All-Purpose NuILX thread for American Politics

it is really never excusable for anyone to call anyone an "Uncle Tom"

unless that person is actually your uncle named Tom

even then

call him "Tio Tommy" or something, ixnay on the uncle-hey om-tay

Furthermore, it is pretty easy to tell the difference between ignorance and actual bigotry; when the offensive remark is pointed out to the person and they are mortified and apologetic, that person said something out of ignorance. When the person doubles down and says "I meant exactly that and here's why," that is unambiguously bigoted. Bigotry expressed along racial lines is an expression of racism. It's not that difficult to understand.

xp: my godfather is "Uncle Tommy", I never realized why until high school

there's actually a character named 'uncle tom' in p.g. wodehouse's 'code of the woosters' and it pulls me up short every time he's mentioned.

Wow, Obama allowing EPA to go ahead with mercury limits...although Republican Senator Inhofe is vowing to try to prevent them from being fully implemented

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/e-p-a-announces-mercury-limits/?hp

The Environmental Protection Agency introduced new standards on Wednesday sharply limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from the nation’s 1,400 coal- and oil-burning power plants.

If and when the new rule takes effect, it will be the first time the federal government has enforced limits on mercury, arsenic, acid gases and other poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.

Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said that the regulations, which have taken more than 20 years to formulate, would save thousands of lives and return financial benefits many times their estimated $9.6 billion annual cost.
...

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the senior Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, vowed to block the new regulation.

“Sadly, this rule isn’t about public health,” he said in a statement. “It is a thinly veiled electricity tax that continues the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy and is the latest in an unprecedented barrage of regulations that make up E.P.A.’s job-killing regulatory agenda.

Inhofe is one of the stupidest people in the Senate

how goes the war on affordable energy, comrade?

we will not rest until the last oil baron is strangled with the entrails of the last American worker

The GOP will cave, ABC News reports.

Are you sure they weren't intending to build a "man-cave" while stuck over the holidays?

can they get chicken sandwiches delivered to this man-cave

Inhofe is just smart enough to remember to say "job-killing" in every third sentence. This also appears to be just smart enough to become a senator from Oklahoma the fossil fuel industry.

x-post re House Republicans in their cave:

Where they will watch Braveheart some more. Here are further details and comments on the Braveheart stuff from generally annoying W. Post columnist Dana Millbank:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/braveheart-republicans-or-false-hearted/2011/12/20/gIQA2Rxz7O_story.html

Turns out they were talking Monday night about their favorite scenes from “Braveheart.” About 10 House Republicans went to the microphones to share their memories of the Mel Gibson film, Republican sources told my Post colleagues Paul Kane and Rosalind Helderman.

One member spoke about the apocryphal scene in which the 13th-century Scottish rebel William Wallace ordered his troops to moon the English. Another member recounted the scene in which Wallace commanded the rebels to hold their positions before raising their spears against the charging English cavalry.

This inspired the assembled lawmakers to chant: “Hold! Hold! Hold! Hold!”

Finally, toward the end of the meeting, Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah) bravely rose to tell his colleagues that he hated the film. He introduced a motion that all references to “Braveheart” be banned. His colleagues laughed and heckled. The motion was not adopted.

But Bishop was right: “Braveheart” is a conspicuously poor choice for the House GOP.

For one thing, the Republicans are, if anything, in a reverse-“Braveheart” position: In this fight, they are the nobles putting down the overtaxed peasants. For another, the Scots they are emulating were defeated and slaughtered, and Wallace was captured (possibly betrayed by his own side), then drawn and quartered.

About 10 House Republicans went to the microphones to share their memories of the Mel Gibson film, Republican sources told my Post colleagues Paul Kane and Rosalind Helderman.

i can't get past this sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4YlDkCIoIs

*creams pants*

Wow, looks amazing. Here's a scene from later in the film, when everything starts to fall apart (no embedding):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-A-L9LmQmU&feature=related

Anyone read Conor Friedersforf's long, measured consideration of Ron Paul, specifically those newsletters?

In the U.S., the War on Drugs arguably does the most grave damage to poor communities, especially in black and Latino neighborhoods, where the majority of arrests take place, though whites use drugs more often. The greatest threat to an ethnic minority in the United States isn't that doctrinaire libertarians are going to reverse the Civil Rights Act -- it's that Muslim Americans or immigrants are going to be held without trial in the aftermath of a future terrorist attack because we've allowed our and their civil liberties to erode.

