Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40841 - 40860 of total 52577 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 26, 2013 - 09:58am PT
I heard that quote this morning, too...struck me as odd, as I've been quite convinced for a long time that most Republican voters have heads of lettuce.

Priebus says the GOP needs to find ways to connect with voter constituencies, but has no intention of abandoning their current 'conservative' position.

Seems like an oxymoronic strategy, since there are so many elements of the GOP these days that have completely alienated voter groups. However, in their shape-shifting minds, it's always an option to re-define 'conservative'. We'll just have to sit back & be entertained watching Boehner herd his pack of rabid cats and see where it goes.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Jan 26, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
oh yeah,, thats right Apogee they are only on administrative leave cuz they CANT legally fire em...


and Nature,, go suck some blowfish..

nice one ron! lol :)

also is a women going to be able to carry a heavy man in combat?
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
In the alternative Right Wing Reality

McConnell heroically defeated the Liberal Socialists from taking over the Senate.

The McConnell camp says that the GOP leader "beat the liberals" who were pushing for more drastic changes.

From Team Mitch:


A group of the Senate's most liberal Senators, fueled by left-wing groups like Move On, have been pushing a dangerous scheme to change the rules of the United States Senate and fundamentally alter the checks and balances of our system.



You see, they had been pushing a plan to end the filibuster, allowing Harry Reid and the Obama Democrats to pass their agenda with a simple majority.

Well, Mitch McConnell stood strong and stopped that scheme dead in its tracks.

evil can spin any tale to make itself look like it's the one that is saving humanity
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jan 26, 2013 - 01:04pm PT
"also is a women going to be able to carry a heavy man in combat?"

Why? You looking for a ride?
jghedge

climber
Jan 26, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
"You see, they had been pushing a plan to end the filibuster, allowing Harry Reid and the Obama Democrats to pass their agenda with a simple majority."


Hahahahaha, what a complete and total lie.

Filibustering wouldn't have been ended - just cloture would no longer require 60 votes.

In effect, McConnell is admitting that he'll never again have a majority in the Senate (about which he's right).

Really, if the only way you can keep bills from being passed is to prevent them being voted on, and then lie about the reason why that is, you should probably be doing something else.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 26, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
I hope and pray that the Repups continue to NOT change their ideology

but really, what choice do they have?


they can't become America's second Democratic party


secret: all they have to do to pick up millions more voters is change a LITTLE

just become a LITTLE more moderate, just be SEEN as more tolerant, more inclusive

but worry not, no way in hell will they do that because they will see themselves as WEAK

and behind closed doors, their self image is all that really matters to them

they are fuked but they never really wanted to govern anyway

lets hope they stay just the way they are and the Honey Boo Boos will love them
locker

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 26, 2013 - 01:13pm PT

"also is a women going to be able to carry a heavy man in combat?"...

I'll bet there are a LOT of dudes that would have the SAME difficulty...


jghedge

climber
Jan 26, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
"secret: all they have to do to pick up millions more voters is change a LITTLE"

"just become a LITTLE more moderate, just be SEEN as more tolerant, more inclusive"


They'd lose the wingnut base, though, who would form a 3rd party (or just not vote, like they did in November)

No pro-choice repub will ever make it out of the primaries - which means they lose the general.

2012 was their last chance to get a repub in the WH - there will never be another repub president.





pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Jan 26, 2013 - 02:40pm PT
I'll bet there are a LOT of dudes that would have the SAME difficulty...

LOL! sure thing locker. men have to do 40 pushups in 2 min while the women only have to 20.
but what about when the women gets preggo? and right before combat.
cost effective!

p.s. appoge their are pretty looking men in this world and i bet ur one of em' :)
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jan 26, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
p.s. appoge their are pretty looking men in this world and i bet ur one of em' :)

Wow, another rightwing intellect.

When you can't debate facts, use 3rd grade tactics.
Millions of republicans can't be wrong, right?
jghedge

climber
Jan 27, 2013 - 09:24am PT
Credit: jghedge
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 27, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
What is up with Arizona?
Who runs Ariz?
Isn't that Brewer?
Controlled by Republicons?

Talk about an infringement on one's liberties...

http://www.alternet.org/arizona-bill-force-students-take-loyalty-oath

Think Progress / By Igor Volsky 67 COMMENTS
Arizona Bill to Force Students to Take Loyalty Oath
Needless to say this is unconstitutional.

January 26, 2013 |


Public high school students in Arizona will have to “ recite an oath supporting the U.S. Constitution” to receive a graduation diploma, if a new bill introduced in the new session of the state legislature is passed and signed into law. The measure, House Bill 2467, was offered by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R), a freshman tea party members who also backs a bill preventing state enforcement of federally enacted gun safety laws. Here is the text of HB 2467:

(actual bill in consideration http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2467&Session_ID=110);

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 15, chapter 7, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes,
is amended by adding section 15-701.03, to read:
15-701.03. Graduation requirement; constitutional oath
BEGINNING IN THE 2013-2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:
I, _, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THESE DUTIES; SO HELP ME GOD.


As written, the bill does not exempt atheist students or those of different faiths from the requirement, though Thorpe has pledged to amend the measure. “In that we had a tight deadline for dropping our bills, I was not able to update the language,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Arizona Republic. “Even though I want to encourage all of our students to understand and respect our Constitution and constitutional form of government, I do not want to create a requirement that students or parents may feel uncomfortable with.”

A separate measure introduced by Thorpe’s colleague would also “require all students in first through 12th grades” “to say the pledge of allegiance each day.” Currently, “schools must set aside time for the pledge each day, but students may choose whether to participate.”

