A Riddle Wrapped In Hypocrisy Buried In Stupidity

I meant to blog about this last week and forgot:

When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced a $50,000 yearly fundraiser at the Star Island home of pharmaceutical kingpin Phil Frost, it didn’t take long for the liberal Think Progress website to note the glaring irony: Frost’s company makes the very type of contraception that Romney falsely bashed as an “abortive” pill.

The Concerned Women of America are very concerned. The president of CatholicVote.org is giving Romney a cautionary pass:

The DC did note, however, that Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org, said he understood that Romney would take money from those with whom he doesn’t entirely agree: “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life. We are confident that Mitt Romney is committed to these goals.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure, keep telling yourself that, buddy.

Here’s what I don’t get. I get Romney attending fundraisers from people like this, he’s going to take money from anyone. I get that conservatives will make excuses for him. What I do not get is why someone like Phil Frost would be holding a damn fundraiser for the very candidate and the very political party throwing up roadblocks right and left to the sale of his company’s product.

What. The. Fuck?

Phil Frost is chairman of the board of Teva Pharmaceuticals. Teva makes Plan B, which conservative keep trying to pretend is an “abortion pill” and which Republicans keep trying to prevent women from using with their “conscience clauses” and crap like what the state of Alabama is trying to pass: a bill forcing women to jump through so many medically unnecessary hoops as to render the concept of emergency contraception null and void.

So why the hell are people like Phil Frost supporting Republicans who hate their product and keep spreading misinformation about what it is and what it does? Why would you do that? Why would your political activism be diametrically opposed to your business interests?

And why hasn’t anyone at Teva called him on that? The CEO? Other members of the board? Anyone?

About these ads

41 Comments

Filed under 2012 presidential election, birth control, women's rights

41 responses to “A Riddle Wrapped In Hypocrisy Buried In Stupidity

  1. Wait! I know the answer. I googled TEVA…It is the largest friggin’ drug company IN THE WORLD, specialty is generics. Worth today $18 billion. And you can bet ole Etch a Sketch will make more from these Israelis than a measly $50,000! Its most famous drugs treat MS and Parkinsons, BUT check out its long list of drugs. Since Mittens has NO moral authority, no integrity, he has fooled the Catholics big-time with this little pandering…to a corporate giant that wants to prevent Barack Obama’s second term. Oh, these hate-filled Catholics…when will they learn?

    • Thanks for the info. If its most famous drugs treat MS and Parkinsons, does that have anything to do with stuff like stem cell research? I’m just curious.

      • I don’t know a lot about drug chemistry, but both MS and Parkinsons are neurological diseases. Stem cell research is another process that ‘pro-lifers’ are definitely against but I didn’t find listing of any research this company has done on stem cells. But I do know that Ann Romney claims to be suffering from MS and claims to be a breast cancer survivor.

      • But I do know that Ann Romney claims to be suffering from MS and claims to be a breast cancer survivor.

        That would be a good excuse for Romney to use as far as his connection to this company, and it would make those Concerned Women look even more foolish and intolerant.

        Still doesn’t explain Frost’s support of Republicans, though.

      • NO, I guess not. Maybe it is just the fact that the Big Pharma industry does not want Barack Obama to have even a slight chance of re-election. He has already written new regulations against them into the Affordable Care Act…and has plans to ease restrictions and lower prices on their high priced money makers. Example: The phenom drug for Acid Reflux, NEXEUM was quoted to me for my son’s serious GERD as $302 for one month. Even with his insurance for drugs, the price was cut in half and we still could not afford it. Then I found generic Prilosec at our “Dollar Store” for $8 for 28 capsules!

  2. Mark Rogers

    SB,

    I am with you on the inappropriateness of candidates taking money from certain individuals and groups. For example, I have advised several congressional candidates not to take money from tobacco and a few other dubious interests. Romney should not be attending fundraisers with people who will inflame his base.

    To be fair though, I wonder how many of the attendees at the President’s LA fundraiser were public advocates for allowing Roman Polanski to remain at large and not be extradited back to the US. What does it say about a candidate who takes money from people who think child rape is ok as long as the rapist is a great artist?

    Where are the child advocates protesting contributions to President Obama from Hollywood figures who lobbied for Polanski to not be extradited?

