Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Smapti]

I can conceive of no possible reason why the people responsible for water management and delivery would need to know how many fixtures that use water are in use in a given area.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

They are exactly right and kudos to them for doing this.

If it was unconstitutional why would they need to pass a law about it? Couldn't they challenge it in court? Of course, probably because it is not in fact unconstitutional as clearly the census is in the Constitution and the 'necessary and proper clause in Article 1 Section 8 allows them to ask whatever the hell they want.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

What part of this is difficult to understand?

They are exactly right and kudos to them for doing this.

What horrifying evil are they protecting us from by removing questions about toilets?

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

What horrifying evil are they protecting us from by removing questions about toilets?

Niggers and spics. Please try to keep up.

[Askance]

Does advocating armed revolution in the face of an inability to win an election count as an "idea"? I think it does:

"We shall not have any course but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November. This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue."
—Ponch McPhee, editor of the Green County, Virginia, Republican Committee newsletter

After all, it's worked so well in other places around the world over the last century.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Niggers and spics. Please try to keep up.

I miss the days when all we to worry about were japs and Jews.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Askance

Does advocating armed revolution in the face of an inability to win an election count as an "idea"?

<snip>

—Ponch McPhee

Not of the dude's name is Ponch...

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

What part of this is difficult to understand?

They are exactly right and kudos to them for doing this.

You know of course that that's not the only question the American Community Survey asks. It also asks about:

• race
• education
• health insurance
• disabilities

And several more factors about this country that are important for legislators to know when trying to create laws that affect their citizens. For instance, if (totally made up number) 19% of citizens over the age of 55 report that they use some kind of mobility device (wheelchair, walker, those little scooters) then perhaps it's necessary to require all stores to have aisles 3 feet wide, but if only (also made up) .5% of the population over 55 does, maybe it's an undue burden on businesses. Without the survey, those population numbers aren't there to help make that decision.

But by all means, concentrate on the toilet question. Scrap the whole damned survey, that'll tell you how many more black people couldn't afford college or how many more people lost their health insurance in the last 10 years or how many veterans are suffering from closed head injuries, because you think the toilet question is stupid. Sounds about par for the Republican course.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

But by all means, concentrate on the toilet question. Scrap the whole damned survey, that'll tell you how many more black people couldn't afford college or how many more people lost their health insurance in the last 10 years or how many veterans are suffering from closed head injuries, because you think the toilet question is stupid. Sounds about par for the Republican course.

Well, no...it's not that Republicans just think the toilet question is stupid. They also think all the rest of that stuff in that paragraph is stupid, too, because government isn't there to better the lot of The People. It's there to prove which country in the world has the biggest dick (the US, of course!) and to help really, really rich people stay really, really rich while punishing all the lazy welfare cases for being lazy. All of that nigger college stuff and cripple access crap is stupid to them. And veterans are only worthy of utter respect and head-bowing reverence while they're out there blowing foreigners up. Once they come back, fuck 'em.

ETA: Yeah, some days I don't really think Der Trihs is entirely insane...

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

I miss the days when all we to worry about were japs and Jews.

And the Irish. Never forget the Irish.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

And the Irish. Never forget the Irish.

We'll take the niggers and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish!

[Hung Mung]

Boy, good times.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by jayjay

ETA: Yeah, some days I don't really think Der Trihs is entirely insane...

Well, you may be particularly cynical today, but there's a basis for your thoughts...

Some folk on the right of the spectrum genuinely do not understand how data can be used to help us understand a population. All they know is that they don't really understand it, and this process is done by the same sort of nerds that made them feel stupid in high school. Nobody likes to feel stupid.

Also, the data is frequently used to help the government make policy. Policy based on rational analysis of factual data. Those folks on the right don't like policy based on this, because sometimes it does not agree with what they want, or think should be done. Therefore, they don't like it.

Their solution is to throw out the initial data collection in the first place. Then policy decisions can be made based on ideological positions, rather than logical analysis of data. When decisions are based on ideology, you always get the answer you like.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Well, no...it's not that Republicans just think the toilet question is stupid. They also think all the rest of that stuff in that paragraph is stupid, too, because government isn't there to better the lot of The People. It's there to prove which country in the world has the biggest dick (the US, of course!) and to help really, really rich people stay really, really rich while punishing all the lazy welfare cases for being lazy. All of that nigger college stuff and cripple access crap is stupid to them. And veterans are only worthy of utter respect and head-bowing reverence while they're out there blowing foreigners up. Once they come back, fuck 'em.