Constitutional experts warn that both proposals are unconstitutional. As American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham explained, “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”


Edit:
Presidential Oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Military Oath:

"I, _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


Far out thought:
Why would high school students be speaking the military oath… Is that the first step on enlisting them into their (Arizona) militia/army?

locker

Social climber
state of Kumbaya...
Jan 27, 2013 - 12:44pm PT


"but what about when the women gets preggo? and right before combat."...


Ever mess with a pregnant woman???...

Probably turn her into a KILLING MACHINE!!!...

LOL!!!...
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jan 27, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
"but what about when the women gets preggo? and right before combat."...

Pyro,
How many of them were raped and impregnated by their fellow soldiers?
Do you force, "when the women gets preggo", them carry to full term?

In your world Pyro does conception start at insertion?
It's really all the women's fault, right?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 27, 2013 - 02:00pm PT
"also is a women going to be able to carry a heavy man in combat?"...

I'll bet there are a LOT of dudes that would have the SAME difficulty...


Locker, so right.

It's an issue of false equivalency, and fake qualifications.

For example:

"is a man going to be able to squeeze through a tight space?"

Then you will magically see responses, like

"well, some guys are pretty small"

So, can THOSE men carry a heavy man....such as 2X their body weight?

Oh, I guess it doesn't matter.....
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Jan 27, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
Credit: philo
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 28, 2013 - 07:59am PT
more evidence that republicans (Right Wing Authoritarian personalities) are loyal to ideology, not reality:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/conspiracy-theory-partisan-bias


here's a sample:


Finally, consider how Republicans and Democrats respond to performance of presidents from the opposite party on the economy. In the same paper, Cassino and Lebo found that while Democrats respond to Republican presidents who decrease unemployment by increasing their support, Republican support decreased when Democratic presidents created jobs (or saw jobs created on their watch). "There's very little a Democratic president can do to get Republican approval," Cassino says.


Its getting to be too much of an echo chamber in here. Where'd all the righty tighties go?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 28, 2013 - 08:09am PT
Krugman nails it:

Which brings me back to Mr. Jindal, who declared in his speech that “we are a populist party.” No, you aren’t. You’re a party that holds a large proportion of Americans in contempt. And the public may have figured that out.


Cognitive diarrhea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/krugman-makers-takers-fakers-.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto&_r=1&
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:22am PT

Why Obama picked Hagel

By Bob Woodward, Published: January 27

In the first months of the Obama presidency in 2009, Chuck Hagel, who had just finished two terms as a U.S. senator, went to the White House to visit with the friend he had made during the four years they overlapped in the Senate.

So, President Obama asked, what do you think about foreign policy and defense issues?

According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: “We are at a time where there is a new world order. We don’t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they” — the military and diplomats — “tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for.

“Afghanistan will be defining for your presidency in the first term,” Hagel also said, according to his own account, “perhaps even for a second term.” The key was not to get “bogged down.”

Obama did not say much but listened. At the time, Hagel considered Obama a “loner,” inclined to keep a distance and his own counsel. But Hagel’s comments help explain why Obama nominated his former Senate colleague to be his next secretary of defense. The two share similar views and philosophies as the Obama administration attempts to define the role of the United States in the transition to a post-superpower world.

This worldview is part hawk and part dove. It amounts, in part, to a challenge to the wars of President George W. Bush. It holds that the Afghanistan war has been mismanaged and the Iraq war unnecessary. War is an option, but very much a last resort.

So, this thinking goes, the U.S. role in the world must be carefully scaled back — this is not a matter of choice but of facing reality; the military needs to be treated with deep skepticism; lots of strategic military and foreign policy thinking is out of date; and quagmires like Afghanistan should be avoided.

The bottom line: The United States must get out of these massive land wars — Iraq and Afghanistan — and, if possible, avoid future large-scale war.

Although much discussion of the Hagel nomination has centered on his attitudes about Iran, Israel and the defense budget, Hagel’s broader agreement with Obama on overall philosophy is probably more consequential.

Hagel has also said he believes it is important that a defense secretary should not dictate foreign policy and that policy should be made in the White House.

He privately voiced reservations about Obama’s decision in late 2009 to add 51,000 troops to Afghanistan. “The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president,” Hagel said privately in 2011.

If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order. Avoiding war is tied directly to the credibility of the threat to go to war.

Hagel’s experience provides two unusual perspectives. The first is as a former E-5 Army sergeant in 1968, which he has described as “the worst year of the Vietnam War.” In summation, another Vietnam must be avoided.

The second is the Georgetown University class that he taught called “Redefining Geopolitical Relationships.” He asks the class the basic question: Where is all this going?

For example, he has said that one result of the Iraq war has been to make Iran the most important country in the Middle East, and he worried that Iraq could become an Iranian satellite.

When I interviewed President Obama in the summer of 2010 for my book “Obama’s Wars,” his deeply rooted aversion to war was evident. As I reported in the book, I handed Obama a copy of a quotation from Rick Atkinson’s World War II history, “The Day of Battle,” and asked him to read it. Obama stood and read:

“And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again . . . that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained.”

“I sympathize with this view,” Obama told me. “See my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.”

I had listened to the speech when he gave it, Dec. 10, 2009, and later read it, but I dug it out again. And there it was:

“The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious” — Churchill had called it that — “and we must never trumpet it as such. So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary and war at some level is an expression of human folly.”

That is probably the best definition of the Obama doctrine on war. Applying such a doctrine in today’s dangerous and unpredictable world will be daunting — but on these issues Obama seems to have found a soul mate.


Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Jan 28, 2013 - 10:26am PT
What is up with Arizona?
Who runs Ariz?

The inmates are in charge of the asylum here.

Curt
Messages 40841 - 40860 of total 52577 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews