EPTOn September 15 2013 23:22 DoubleReed wrote:
What? You're just going to close your ears and refuse to talk? Why? I genuinely don't understand why you think Republicans aren't the bad guys. Could you please clarify? All you have said is that they are "nuanced," which doesn't say anything.
The War on Women refers to much more general restrictions of access to birth control. It does not necessarily have to do with taxpayers (although birth control saves taxpayers money so this is a nonsensical argument anyway). It also refers to shaming tactics like the abortion ultrasounds or requiring employees to request "permission" for birth control from their employers.
I see the world this way right now, sure. That's the tide that politics has gone. The Republicans have very recently gone full cray-cray, and what's depressing is that people are still acting like we have two reasonable sides to the discussion. Honestly, this is giving me the impression that the Republicans could talk about the legitimacy of lynchings and there will always be centrists who will say "There are two sides to this issue! Why are you being so extreme to suggest that lynchings have no merit whatsoever? Both sides make good points!"
That's cartoonish.
Show nested quote +
On September 15 2013 23:09 ziggurat wrote:
I hadn't heard about the Eric Cantor / Labour Day flap, so I googled it to find out what you were talking about. I shouldn't have bothered. How this is evidence of anything is beyond me.
The "other side" to the "war on women" arguments is just that some people don't think taxpayers should have to pay for contraception. Also some people think abortion ends a human life and is immoral.
As for voter ID laws, we actually are hearing about them. North Carolina recently passed a law that will apply to the 2016 election. Maybe Salon and TPM haven't covered it. Democrats are up in arms about it as usual, even though this would appear to give everyone ample time to get their documentation in order.
"Republicans are the bad guys". If you really see the world this way, there's probably not much point in continuing this discussion.
On September 15 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote:
I was talking about the elected officials, not the masses.
Forgive me for getting heated but you are completely disregarding the real world that we're living in, where real policies are affecting real people, and there are real problems that need solving. There's nothing cartoonish about it, other than the fact that Republicans are bad guys right now. And those are not isolated incidents of bad silly moves, they are part of a symptomatic problem. It's not like Eric Cantor later admitted that Labor Day isn't about business owners. He did no such thing.
Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women when it includes: cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood; require medically unnecessary ultrasounds for the purposes of shaming; forcing women to explain to their employers why they need birth control; and arbitrary restricting of contraception. We haven't seen this strong a push to restrict reproductive rights since Roe vs. Wade. You can see many of the policies being documented at the ACLU's articles on the War on Women.
And restricting Voting Rights is the same damn thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that suddenly we're not hearing anything anymore about State IDs or whatever? No, we don't. It's because pushing for Voting Reform right now would give minorities the time they need to get the necessary IDs. All Republicans did was spread fear about an overhyped "problem" so that they could disenfranchise minorities. And Republicans have admitted that, so I don't understand why you think I'm being unfair.
There are not two legitimate sides to all these issues. To me, this is like someone saying that there are two sides to Creationism vs Evolution. That's not cartoonish. That's real life.
Let me try this a different way: what evidence would differentiate from the world you live in from the world I live in? Is there anything I can demonstrate that would convince you?
On September 15 2013 15:19 ziggurat wrote:
Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say.
Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it:
On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:
Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to.
Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait...
And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention.
On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:
You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..."
On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities.
That's what the Republican Party stands for.
Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks.
At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans.
On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:
The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen.
On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:
When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals)
On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers.
Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to?
I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so.
The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this.
+ Show Spoiler +
On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:
At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer.
I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you!
Show nested quote +
On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:
I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage.
+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/auMsK4b.jpg)
On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Source
Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority.
Source
I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage.
One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people.
source:heritageIt would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people.
+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] +
At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer.
I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you!
The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers.
Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to?
I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so.
The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this.
When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals)
The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen.
I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities.
That's what the Republican Party stands for.
Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks.
At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans.
You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..."
Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to.
Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait...
And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention.
Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say.
Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it:
On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from.
They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount.
Source
What issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win.
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win.
I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from.
They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount.
Source
What issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
I was talking about the elected officials, not the masses.
Forgive me for getting heated but you are completely disregarding the real world that we're living in, where real policies are affecting real people, and there are real problems that need solving. There's nothing cartoonish about it, other than the fact that Republicans are bad guys right now. And those are not isolated incidents of bad silly moves, they are part of a symptomatic problem. It's not like Eric Cantor later admitted that Labor Day isn't about business owners. He did no such thing.
Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women when it includes: cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood; require medically unnecessary ultrasounds for the purposes of shaming; forcing women to explain to their employers why they need birth control; and arbitrary restricting of contraception. We haven't seen this strong a push to restrict reproductive rights since Roe vs. Wade. You can see many of the policies being documented at the ACLU's articles on the War on Women.
And restricting Voting Rights is the same damn thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that suddenly we're not hearing anything anymore about State IDs or whatever? No, we don't. It's because pushing for Voting Reform right now would give minorities the time they need to get the necessary IDs. All Republicans did was spread fear about an overhyped "problem" so that they could disenfranchise minorities. And Republicans have admitted that, so I don't understand why you think I'm being unfair.
There are not two legitimate sides to all these issues. To me, this is like someone saying that there are two sides to Creationism vs Evolution. That's not cartoonish. That's real life.
Let me try this a different way: what evidence would differentiate from the world you live in from the world I live in? Is there anything I can demonstrate that would convince you?
I hadn't heard about the Eric Cantor / Labour Day flap, so I googled it to find out what you were talking about. I shouldn't have bothered. How this is evidence of anything is beyond me.
The "other side" to the "war on women" arguments is just that some people don't think taxpayers should have to pay for contraception. Also some people think abortion ends a human life and is immoral.
As for voter ID laws, we actually are hearing about them. North Carolina recently passed a law that will apply to the 2016 election. Maybe Salon and TPM haven't covered it. Democrats are up in arms about it as usual, even though this would appear to give everyone ample time to get their documentation in order.
"Republicans are the bad guys". If you really see the world this way, there's probably not much point in continuing this discussion.
What? You're just going to close your ears and refuse to talk? Why? I genuinely don't understand why you think Republicans aren't the bad guys. Could you please clarify? All you have said is that they are "nuanced," which doesn't say anything.
The War on Women refers to much more general restrictions of access to birth control. It does not necessarily have to do with taxpayers (although birth control saves taxpayers money so this is a nonsensical argument anyway). It also refers to shaming tactics like the abortion ultrasounds or requiring employees to request "permission" for birth control from their employers.
I see the world this way right now, sure. That's the tide that politics has gone. The Republicans have very recently gone full cray-cray, and what's depressing is that people are still acting like we have two reasonable sides to the discussion. Honestly, this is giving me the impression that the Republicans could talk about the legitimacy of lynchings and there will always be centrists who will say "There are two sides to this issue! Why are you being so extreme to suggest that lynchings have no merit whatsoever? Both sides make good points!"
That's cartoonish.
In your last two posts you've compared people who disagree with you to (i) creationists and (ii) lynch mobs. And then you wonder why someone wouldn't want to keep talking to you?
edit: My original point was that the Republican party needs to figure out what it stands for. You've somehow lured me into an argument about whether the party is evil or not. But to get back to my original point, even the views you think of as so wrong-headed are not universally held by republicans. Abortion is the best example. This is an important issue to religious types, but libertarians and other fiscal conservatives couldn't care less about it.