    Both sides practice selective outrage, which is one more reason that so many people are so disgusted with the political process.

    • I wonder how many of the attendees at the President’s LA fundraiser were public advocates for allowing Roman Polanski to remain at large and not be extradited back to the US.

      I really fail to see what that has to do with anything. A better analogy would be to ask how many people were involved in the porn industry.

      But you misunderstand my point. Until we have public financing of elections this kind of crap is going to go on. Of course candidates are going to take a check when it’s offered, they have to. It costs far too much money to campaign for office in this country. That isn’t democracy. That shuts the door to democracy.

      My point is that I fail to understand why the chairman of the board of a company that makes contraceptives is supporting a candidate and a political party which is trying to put them out of business.

      • I think it is because their brains are incorrectly wired. It is a fact that business thrives under democratic administration and flails under Republicans.

        It seems that most who vote for and financially support Republicans do so at the peril of their own self-interest. Either this is incredibly crazy of stupid.

      • Mark Rogers

        I suppose that it has to do with my First Amendment tolerance for porn.

        From my perspective, the parallel is that supporters of the President are supposed to be in favor of the 99%, not the 1%. However I suspect that many of the attendees to the fundraiser did participate in various efforts to prevent the extradition of Polanski, hardly activities designed to represent ‘Justice’ or ‘equality under law.’ Not to mention, by the way, the idea that the President is taking money from people who are pro-pedophile {or at least pro-Oscar-winning pedophile}.

      • I suppose that it has to do with my First Amendment tolerance for porn.

        No it doesn’t. I have a first amendment tolerance for porn too. I also have a free market “tolerance” for Plan B emergency contraception. If you think it’s murder, DON’T TAKE IT. You’d also be wrong, but whatever. But don’t tell anyone else what they can do.

        But it has nothing to do with WE think at all. It has to do with the phony hysteria which drives the media narrative. Which brings me to my second point: The second surest way to piss me off is to come in here throwing straw arguments around. Really, I expected better from you.

        The Polanski case is not comparable. It’s another of your straw arguments. I’m not relitigating the case here, that’s not what this post is about. You’re “guessing” some people at the Obama event supported Roman Polanski? Is there an organization like Concerned Women of America making an issue out of It? Complaining about who was there, what they think, what the connection is, who and what they support? No there’s not. You’re making it up.

        And again, you’ve very neatly dodged the point of the post, which I stated very clearly not once but twice: WHY is the maker of Plan B supporting a party that is trying to put him out of business? You can’t answer that question. Neither can I. It’s the Republican Conundrum. Apparently self-hating isn’t just for Republican voters it’s for Republican Sugar Daddies, too.

      • Mark Rogers

        SB,

        You didn’t hear me condemn Plan B contraception and you won’t.

        “WHY is the maker of Plan B supporting a party that is trying to put him out of business? ”

        One might suggest that he is hedging his bets. Romney is the least likely Republican candidate to try and have Plan B removed from the market. He knows that the President isn’t going to move against that product so he is protecting his vulnerable spot.

        Another aspect of why he would be supporting Romney {or in the case of this argument, any Republican} is that pharma corporations live in fear of increased government regulation. There are several issues where the differences between the parties is great enough to make any pharma exec into a Republican.

        For example, the FDA regulates rules for drug trials and approvals, Congress writes laws on patents and on generics, And then there is the whole area of tort law. Since trial lawyers give a huge percentage of their contributions to Democrats, any pharma company that doesn’t support Republicans is begging to get sued.

      • ….pharma corporations live in fear of increased government regulation.

        But my point (and this is the third time, maybe it will be the charm) is that at least where this guy Frost’s drugs are concerned, Republicans are doing the damn regulating. They’re trying to regulate Plan B out of existence, based on lies and misinformation about what the drug is and does. And as for Parkinson’s and MS drugs, they’re trying to prevent stem cell research from developing these drugs. So that cuts into your argument about increased regulation when at least in this case, “both sides do it.”

        And goddammit but there’s a good fucking reason we have the government regulate things like clinical trials. This shit doesn’t come out of nowhere. We’ve had some really huge disasters in our history caused by a lack of government regulation, those very disasters are the reason this stuff exists. Read your history books. I don’t want to go back to the days of Thalidomide. What, is the free hand of the market supposed to protect us from faulty drugs? No one would take any drug if they had to constantly fear injury and death for every new product. (There’s a Tennessee connection there, too).

