In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 11:58 Introvert wrote: Carson isn't campaigning on creationism, and Trump dropped the birther thing. That latter tidbit seems to contradict GH's point, in fact.
And what's more, most of the time these subjects are brought up by the media, not the candidate. Trump hasn't talked about birtherism, except when explicitly asked. I doubt Carson has said anything substantive on evolution, unless asked.
It's ok GH, your ignorance of the Republican electorate is made obvious on a regular basis. Nowadays it speaks for itself.
The majority of R's aren't Mormons, either. But Romney won the nomination last time.
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
Fewer Republicans today (Dec 2013) than in 2009 believe in evolution, according to new analysis from the Pew Research Center.
A poll out Monday shows that less than half – 43 percent – of those who identify with the Republican Party say they believe humans have evolved over time, plunging from 54 percent four years ago. Forty-eight percent say they believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” up from 39 percent in 2009.
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:45 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
It seems there's a simple misunderstanding. Notice in my original comment I said "influence". Though I can't say there were polls like this with Republicans openly saying they were Mormon...
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
What in my comment is inconsistent with the previous statement?
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 12 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote: [quote]
So you were being intentionally vague? I always said it didn't matter. Are you really trying to claim that you meant "some-maybe-very-little-but-some" influence? For a time you consistently posted about how important it was to Republican voters. Why post so much if it wasn't really that big of a deal? What type of influence did you have in mind?
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
What in my comment is inconsistent with the previous statement?
Who said anything about consistency? What you said on the previous page does not match your clarification on this page. It's something different. You used Trump/Carson beliefs and tied them to polls about how well they were doing. That is consistent with both statements(kind of, the first argument didn't really follow from the evidence), but those polls were used to make a separate argument. Please, everyone knew what you said. People who would agree with your new statement on this page.
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
On October 12 2015 14:00 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
No, they are the majority of the party, and people holding those views are dominating the nomination process. So I'm saying it's a lot of influence. More than your Mormon or 9/11 truther comparisons have implied.
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
What in my comment is inconsistent with the previous statement?
Who said anything about consistency? What you said on the previous page does not match your clarification on this page. It's something different. You used Trump/Carson beliefs and tied them to polls about how well they were doing. That is consistent with both statements(kind of, the first argument didn't really follow from the evidence), but those polls were used to make a separate argument. Please, everyone knew what you said. People who would agree with your new statement on this page.
Consistent, match, not really seeing the difference?
What is it you think I said that doesn't "match"? What argument are you thinking I made with the polls?
On October 12 2015 14:15 Introvert wrote: Faith and "blind faith" are not the same thing. Still, I agree he most likely believes it.
[quote]
So people who hold those views have influence. That's hardly debatable, and that's not your usual claim.
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
What in my comment is inconsistent with the previous statement?
Who said anything about consistency? What you said on the previous page does not match your clarification on this page. It's something different. You used Trump/Carson beliefs and tied them to polls about how well they were doing. That is consistent with both statements(kind of, the first argument didn't really follow from the evidence), but those polls were used to make a separate argument. Please, everyone knew what you said. People who would agree with your new statement on this page.
Consistent, match, not really seeing the difference?
What is it you think I said that doesn't "match"? What argument are you thinking I made with the polls?
Consistent =/= match.
Stop asking what argument I think you made. I've already explained it, everyone else knew what it was, and now you are trying to change it.
You can go ahead and make your new argument, but that's not what I was addressing so I'm not going to.
On October 12 2015 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I'm saying more than that, but what do you suppose is my usual claim?
Are you being real? You constantly rail about how creationim is causing this or that. people don't like common Core because of Creationism, it's creationist beliefs that have caused a breakdown of debate, etc.
I'm not going to go down this road again, but you are constantly laying all sorts of things at the feet of creationists.
You tried to link creationism and birtherism to the rise of Trump and Carson. It failed. That's all, really.
lol. As much as you try to make it seem as though I ascribe everything to them you seem to deny their real and significant influence.
As if there hasn't been a clear and deliberate shift, remember all the way back to the 08 republican primary.
Jeb is the only candidate to openly admit they believe in evolution.
If you think that's because of anything else besides the influence of the people who answer "no", within the Republican party, you are simply deluding yourself.
Nah, I already said that those people have influence. If you think Carson and Trump lead the polls in part of because of creationism and birtherism then well, you're just being you I guess. I suppose we can then assume from the polls that since Trump leads Carson, Birtherism is therefore more important than Creationism.
oh wait, that still doesn't follow. Nevermind.
Maybe if I state it more plainly we can agree.
It's a big problem that rather than being a creationist or a birther meaning you have no chance in a presidential election, saying those are absurd ideas is the position that would end your presidential hopes (in the Republican party).
lol, that's not what you originally said, and most people who read your comment had the same interpretation I did.
What in my comment is inconsistent with the previous statement?
Who said anything about consistency? What you said on the previous page does not match your clarification on this page. It's something different. You used Trump/Carson beliefs and tied them to polls about how well they were doing. That is consistent with both statements(kind of, the first argument didn't really follow from the evidence), but those polls were used to make a separate argument. Please, everyone knew what you said. People who would agree with your new statement on this page.
Consistent, match, not really seeing the difference?
What is it you think I said that doesn't "match"? What argument are you thinking I made with the polls?
