Humorless Politics Thread

[Flood]

I think low-population states are skewing the averages. California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc. all receive less than $1 for every tax dollar put in.

I understand that, but all of these states are either Democratic states or Republican states. So in the AGGREGATE, according to the figures, all states collectively receive more than they pay. As a math teacher, I feel it necessary to say that renders the article incorrect.

This is as far as I followed the material back to the source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html – technically, you could dig even deeper and try to make sense out of the government data. I am sure the Tax Foundation, which the Mother Jones article cites for its figures, has its own agenda and POV…

[InspectorHound]

I think low-population states are skewing the averages. California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc. all receive less than $1 for every tax dollar put in.

I understand that, but all of these states are either Democratic states or Republican states. So in the AGGREGATE, according to the figures, all states collectively receive more than they pay. As a math teacher, I feel it necessary to say that renders the article incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand. States that take in more than they give may be more numerous, but because the population in states that give more is so large, the overall federal intake will be about equal to its spending. Like, Alaska is counted as a single entity on par with California, whose population far exceeds it.

[Kormod]

Speaking of Mississippi:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/a_romney_runs_through_us_03142012/

Campaigning in Mississippi last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney set off a mini-firestorm in our offices. Sometime between joking about grits and forking up some hay, down-south style, Romney uttered words that made us nearly sputter in response: "If the federal government were run more like here in Mississippi, the whole country would be a lot better off." Say what, Gov. Romney?!

See, we JFP folks cover the state government, and we watch it very closely up here in the capital city. How can we say this nicely? It's a bona fide mess. We were so astounded that four of our staffers launched a round of Twitter satire using hashtag #runitlikeMississippi to make the point that this state is no model for running anything, much less the federal government (here are our favorites).

[dave from knoxville]

I think low-population states are skewing the averages. California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Massachussetts, New Jersey, etc. all receive less than $1 for every tax dollar put in.

I understand that, but all of these states are either Democratic states or Republican states. So in the AGGREGATE, according to the figures, all states collectively receive more than they pay. As a math teacher, I feel it necessary to say that renders the article incorrect.

I'm not sure I understand. States that take in more than they give may be more numerous, but because the population in states that give more is so large, the overall federal intake will be about equal to its spending. Like, Alaska is counted as a single entity on par with California, whose population far exceeds it.

I guess I am the one who doesn't understand. Say we're at a big party where 50 men and 50 women are present. We ask each person at the party to give us one dollar. Then we give every man in the room 2 dollars, and we give every woman in the room 3 dollars. How is this sustainable? And how is it different from giving Democratic states more than they pay in, and giving Republican states more than they pay in?

[Flood]

I've been thinking that this problem might stem from confusing and/or mixing up relations (ratio of dollars received to dollars paid) with absolute numbers (absolute number of dollars received from the federal pool versus absolute number of dollars paid into the federal pool). Could that be it?

[Gilly]

Is this the year that the Christian right breaks from the Republican party at least for an election? I can't see Dobson supporting Romney, nor do I think he will stay quiet. I look at family members who are hardcore Republicans because they believe it is the Christian party and I just can't see them voting for a Mormon. That said, a Christian 3rd party would have no chance of winning, and Obama would win in what would probably be the biggest landslide ever if it wasn't going to be already.

[Smelodies]

Rick Santorum Mentioned on the Sopranos

[masterofsparks]

Is this the year that the Christian right breaks from the Republican party at least for an election? I can't see Dobson supporting Romney, nor do I think he will stay quiet. I look at family members who are hardcore Republicans because they believe it is the Christian party and I just can't see them voting for a Mormon. That said, a Christian 3rd party would have no chance of winning, and Obama would win in what would probably be the biggest landslide ever if it wasn't going to be already.

They'll vote for a Mormon over a Muslim. They may not like Romney, but evangelical Christians will hold their nose and vote for him in the general election.

I'm actually more surprised that so many evangelicals are willing to vote so enthusiastically for a Catholic. My family is Baptist and growing up all I used to hear was how horrible Catholics are.

[buffcoat]

Is this the year that the Christian right breaks from the Republican party at least for an election? I can't see Dobson supporting Romney, nor do I think he will stay quiet. I look at family members who are hardcore Republicans because they believe it is the Christian party and I just can't see them voting for a Mormon. That said, a Christian 3rd party would have no chance of winning, and Obama would win in what would probably be the biggest landslide ever if it wasn't going to be already.

They'll vote for a Mormon over a Muslim. They may not like Romney, but evangelical Christians will hold their nose and vote for him in the general election.

I'm actually more surprised that so many evangelicals are willing to vote so enthusiastically for a Catholic. My family is Baptist and growing up all I used to hear was how horrible Catholics are.

I think the thing that allows them to do it is a little technique called Total Hypocrisy.  Throw in some Fundamental Attribution Error, Reflexive Denial and Doublethink and you have social conservatism in a nutshell.

[Gilly]

Yeah, I grew up Baptist as well, and Catholicism was a cult. Praying to Mary and needing humans to talk to God, extra books of the Bible and all that. It is surprising that fundamentalists aren't batting an eye at Santorum's religion.

I just can't see my grandparents voting for Romney. They sure as heck aren't going to vote Obama. I really believe that there will be a 3rd party candidate... I don't think it will be Santorum because of the implications it would bring to his career, but somebody will pop up for people who won't vote for Romney due to his religion.

[Steve of Bloomington]

I was on the other side of it, I grew up Catholic and certain kids weren't allowed to play with us. Their houses were also dark on Halloween, which I kind of thought was a shame.

[Kormod]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/

SAN ANTONIO –  Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there."

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

And he's probably going to end up endorsing Romney after all this is over with. The backpedaling should be hilarious.

[Flood]

And he's probably going to end up endorsing Romney after all this is over with. The backpedaling should be hilarious.

Maybe there's a third party candidate he'll endorse. Constitution Party, anyone?

[Flood]

Speaking of the Catholic Church:

Dutch Catholic Church Castrated Abused Children for ‘Homosexual Behavior’

At least one boy under the age of 16 was castrated to ‘help’ his homosexual feelings while in Catholic church care in the 1950s, the NRC reported on Saturday.

But there are indications at least 10 other boys were also castrated, the paper said. The claims were not included in the Deetman report on sexual abuse within the Catholic church published at the end of last year.

The paper says the one confirmed case concerned a boy - Henk Heithuis - who reported being sexually abused by priests to the police in 1956. After giving evidence, he was placed in a Catholic-run psychiatric institution where he was then castrated because of his ‘homosexual behaviour’

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/03/catholic_church_abuse_at_least.php

See also http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/world/europe/dutch-church-accused-of-castrating-10-young-men.html

Quick, talk about Shariah some more!

[Smelodies]

How long has Piers Morgan lived here?

3 months max. Dude needs to be deported.

You guys read on Huffington about his Twitter war with Keith Olbermann?  Keith seems like he's imploding, to be honest.

Keith isn't imploding by the way, it's just that the surrounding universe is expanding so it gives Keith the appearence of imploding.