        Honestly the biggest puzzler during the whole phony birth control debate was why pharmaceutical companies who make these drugs aren’t telling their Republican legislators to cut it out. I thought maybe they were on their high-priced golf outings and fancy cocktail parties and we just never heard about it. But then along comes this Frost guy fundraising for a guy who actively speaks against his biggest product. That made no sense to me. And it still doesn’t.

        So I’m left with: stupid or masochistic?

      • Mark Rogers

        SB,

        Rather than “stupid or masochistic” I would suggest that he has another agenda. Some new controversial drug or a piece of legislation that will require Republican support seems more likely. It could, for example, be something that involves another practice like cloning that will need bi-partisan support to pass.

        As for stem cell research, couldn’t the company be pursuing that abroad? Once a drug exists, the fight over allowing it in the US will be tough but winnable since the knowledge will exist. That will make a huge difference in the public debate.

        The abuses of the regulatory process isn’t about things like thalidomide. No one is arguing for that.sort of deregulation. But talk to someone who works for smaller drug companies. The FDA is filled with people who want to transition from bureaucrat to drug company executive. The best jobs are with the big companies. So delaying new drugs or new procedures from small companies is a great way to endear one’s self to the big companies. Every year this costs consumers billions of dollars and prevents access to new drugs and procedures.

        This is no different from congressional staff going to work in areas where they crafted legislation or military officers going to work for defense contractors. And it has nothing to do with sloppy drug trials. No drug company wants to risk a thalidomide. Not just for the potential liability but because of potential criminal prosecution.

      • As for stem cell research, couldn’t the company be pursuing that abroad?

        Is that your suggestion? That we outsource innovation to other countries? How un-conservative of you.

        The FDA is filled with people who want to transition from bureaucrat to drug company executive

        Bullshit. The FDA, like every other regulatory agency, is filled with people who end up working for drug companies because of their expertise in how to get around regulations. It’s called regulatory capture and it’s something that big business started back in the days of the railroad barons. They’ve spent the past decades perfecting it until now our regulatory agencies are little more than functionaries of corporate America.

        So delaying new drugs or new procedures from small companies is a great way to endear one’s self to the big companies.

        Not sure what newsletters you’re subscribing to but that strikes me as utter nonsense. Big Pharma oppressing small drug companies? Shocker. And getting rid of regulations is supposed to solve that problem? Hilarious. Wake up and smell the fucking corporate hegemony, Mark. We used to have laws against that stuff until a bunch of Republicans decided that was “crushing jobs” and all that other crap you guys spout.

        Please. Give it a fucking rest. I mean, it sounds like you understand regulatory capture is a problem, but you’re focusing on just one tiny aspect of a really big problem. And, frankly, the least important aspect of that problem.

      • Mark Rogers

        SB,

        “Is that your suggestion? That we outsource innovation to other countries? How un-conservative of you.”

        I was not suggesting it. I was saying that companies might be doing it to avoid the barriers here.

        “Bullshit. The FDA, like every other regulatory agency, is filled with people who end up working for drug companies because of their expertise in how to get around regulations.”

        I am really confused as to what your argument is with me on this point. Some military officers give preferential treatment to products made by certain companies and then they get jobs there when they retire. It is a bad practice in the military, in banking and in pharma.

        “Big Pharma oppressing small drug companies? Shocker. And getting rid of regulations is supposed to solve that problem? ”

        No. My point was that if you are a big drug company, you want the person appointing key FDA positions to favor people that will look out for the big companies instead of providing a fair playing field. The issue here was about using regulation to benefit big companies.

        And, yes, some regulations do cripple businesses and add unnecessary costs. Are you saying that there aren’t thousands of pages of rules that could easily be scrapped across the federal government? The question there is one of reasonable people understanding the reasonable people on the other side.

      • I was not suggesting it. I was saying that companies might be doing it to avoid the barriers here.

        Good. Let them use another country’s citizens as guinea pigs. America has been the standard-bearer for safety. I don’t want to ditch that. We have a family friend whose wife died from taking a drug approved for sale in Mexico and not here. This isn’t some fantasy about self-regulating free markets. People DIE without some kind of protections.