ETA: Yeah, some days I don't really think Der Trihs is entirely insane...

It's clear by the fact that it's solely the "toilet question" that they bring up as invasive or stupid, that they know exactly how not-stupid the survey is. It's one of the few questions that might have a lot of the general population say 'Yeah, why DO they need to know that?" If they truly thought it was all useless, they'd use the race or education questions as examples, but they don't dare do that because it's too obvious how important those questions are. They're trying to frame the argument in a way that gains the support of morons whose only knowledge of the survey is the soundbites they hear on Fox News, and in certain cases, it obviously works.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by commasense

No, [The Week] s a reputable digest of news from media from all around the world. It does little reporting of its own, but accurately summarizes reports from other mainstream newspapers, TV networks, and Web sites. It is not a parody site like The Onion. (I subscribe to the print edition of The Week.)

FTR, I never thought The Week was like The Onion. Mine was just a facetious disclaimer intended to be slightly humorous.

My writing and speech are sprinkled with these little "witticisms" which are seldom amusing and often confusing. It's one of many many bad habits I have, that I should try harder to break. Oddly, the "talent" came in useful once -- in a Silicon Valley job I was sometimes called in to "translate" the utterances of a smart engineer who was even worse at facetiousism than I.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

What part of this is difficult to understand?

They are exactly right and kudos to them for doing this.

You know, I honestly considered simply posting "Named Clothahump" in the "design the most hated doper" thread. Now I remember why. You're a moron.

On topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/us...imit.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner on Tuesday set the stage for a bruising election-year showdown on fiscal policy, vowing to hold up another increase in the federal debt ceiling unless it was offset by larger spending cuts.

[...]

Mr. Boehner’s stance threatened to throw Congress back into the debt-limit stalemate that consumed Washington in 2011, but this time at the height of a campaign that Republicans are trying to make a referendum on Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy.

“A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation,” Mr. Romney said, “and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve.”

The Boehner comments, made at a fiscal summit meeting in Washington, were the first public shot in what promises to be the most consequential budget fight in a generation. On Jan. 1, nearly $8 trillion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts are scheduled to take effect.

Mr. Boehner said he would not allow Congress to duck tough decisions with another round of short-term measures. He also said the House would pass an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts before the November elections, and he urged lawmakers in both parties to reach a long-term deal on spending and tax changes — but no additional taxes — to head off a fiscal calamity.

[...]

Yes, you read that right – they're going to hold the debt ceiling debate. Again. On one hand, I applaud them for sticking to their principles. On the other hand, I wish they would all go fuck up some other country, because their principles are beyond fucking retarded.

[Baboonanza]

I know that every country has it's crazy nut-jobs and ideological morons but boy do you guys make some good ones. And not many other countries actually elect their nut-jobs to positions of responsibility.

I love America, and I love this thread but the last 2 pages contain some seriously scary craziness!

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

...On one hand, I applaud them for sticking to their principles...

Too bad their "principles" don't include living up to deals and budgets they've already agreed to.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Well, you may be particularly cynical today, but there's a basis for your thoughts...

Some folk on the right of the spectrum genuinely do not understand how data can be used to help us understand a population. All they know is that they don't really understand it, and this process is done by the same sort of nerds that made them feel stupid in high school. Nobody likes to feel stupid.

Also, the data is frequently used to help the government make policy. Policy based on rational analysis of factual data. Those folks on the right don't like policy based on this, because sometimes it does not agree with what they want, or think should be done. Therefore, they don't like it.

Their solution is to throw out the initial data collection in the first place. Then policy decisions can be made based on ideological positions, rather than logical analysis of data. When decisions are based on ideology, you always get the answer you like.

Obviously -- if they believed their own rhetoric, they'd actually come up with the correct answer (keep the survey, remove the mandatory-response requirement). That wouldn't solve the problem of getting inconvenient information (in fact, it would make it worse by making the data more reality-based, because you'd lose the people who just write in random numbers because they aren't going to be bothered digging out old electric bills and whatnot), however.

[jsc1953]

I can sort of understand the resistance to toilet-based questions on the census. If you're of the mindset that the government should do the minimum of what's required and no more, then they should count people every 10 years, and everything else is just unwarranted intrusion into the individual's privacy.

I don't particularly agree with this mindset -- I also see the value in demographic and economic data in making policy -- but I can understand it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Thing is, they're not of that mindset. They just want the government to do different things. Granted, there are Republicans here and there who want the government to shrink in all directions, like Ron Paul, but they're a tiny minority.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

What horrifying evil are they protecting us from by removing questions about toilets?