Consistent =/= match.
Stop asking what argument I think you made. I've already explained it, everyone else knew what it was, and now you are trying to change it.
You can go ahead and make your new argument, but that's not what I was addressing so I'm not going to.
Who the hell is "everyone"? I think you read into what I was saying something I didn't say. Though it's really not clear what your problem was in the first place.
I think I get it now. I meant what you thought didn't match, the first time.I can see how it could be interpreted the way some did. Most Trump supporters are birthers and most of Carson's supporters are Creationists but they both have appeal beyond that.
Which was the subtext I meant to be pulled. That Creationism and Birtherism aren't fringe factions like truthers, they instead are large voting blocs (they make up the majority of both's supporters base).
Or more simply said: One can't win the Republican nomination currently without appeasing one and/or both of those groups with BS answers to one or both of the related questions.
I am from Mongolia as u can see. But would you agree that Trump is running a populistic campaign with no substance.I guess if I thought Obama would be a good president for foreign relations and i was wrong (he is worse than Bush). So i can be wrong about Trump.
Hilary vs Trump who would win with what percentage? It's clear Trump will be the republican candidate. I watched all his Apprentice shows and I loved Pierce Morgan.
Trump's candidacy was an ad for The Apprentice, until he ended up losing The Apprentice (his diplomacy at work), in which case it became an ad for simply how awesome he is.
I still don't believe he actually wants the job of President. If he does, I'd think he'd be a little more interested in learning things. I actually think Trump will find some reason to "tragically" rescind his candidacy, just before the primary voting starts, but not until he's milked the media some more.
Either way, I still have enough faith in people to think he could never win. Any Democratic candidate will beat him, because in some debate, Trump's complete lack of knowledge would just be too starkly contrasted. You can't just answer every question with, "It'll be great. I'll hire fantastic people, and they'll figure it all out and make it great." Especially when there is a person standing next to you giving real answers.
The Republican debates don't count, as they've been a complete circus-act, with most of the questions centered around how great or not Donald Trump is, which is one question Trump actually knows how to answer.
Commentators have started pointing out that Trump's campaign is more akin to a reality show and his numbers nationally election are terrible. And that covering Trump is a good way for dedicated news channel pull in viewers, which is feeding the reality show. I question the current way we run elections, especially the primaries season since the parties started running their candidates so early. It it so prone to turning into a clown show and is a disservice to the voters.
I would like to see the parties get together after this election and try to reign in the primary season. This year long death march of election coverage isn’t serving anyone but the TV networks. Campaign finance reform aside, this whole process seems catered to the hardcore political followers and to turn off the general population who don’t have time for this shit.
Tomorrow night is the first Democratic Presidential Debate between Hillary and Bernie and those other guys! 8:30 PM Eastern time. Hopefully this will be a battle of wits and policies and actual substance, unlike the Republican debates.
MFW Facebook pays less taxes than I do. Yeah, I get that this is talking about the UK, but it says something about how ridiculous corporate tax loopholes can be. I try to reduce my AGI as much as possible through retirement contributions, but I'm estimating my income tax to be about 8K.
Have no doubt they are not paying much more in the US. We just won't get reports on it because investigating how much companies pay in taxes isn't a priority for our news media.
It's a shame, certainly. Big business have more money to spend on evading the rules than the government can afford enforcing them. I often wonder if they should just practice in arbitrary and unjustified seizures which just happen to be around an estimate of the tax owed on the earnings. Both sides will know that it's a corporate tax but it won't be justified as such so the lawyers and accountants won't be able to game the system. Although other institutional problems in the UK would probably just exacerbate that.
Fun fact, Starbucks UK pays a licensing fee to Starbucks international for the use of the Starbucks brand. The fee varies annually to equal their profits leaving the company declaring no profits.
EU is independent not USA. as some of u think EU is just ur playground. NO. EU is independent. U can Isolate russia how much u want the average guy will always have his brain.
On October 13 2015 00:13 Sardinemn wrote: EU is independent not USA. as some of u think EU is just ur playground. NO. EU is independent. U can Isolate russia how much u want the average guy will always have his brain.
There's a peculiar irony occurring in South Carolina as the state gets hammered by historic floods and its GOP "small-government" conservatives, who fervently despise the federal government, are now begging the "big, bloated" feds for desperately needed disaster relief.
Presidential contender and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as most of the South Carolina legislative delegation, voted against the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief bill not too long ago. Of course, now that Sen. Graham's folks need help, he is pressing for the quick release of federal dollars.
When asked about why he voted against disaster relief for those affected by Hurricane Sandy, Graham suddenly developed a rare form of conveniently timed legislative amnesia.
Hopefully, the people of South Carolina won't suffer the same apathetic procrastination that first responders got when they requested help after being diagnosed with a myriad of lung ailments during the years following 9/11 in New York.
Conservative politicians seem to love heroes, but don't appear to like helping them after their heroic acts. It's reminiscent of how conservative hawks love to go to war, but don't like funding the Veteran's Administration.
Helping people in need, especially during disasters, has traditionally been seen as an appropriate and expected role for the federal government. Well, until the GOP hard-liners decided that vilifying the federal government should be the new national pastime; just as they've fought hard to gerrymander districts to ensure that they get voted into the very institution they swear they hate.
EPT