        No. My point was that if you are a big drug company, you want the person appointing key FDA positions to favor people that will look out for the big companies instead of providing a fair playing field. The issue here was about using regulation to benefit big companies.

        Oh God, are you kidding me? Big companies want to cannibalize little companies big huge shocker. You’re saying they only do this by getting government employees to suck up to them? Seriously? This is the problem? What about all the laws they write favoring themselves through groups like ALEC and buying politicians through now unlimited donations. What about the way Congress has refused to ditch tax rebates for colossally rich oil companies but pisses and moans over similar breaks offered struggling green energy companies? Don’t you think you’re sorta missing the forest for the trees here, buddy?

        Mark, you have failed to make your case that deregulation solves this problem. Actually, you’ve failed to make your case that this tiny little thing even IS a problem. I mean, it may be A problem but it’s not THE problem. It’s just a piece of a much larger problem.

        This is so typical. Focusing on some tiny little thing over here, while ignoring the massive monster problem there.

  3. Mark Rogers

    Alan,

    I am not one of those people who gives Presidents all that much credit for the larger economy. For example:

    FDR / Truman: The New Deal did an admirable job of holding America together through the Great Depression and preparing us for the war but the prosperity of the late 40s and the 50s and 60s owed more to American dominance in exports, a function of WWII more than any Presidential activity.

    Eisenhower: Ike didn’t do anything to screw up the economy. If only more Presidents understood that.

    Kennedy: The inevitable slowdown under Ike, after years of growth {not to mention accusing Nixon and Ike of being soft on the Soviet Union} allowed Kennedy an opening as President. His most important economic policy was a Reagan-lite tax cut.

    LBJ: The Texan had the greatest and the worst economic record in modern American history. Where George W. Bush fought war in the Middle East without raising taxes, LBJ fought Vietnam and poverty {both badly} without raising taxes leading to the economic crises of the 1970s.

    Both Nixon and Carter get something of a pass on economic policy because the after-effects of the LBJ years created the groundwork for major inflation for a decade plus.

    My point is that to a great extent it is factors like the rise in foreign imports and well as oil cannot be controlled by the President. Arguably the most economically successful President in the last 50 or more years was Clinton, who had a fairly old-fashioned Republican economic outlook.

    • Mark:

      For the forty years from 1961 to 2000, the president was from the Democratic Party half of the time and from the Republican Party for the rest. Each side had four presidents in those 40 years. During the administrations of the four Democrats, real GDP expanded 4.1% per annum, 1.2 percentage points faster than the average growth during Republican administrations of 2.9% per annum. Growth over the 7.5 years that George W. Bush has been president has averaged just 2.3% per annum.

      Source: http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/

      • Mark Rogers

        Alan,

        I never questioned the data. The issue is ‘why,’

        Kennedy passed a major tax cut. That helped GDP considerably.

        LBJ just spent money like crazy to bribe all sorts of voters. Then there was the War in Vietnam and the War on Poverty.

        Both were fought by borrowing so that Nixon, Ford and Carter inherited an economy that was primed for much higher inflation. Then we had the two oil shocks which slowed economic growth.

        One thing that Carter should not be blamed for was the economic situation he inherited. Double digit interest rates and high inflation were barriers to economic growth.

        Reagan’s first years were hampered by the necessity of Volker’s policy of crushing inflation, begun under Carter. Interest rates close to 20% retarded economic growth in a huge way.

        Bush 43 inherited Reagan’s economy but at a time when the rapid growth the last few years was slowing, as often happens. The Gulf War tipped the economy into a mild recession.

        Clinton inherited the economy as it was ramping back up and had the good sense to not meddle too much. In many ways he was a very good Republican President.

        As for Bush 43, incompetence mixed with special interests doomed his economic performance.

        But in the case of each President since 1960 {and before}, the American economy is too large to be directed by a President or a Congress. Brilliant innovations and monstrously stupid decisions by companies play a larger role.

        I do have a question though. Do you have data on the performance of the GDP when each party controlled one or both Houses? That would also be interesting.

        And, in any case, the issue probably ought to be GDP growth two to four years after someone is President, not during their term.

  4. chrome agnomen

    well, beale. (does that rhyme?) i was going to send you a birthday present, but i see you don’t take contributions. or do you?