Facts: The Republican's worst nightmare.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

What part of this is difficult to understand?

This is funny, because your stance is based on the fact that you simply aren't smart enough to understand this issue.

You should stick to teaching kids how to strike other people with their feet. That seems around your level of ability. Why not leave the complex issues of governance for people who can actually grasp the particulars?

They are exactly right and kudos to them for doing this.

This is an example of what I was talking about.

[rogerbox]

I wonder if part of it is Republican's puritannical mindset and toilets just shouldn't be talked about in polite company.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

I wonder if part of it is Republican's puritannical mindset and toilets just shouldn't be talked about in polite company.

The simple explanation is that the subject is rude enough to be funny but not rude enough to be downright offensive, thus making for a good "hook". The same dynamic applies to the citation of "$500 toilet seats" as iconic of Pentagon waste (pardon the pun).

Originally Posted by The Devil's Grandmother

Republicans would like to have less data on which to make decisions. They're sponsoring a new bill to reduce the census. No need for pesky facts! They just get in the way.

The subject has triggered a debate subthread; I started a new thread for it.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

The simple explanation is that the subject is rude enough to be funny but not rude enough to be downright offensive, thus making for a good "hook". The same dynamic applies to the citation of "$500 toilet seats" as iconic of Pentagon waste (pardon the pun).




The subject has triggered a debate subthread; I started a new thread for it.

I worked for the 2010 Census in the backoffice. I helped accumulate the data. No one in the office gave a rats ass about how many people of any particular race or ethnic background lived at an address, nor whether an appartment was legal nor whether the people counted were legally in the USA. We just wanted the boxes answered.

Most census forms were returned by mail and the office I was in did not deal with them. We dealt with the non-replies.

On occasion, the door to door people were chased away from some houses, no doubt right wing nut jobs. Twice we had census takers threatened with guns. (A federal crime, I was told)

In the case of the survey in question, it's only the aggregated that matters. No one gives shit about anyone's shitter.

I suspect the toilet question was far more significant around the year 1900 when public sanitary measures were seriously being undertaken. Those measures probably added 20 years to the average life span of an American between 1850 and 1950.

As an experiment, just try to get your (or your parents or grandpartents) census data from 1950. You can't do it. It's still secret. You can get the 1940 data (now over 72 years old), but 1950 won't be available until 2022.

[The Devil's Grandmother]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

The subject has triggered a debate subthread; I started a new thread for it.

Thanks (?). I think I liked it here, where we can call each other names. But I'll follow the other thread in case some interesting ideas come from it.

[Smapti]

The latest Fox News poll shows Obama leading Romney by 7 points.

According to Fox News' hosts, this is proof that Fox News is biased towards Democrats.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The latest Fox News poll shows Obama leading Romney by 7 points.

According to Fox News' hosts, this is proof that Fox News is biased towards Democrats.

Despite the bias of the channel itself, I have actually always thought FOX polling was not really biased.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

In order to provide balance I think I should give some time to a Republican who has some genuinely smart ideas about possibly achieving peace in the Middle East

Hey, if Joe is white, Christian, and hetrosexual he'd be a perfect secretary of state for Mitt.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Hey, if Joe is white, Christian, and hetrosexual he'd be a perfect secretary of state for Mitt.

Joe is the congressman for Lancaster County, PA, area...Amish Country. They don't generally come in any other variety here, unfortunately.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Then what's with these Black Amish I'm always hearing about, eh?

[Gagundathar]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Then what's with these Black Amish I'm always hearing about, eh?

I believe they hang out with those Black Irish people two hollers over.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

have actually always thought FOX polling was not really biased.

Here are a few instances.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The latest Fox News poll shows Obama leading Romney by 7 points.

According to Fox News' hosts, this is proof that Fox News is biased towards Democrats.

There's only one sensible course of action left. Founding a new TV channel to counterbalance the rampant left wing bias of Fox News.

[Fear Itself]

Ken Bennett, a Republican and Arizona's top election official says it’s ‘possible’ Obama might not be put on the ballot:

According to the text of an e-mail from Bennett to Corsi and confirmed by the secretary of state’s office to the Phoenix New Times, Bennett had written that “if Hawaii can’t or won’t provide verification of the president’s birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot.”

The birther fun never ends.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Ken Bennett, a Republican and Arizona's top election official says it’s ‘possible’ Obama might not be put on the ballot:The birther fun never ends.

Hey, I'm all for it. Just as long as exactly the same standard of proof demanded from Obama applies to Romney, or anyone else in Arizona running for office.