Were it 1964, I'd never vote for Paul, precisely because my desire to protect and expand liberty would've placed the highest priority on the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Paul once said in a speech that "the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty," despite the fact that it clearly enhanced the individual liberty of blacks, the group the state was most implicated in transgressing against.

But it is not 1964. Other injustices better define our times. In 2012, when accused terrorists are held indefinitely without charges or trial, and folks accused of drug possession have their doors broken down by flash-grenade wielding SWAT teams in no-knock raids, Paul would arguably protect the rights of racial, religious or ethnic minority groups better than Obama, regardless of whether Paul is now or ever was a racist, and irrespective of the fact that Obama, as the first black president, has in some ways transformed Americans' thinking on race. (LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act, was not know for his personal progressivism on race or women's rights, but he nonetheless backed policies that had powerful consequences for women and minorities)

weigl also argued today that whatever else the issues with the newsletter story, what it definitely shows is a ~management problem~: people brought these up in 2008 and he still hasn't come up with a better answer for the cameras than "this is old news"?

Ron Paul walks off of CNN interview when pressed about newsletters. FEELIN' THE HEAT.

thanks for that article, soto

my pleasure!

Woody Harrelson as Steve Schmidt? I'm there.

For example: What American policy most hurts people who'd be a minority group in this country?

I am clearly not as liberal as I like to think I am because I think this is an irrelevant question. I'm not voting for a person to implement policies to protect citizens of the entire world; I am voting for a person to implement policies to protect citizens of the United States. Asking that question implies that it is America's responsibility to run and protect the world; I do not believe that to be the case. I think it is the United Nations' responsibility to run and protect the world and I wish that organization had more power to exert influence over its stronger, more affluent members (like us).

Woody Harrelson as Steve Schmidt? I'm there.

― C.K. Dexter Holland, Thursday, 22 December 2011 17:25 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

lol
also the first time i saw harris as mccain it seemed a good fit but even over the course of the trailer he seems to try progressively less and less. i wonder if he has that kinda static, stiff thing mccain has.

JM looks good, idk if she is gonna bring her 30 rock boston accent to the role or no

oh i see were discussing that friedersdorf article in two threads

kind of dont get why this is an issue that requires lengthy exegesis

the guy will never be president? hes also a dick? like if you are a libertarian i dont see what the upside is to continued support for ron paul

we need something to distract us from gift buying.

hey guys guess what, boehner's caving

NRO's genius says the Dems lost this one in the long term. I don't understand his a-ha glee. Most people know the payroll tax...is a tax (Frances Perkins among other libs in the FDR administration hated it for this reason).

Yeah that guy!

Dems win? Dems lose? Won't somebody think of the children?

children of dem

children of nebb: say what up to u mans the dems

children of nebb!

i had a display name on old ilx that was "say what up to u bam and dems"

*pats self on back*

wow

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/us/michigan-city-of-troy-led-by-tea-party-mayor-rejects-federal-dollars.html

haha holy fuck

The transit fight is not Mayor Daniels’s first brush with controversy. Earlier this month, it was revealed that she posted a message to her Facebook page last June, after New York State approved same-sex marriage, stating, “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

omg

omg

― suggest biffa (henrietta lacks), Friday, December 23, 2011 1:29 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

marvel at the Amazing Krauthammer's hypocritical and self-serving convolutions!

he called a tax cut a bribe!

Ultra-rich voters cannot be bribed. They are above all that. Their tax cuts are merely the reward for being such magnificent job creators, which they graciously accept and then put to work for the glory of America.

they can't seem to be bothered with that either these days.

shhh! someone will hear you.

children of nebb!

nebbioli?

Obama issuing signing statements along side signed bills like Bush did

When President Obama signed a budget bill on Friday, he issued a signing statement claiming a right to bypass dozens of provisions that placed requirements or restrictions on the executive branch, saying he had “well-founded constitutional objections” to the new statutes.

Among them, he singled out two sections barring the use of money to transfer prisoners from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States and limiting the ability of the government to transfer them to the custody or control of foreign countries. Mr. Obama said he would apply them in a way that avoided infringing on his powers, without any specific explanation of what that meant.

He also singled out 14 provisions that he said infringed upon his power to conduct foreign affairs…. “I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations,” Mr. Obama wrote.

disgusting & disgraceful