Republican Lies category archive

Robert Reich points out the many ways in which the flat tax is yet another fraudulent Republican scheme for robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Click to read.

Leonard Pitts, Jr., sums up the war in Iraq. A nugget:

The surge worked? We should not have been there.

Americans killed by roadside bombs? We should not have been there.

Iraq becoming more stable? We should not have been there.

Service personnel coming home? Great. But we should not have been there.

Moreover, once there, we should have been universally appalled at the breathtaking cynicism with which the war was prosecuted.

Bloomberg takes a look at flat taxes. They conclude (my words, not theirs) that it’s one more trick for making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Read the whole thing:

People want their taxes simpler, fairer and lower. A flat tax promises all three and would deliver on none.

(snip)

Would a flat tax be “fairer” than the current system? Perry plans to call for a rate of 20 percent, which is lower than today’s top rate of 35 percent and higher than today’s lowest rate (which is zero). If your income currently puts you in a bracket higher than 20 percent, a 20 percent flat tax constitutes a tax cut. If you’re in a bracket lower than 20 percent, a flat tax will constitute an increase, unless it comes with lots of deductions, in which case it’s no longer flat. If lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on low incomes would be an improvement, then a flat tax is fairer than the current code. Otherwise, it isn’t.

The undercurrents of bigotry in the voting I. D. laws are rapidly becoming overcurrents:

If you’re trying to avoid being disenfranchised by your state’s voter ID law, it’s usually a good idea to avoid being a minority, a college student or poor. As it turns out you also probably shouldn’t be 91-years-old and have trouble standing for a long period of time.

Tennessee resident Virginia Lasater found out the hard way after she was unable to get the photo ID required to vote in her state because she wasn’t able to stand in a long line at a DMV . . .

The DMV staff said there was nothing they could do.

Clarissa is busy, so Zandar explains it all.

At Science 2.0, Patrick Lockerby discusses the closed mind:

A closed mind is totally incapable of being shown real world facts. Lead a person with a closed mind step by step through a very logical process; show them a simple experiment in actual progress; show them what every kid learns in science class: what happens? The closed mind, having seen proof that a thing is real, must employ a strange chain of illogic to show that the proof was not merely impossible but unpossible. A thing which has just been shown to be possible can only be shown to be unpossible by a reverse logic in which thoughts themselves are shown to be unpossible. It takes a special thinking process to deconstruct a scientific proof and replace it with diametrically opposed dogma.

He follows with an example of contemporary Christian fundamentalists who claim that plants do not consume carbon dioxide or give off oxygen (and therefore there is not global climate change) because the Bible tells them so.

If you wonder at the wingnut ability to believe stuff that just ain’t true, click to read.

In another real life demonstration of dealing with unpossibility, Andrew Brown responds to a Creationist at the Guardian.

Robert Reich explains.

Via Truthout.

Keep up with Republican attempts to steal the franchise with the interactive Map of Shame.

Via Balloon Juice.

Ed Quillen looks for its roots and wonders whether they in cutting spending:

Conservatives say they believe in thrifty government. Think how much we could save on conducting elections if only two or three people in upscale precincts, and none at all in downscale venues likely to vote the wrong way, received ballots and had the papers to prove residency . . . . With a much smaller electorate, campaigns would be cheaper, and candidate might not be as beholden to big-money donors.

It’s all about disenfranchising eligible voters.

Rachel Maddow explains why Republicans are dedicated to stealing the franchise from eligible voters. In the first seven minutes, she provides the background; then she explains the voter suppression strategies in North Carolina.

Via Facing South, which has additional commentary.

Dick Polman dissects the history of yet another Wingnut Lie.

It is most instructive.

Clarence Page, writing at the Chicago Tribune, lists the reasons why he has decided to endorse Herman Cain for the Republican nomination. A nugget:

That’s why I want to see the Obama-Cain debates. After all, there have been some times when Cain, like other expert marketers, has avoided letting inconvenient facts get in the way of his message.

For example, he said during a GOP debate that “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.” He said that’s because he was able to get the doctors and treatment that he needed without having to “wait six months like they do in other countries before they get a CAT scan.” In fact, “Obamacare” does nothing of the sort.

(snip)

That’s why I’d like to see Cain get his chance as the GOP nominee to face Obama in a full-blown debate. Obama probably does too.

It sort of speaks for itself, does it not?

MisterMix adds a little commentary at Balloon Juice.

Wait a minute. Leonard Pitts, Jr., has some doubts about that whole “truth” thing. Here’s a nugget:

But the fact is, facts don’t matter much to (Michelle–ed.) Bachmann. She is the avatar of a slimy ethos newly prominent in American politics and life. It is the elevation of end over means, the binding of conscience and the gagging of integrity. It is permission to say whatever outrageous thing will give you advantage, to lie your natural backside off if it will win the argument.

Facts? True believers don’t need no stinking facts.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Leonard Boasberg wonders . . .

Where does Perry get the notion that the Founding Fathers were states’ righters? Why does he think they assembled in Philadelphia during that hot summer of 1787 except to create a national government? Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “A nation without a national government is, in my view, an awful spectacle.”

Follow the link for the rest his list of products from the Republican nut department.