    • Aw that’s sweet. You know, I had a tip jar when my blog was over at Blogger and I never got so much as a penny from it so I didn’t see the point of setting one up when I moved to WordPress. Thanks for the thought, I suppose I should set one up over here.

  5. “However I suspect that many of the attendees to the fundraiser did participate in various efforts to prevent the extradition of Polanski, ”

    Facts not in evidence; your assertion, as usual, bullshit. Concern trolling is possibly more annoying than the more straightforward sort.

    • Mark Rogers

      Democommie,

      The guest list was private but I did find a number of references to major Hollywood supporters of President Obama who would probably been on the invitation list.

      Harvey Weinstein, famous producer and major liberal contributor.

      Whoppi Goldberg, who famously suggested that it wasn’t rape even with drugs and an underage girl.

      Jonathan Demme, a prominent liberal director.

      Woody Allen. Enough said on that.

      Others include John Landis, Martin Scorsese, Mike Nichols, Debra Winger and others.

      My point is that I am beyond sick and tired of people who want to take away my liberties for some public good or another but expect to be given special treatment for themselves and their friends.

      And this is not just a criticism of the President for taking money from defending friends of child rapists. I am equally critical of Romney and other Republican elites for the same thing.

      • What liberties have you lost in the interest of “some public good or another” ??? Just curious.

        Meanwhile, my liberties to take charge of my family planning are being chipped away at every day. And for poor women around the country, they damn well don’t exist.

  6. Min

    General rule: Scratch any successful business man deep enough, and you’ll find a conservative. It’s the nature of the beast, even when it makes more sense to support the other party. After all, there are plenty of small businessmen and women who are staunch Republicans, despite the fact that their party of choice clearly doesn’t give a crap about them.

  7. Mark Rogers

    “Good. Let them use another country’s citizens as guinea pigs.”

    I prefer the testing be done here for a range of reasons. One is that it is bad foreign policy to let companies kill lots of people in poor countries because testing is cheaper.

    An international standard for testing that is carefully regulated would seem best. But there is a chance that other nations might prefer lower standards so testing in America seems safest.

    “You’re saying they only do this by getting government employees to suck up to them?”

    No. But it is one way. Large business manipulating government to their own ends is nothing new. But it also means that sometimes government creates regulations to benefit large businesses at the expense of small. Which means that regulation is not per se good. And the more power that government has, the more effort big business and big labor will exert to shape regulation in their interest.

    “Mark, you have failed to make your case that deregulation solves this problem. Actually, you’ve failed to make your case that this tiny little thing even IS a problem.”

    But I was not making a case for ‘deregulation’ as an end in itself. That is libertarian nonsense. I want reasonable and effective regulation. If you want to talk about an overhaul of the whole system, I am with you.

    But the only reform that will really make a difference is for lazy people to get off their asses and get involved in politics and study the issues and work for the candidates who they prefer. Just writing more laws is not a solution because, contra conventional wisdom, we are a nation of men not laws. Our weakness is a complacent population being driven by would-be rulers on both sides.

    • I prefer the testing be done here for a range of reasons. One is that it is bad foreign policy to let companies kill lots of people in poor countries because testing is cheaper.

      Oh for crissakes. I was being sarcastic. But yes, if it’s unregulated, then I do not want them testing this crap on us or anyone else.

      They do, you know, test drugs on unsuspecting poor people in Africa and other third world countries. Watch “The Constant Gardener” for a taste of that. And again, I don’t see how deregulating makes that situation better, not worse.

      No. But it is one way

      But so what? So you’re saying people are greedy and avaricious and self-interested. This is news to no one. And corporations are even greedier and more avaricious and their self-interest is built into them by charter. By charter, corporations must act in the interests of their shareholders to maximize profits. That’s why I called it “good news” when California approved a new legal designation, the public benefit corporation. Every state should have one because otherwise social values like, “does it cause harm to people or the planet even though it increases our profits” cannot be a corporate consideration.

      Just writing more laws is not a solution …

      Well FFS who is talking about “just writing more laws?” And please bring that up to your Republican friends, because I’m tired of the GOP “just writing more laws” about who can do what, who can marry whom, what drugs women can take and under what conditions, what medically unnecessary procedures women have to endure to have legal and safe medical care, etc.

