based on that because "Governor Romney has not offered a fully-specified plan. He has been explicit about the tax cuts he has in mind, including a one-fifth reduction in marginal tax rates from today’s level, which would drop the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and a cut in capital gains and dividend taxes for families with incomes below $200,000. He and his team have also said that reform should be revenue-neutral and not increase taxes on capital gains and dividends. But they have not provided any detail about what tax preferences they would cut to make up lost revenue."
Such a revenue neutral plan would logically "reduce taxes for high-income households, requiring higher taxes on middle- or low-income households. I doubt that’s his intent, but it is an implication of what we can tell about his plan so far." Understanding TPC’s Analysis of Governor Romney’s Tax Plan by Donald Marron.
Even Debra was forced to admit that Romney was vague about his policies, and that the Tax Policy Center's assumptions were logical given the information provided. But, she continues, Romney would never raise taxes on the middle class. Don't hold your breath.
Pro-life Saunders:
In today's column, she asks "where are the pro life Democrats." Newsflash for Debra, we are all pro-life. We are also mostly pro-choice. As in women should be able to make their own choices about their own bodies. It's not one or the other. The anti-choice crowd calls themselves pro-life, but they are for the most part, anti-life, after that life is a born human being anyway.
Easy to love the fetus. No muss, no fuss. No cost except for pre-natal care, which the I'm not sure how the Republicans feel about paying for for poor women, but I can guess. Obamacare, as we are all now calling it, is a truly pro-life program. Just ask that mom of the little girl with the heart condition who won't be kicked off her insurance plan by the time she's five - unless Romney is elected.
Two Faced Republicans
I guess flip flopping and contradictions are natural to Republicans. Romney was for Obamacare, when it was called Romneycare, and he instituted it in Massachusetts, before he was against it, and Paul Ryan, who is ready to disembowel Obamacare if he and Romney are elected, in 2010 requested a grant that would be funded from that program for his own State. What's that old song from the cold war era - the era the Republicans want to take us back to? Oh yeah, "Two Faces Have I"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)