[Smapti]

Well, seeing as it's absolutely ESSENTIAL for Obama to win Arizona, I guess he may as well concede now.

[user_hostile]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Ken Bennett, a Republican and Arizona's top election official says it’s ‘possible’ Obama might not be put on the ballot:The birther fun never ends.

Theoretically, what would the Federal Government do if Arizona refused to put him on the ballot in November? What if other states tried to do the same?

I can't see how this couldn't work in favor for the GOP. Regardless of the outcome, they win points for the controversy.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Ken Bennett, a Republican and Arizona's top election official says it’s ‘possible’ Obama might not be put on the ballot:

The birther fun never ends.

Sounds like a bluff. Pretty sure FF&C means Hawaii can tell AZ "Verification is what we say it is."

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Sounds like a bluff. Pretty sure FF&C means Hawaii can tell AZ "Verification is what we say it is."

Most likely a bluff (and a buff to his conservative cred), but I wonder how much discretion he has on who gets listed on the ballot? Of course, one doesn't actually vote for the President, you vote for the electors, which puts a twist on the whole ballot access thing anyway.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Pretty sure FF&C means Hawaii can tell AZ "Verification is what we say it is."

They should get one of the legislator's little kids to draw a birth certificate. As an added bonus, it'd infuriate the birthers. I was going to suggest used toilet paper, but that'd just seem demeaning to Obama.

[septimus]

The GOP won the 2004 Pres. election via cheating and lies. Intrade now shows Republican President elected in 2012 as 41+%. Obama is by no means a "shoe-in."

There will be many many thousands of voters who would tell pollsters "I wanted to vote for Obama, but I couldn't ignore all the talk about his lying about his birth-place."

[digs]

Originally Posted by septimus

...There will be many many thousands of voters who would tell pollsters "I wanted to vote for Obama, but I couldn't ignore all the talk about his lying about his birth-place."

Umm, no.

Those who are believing the birther conspiracies, or even willing to believe that Obama is actively "lying about his birth-place"[sic] are not going to be voting for him (even if he released that video of the birth... on Waikiki beach, with the palm trees and surfers giving his mom the "Hang Loose" gesture).

In fact, Romney might be too rational for them, and they'll be voting for the LibertwatarianTinFoilTouque Party candidate.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by digs

(even if he released that video of the birth... on Waikiki beach, with the palm trees and surfers giving his mom the "Hang Loose" gesture).

I would not believe any video that had palm trees.

Wait, did we do that in this or another thread? Who had the meltdown again?


I think the point a few posts ago is not that potential swing voters are going to believe any of the bullshit that the RWMarketing Machine is pumping out, but that it will sully their Obama irrespective of the truth. Complaints about policy differences, character flaws, etc. are one thing. It's the outright lies and fabrications that the Machine is so prolific at spreading and repeating that will have an unquestionable effect. Whether it will turn the election is another thing, and between voter suppression efforts, intentional falsehoods, and a close to majority of people who actually prefer a Republican for whatever reason, Obama as a shoe-in is a myth.

[Kimstu]

[obsessive vocabulary nitpick] Grrrr. It's "shoo-in":

Around 1620 shoo began to be used as a transitive verb, as in "He shooed the pigeons away from the bench." Later, the verb developed an intransitive use reflecting the result of shooing, as in "When she hollers at the cat, it shoos at once." Then around 1900 the verb began to be used figuratively in the field of horse racing. If a racehorse was allowed to win easily, it was said to have been shooed in.

A few years later, those devoted to racing jargon began to use shoo-in as a noun. At first it was used to mean "a predetermined or fixed race," and from that use it was extended to mean "a horse that is a certain winner." From that point, it was only a matter of time before shoo-in passed into the general vocabulary to mean anyone or anything that is a sure winner.

[/ovn]

[elucidator]

"Shoo-in" As in "shoo! shoo!". You might have it confused with "shoe in the door", implying a tenuous state for success, as opposed to a "shoo in", a near certainty.

I don't have many attacks of Obsessive Pedantic Disorder, but they all seem to happen here....

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

...Obama as a shoe-in is a myth.

"If I am elected, every American will have tight pussy, loose shoes and a warm place to shit."

Shoo-in. Not shoe-in.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

I would not believe any video that had palm trees.

Wait, did we do that in this or another thread? Who had the meltdown again?

iYOU CAN'T LIE YOUR A BRITHER THERE ARE PALM TREES IN HAWAIIAN HOSPITALS.

[Rhythmdvl]

Yes, but are there shews under the bed?