  8. “The guest list was private but I did find a number of references to major Hollywood supporters of President Obama who would probably been on the invitation list.

    IOW, your assertion was bullshit, thanks for saying so.

    You’re what, a libertardlican? One of those folks who wants to get the government out of the boardroom but leave it in the bedroom (and for SURE in teh ghetto)?

    You and Southern Beale’s other regular reactionary commenter, Jim, have the quaint notion that by saying you’re NOT a member of the TCP*, you won’t be seen as one. FAIL.

    Teabaggist KKKlownKKKar Posse

    • Jim

      Thanks for thinking of me DC. I love how Mark’s assertion of who was likely on the guest list is “bullshit” but your labeling of Mark and myself is brillaint thought from your brain supported by inummerable cited facts in your post… oh wait.

  9. Oh, Jim, you’re such a kidder! You and Mark Rogers are the ones who supply most of the material, the jokes pretty much write themselves.

    Of course you could, in solidarity with Mark, go find the FACTS that would back up that assertion of his. Take a sandwich, it’s gonna be a long day.

    • Not for me, y’all. You guys have beat this dead horse; this is now a pissin’ contest having nothing at all to do any more with the original question posed by SB which accused Mitt Romney of being hypocrital for attending a fund raiser by a CEO of a major Drug company, the one that supplies Plan B birth control pills. The short answer is that YES, he is taking money from Big Pharma against his (latest!) vow to deny women and girls the right to ANY drug or procedure that would protect them from unwanted pregnancy. The reason he compromised his ‘new principals’ is the MONEY. He would sell his own mother if she were alive, to be President…alll the rest of your arguments have nothing to do with this latest flip of Mitt.

    • Jim

      DC – you missed my point. You fail to show any proof that either myself or Mark are members of the “Teabaggist KKKlownKKKar Posse” but assume it to be fact because that is what is in your head. Your constant demand of any statement made by someone who disagrees with you on anything is to say “citations needed,” but you fail to provide your own citations for your statements.

      • I am not wanting to speak for DC here but I’m assuming DC said what he did because every time you come in here which is ALL THE DAMN TIME you promote, endorse and support the policies of the Teanuts. If you want someone to link to that just read your lengthy list of comments over here. It’s hardly in anyone’s head, in fact it’s really well documented on my blog.

        Again, you’re being a troll with this silly line of argument. You’re being obnoxious and pedantic for the sole reason of interrupting the discourse. And you’ve tried my patience.

      • Jim

        SB – I object to being called a member of the KKK. DC has no proof that I am a racist or a member of the KKK. If you expect me to just accept such a labeling then you are crazy.

      • Oh for fuck’s sake. Grow the hell up. No one called you an actual member of the KKK. It’s a reference to the Tea Party’s overwhelmingly racist bent. God your literalism is beyond tiresome. Is it intentional or just another thing you do to annoy me because you like to see the reaction? Provoking a negative response just to amuse yourself is the definition of being a troll.

  10. Mary:

    Granting your premise is right, what’s wrong with a good old fashioned pissing contest if it’s in the service of showing ReiKKKwingers for the WanKKKers that they are?”

    Leaving their lies unrebutted does NOT show them to be the liars that they are. I spend enough time on other blogs to see what happens when people are dismissive of the propaganda that flows like a stream of shitty badness out of the keyboards of the ReiKKKwing. And, actually, the sort of nonsense that Mark Rogers and Jim love to spout is emblematic of the mindset that propelled Mittunswillard to his current position. There is NO lie too big for the GOP.

  11. Southern Beale:

    Yeah, what you said. I just got off of another thread where the guy who’s saying that the new voter ID requirements being pushed by the Gestap–, er, I mean GOP are not a big deal even if they are completely wrong. I called him a racist teabagger because there isn’t any other way to describe that sort of fuckwaddery that isn’t actually worse–and I’m nothing if not a thoughtful and restrained sortaguy.

    Jim and Mark Rogers bring assertions, and nothing else, to the forum. If they promise to quit doing that I will refrain from labeling them as part of the KKKlownKKKar Posse. Something tells me that they won’t be able to meet that admittedly low standard.

    • I think it’s possible to have an intelligent conversation with Mark. I don’t mind having a discussion with people who disagree with me. But not if it’s going to veer off into trolling. For example, I learned this week that conservatives actually believe that government regulation is the cause of monopolies. That was something I did not know before about conservatives.

      Apparently this is some wingnut fantasy going back to the 1960s. It seems completely counterintuitive to me, and none of the arguments I’ve read seem remotely convincing, but it is another deeply-held conservative belief.

      Weird, I know.

      Anyway, Jim admitted to being a troll with his “I love your response to pedantic comments” schtick. Throwing bombs just for shits and giggles isn’t productive, it’s just a timewaster, and it adds nothing to the discourse. So, buh-bye Jim.

  12. Mark Rogers

    Democommie,

    “I called him a racist teabagger because there isn’t any other way to describe that sort of fuckwaddery ”

    You really do not know anything about this issue because if you did, you would realize that photo id laws are necessary to prevent the most insidious and hard to detect illegal voting.

    Today it is not at all hard to use the internet to identify most of the people who move out of one voting district into another, into another state or die. For example. a group intent on casting multiple votes for people who are not going to show up for an election could send out first class postcards to every address with one or more registered voters. Because they are sent first class, if they are not delivered, they are returned to sender.

    With that and various searches through death notices, real estate transfers and other techniques, you could develop several hundred names of people who are still on the voter rolls in Davidson County. It is then only necessary to have someone show up at the appropriate polling place and claim to be the absent voter.

    This was exactly how the friends of Ophelia Ford managed to ensure her victory in that infamous special election. Someone identified a substantial number of registered voters who were no longer actually living in that Senate district and arranged for people to show up pretending to be those voters.

    This goes on far more often than opponents want to admit because it is an extremely difficult crime to spot. To discover instances of this form of voter fraud requires almost voter by voter checks. That is time-consuming and expensive. Requiring a photo id to vote makes that a far more difficult form of voter fraud to organize.

    • God I am SO sick of people bringing up Ophelia Ford. That fraud was perpetrated because of the collusion of election workers! The election workers voted in the names of dead people, not citizens scouring graveyards for names. And the fraud was revealed, the election was voided and Ford was tossed from her seat and there was a re-election. System works.

      There simply isn’t a case where a citizen showed up and voted as a dead person. Not that Boy Wonder James O’Keefe hasn’t tried with his latest Festival of Fail in North Carolina. Hilarious. He’s gonna get his ass sued (again) before too long.

      But Republican voter obstruction efforts ARE real and they DO disenfranchise thousands of people with the intent of swinging elections to the GOP. It’s the head of a Republican voter registration firm who did jail time for voter registration fraud in California. It’s Florida’s Republican secretary of state who used a data mining firm to wrongly toss thousands and thousands from the voting rolls because they had the same name and birthday as a convicted felon. It’s the Republicans who are always switching people’s voter registration to Republican by telling them they’re really signing a petition against high gas prices. It’s Conservative “constitutional scholar” Ann Coulter who perpetrated voter fraud by voting in the wrong precinct in Florida, and had to get her FBI boyfriend to get her out of that one.

      IOKIYAR.

      Of course Republicans don’t want people to vote. When the people vote, Democrats win. Can’t have that!

      This goes on far more often than opponents want to admit because it is an extremely difficult crime to spot.

      Bullshit. Pure, utter bullshit.

      Guess what, nimrod. There are voter by voter checks. It’s called the voter rolls.

      And since we’re on the topic, how come I still can’t get a receipt when I vote? How come I still can’t get a slip of paper showing how I voted after I push that electronic button and everything goes off into the ether of the internet? Why is that not allowed?

  13. Mark Rogers:

    This:

    “You really do not know anything about this issue because if you did, you would realize that photo id laws are necessary to prevent the most insidious and hard to detect illegal voting.”

    is a fucking steaming pile of shit.

    You’re either too stupid to be allowed out in public or you’ve just furnished your teabaggist bona fides*. There is virtually NO voter fraud, anywhere in the U.S. The number of fraudulent votes cast in various national and state races is in the, what, HUNDREDS, each cycle–out of millions? I guarantee you one thing, if the above comment is indicative of your grasp on reality, you need a conservator.

    * I’m aware of the possibility of redundancy in that comment