Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41121 - 41140 of total 52605 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
Feb 14, 2013 - 09:44am PT
Democracy, it’s the worse possible solution except for all the other solutions.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Feb 14, 2013 - 09:45am PT


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xEYFFiEnUjQ
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 14, 2013 - 10:42am PT
California should be worthwhile to watch, since it is under the complete control of left-wing Democrats. It will be particularly interesting to see how California deals with its liability for public employee pensions, and what it does with its debt as interest rates rise. It will also be educational to see how the fate of California's poor and middle class changes, if at all, during this time.

If I weren't living here, I think it would be a fascinating state to study, as it will either be a model for the future, or a cautionary tale of what to avoid. Unfortunately, I feel like I'm in an involuntary experiment that could have unanticipated (by the ruling class) and frightening side effects, but time will tell. This is one instance in which I sincerely hope I'm wrong, since family obligations require that my wife and I live in California for the foreseeable future, and we consequently will experience directly the effects of the gentle mercies of the leftist rulers of this state.

John
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:02am PT
Come on John, your leftiness is showing. (Leftiness is claiming everyone who isn't conservative is a far left liberal).

Jerry Brown is governing as a left wing democrat or a leftist? Not!

His budget last year made deep cuts to social services, that's leftist?

When we discovered we now have a surplus he said let's not spend it on social programs again that may need to be cut. Let's invest it in infrastructure, etc. that will grow our economy.

California is being governed by a centrist or at least moderate Democrat. With the dysfunction of modern Republicans sidelined I predict CA will be doing great in the future and will be a model for the rest of the country and you'll see Rebubs further marginalized nationally. Hopefully the Reps will get the message and become more centrist/moderate themselves and then they'll provide a good counter-balance to the dems instead of the right wing, truthiness fools they are now. But I'm not holding my breath, with Rubio's 'the goverment can't change the weather' comment you can still see they aren't dealing with facts and reason, they can't even tell the difference between climate and weather.

Edit: I'm hoping Brown gets re-elected then doesn't need the public employee unions anymore and I'll bet he does serious pension reform for them (the furloughs show he's willing to stand up to them).
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 14, 2013 - 11:45am PT
Good point, the Fet. I agree that Brown is governing as a relatively centrist Democrat. The Legislature, not Brown, inspired my characterization of California governance. That and, as you point out, the current mandatory Democratic obeisance to public employee unions, which limits how close to the center any non-Central Valley Democrat can drift.

To his credit, Brown has grown. Thirty-five years ago, the thought of Brown as the last bastion of reason in California would have been terrifying. Now, I think he's actually doing a decent job.

John
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 14, 2013 - 12:34pm PT
JohnE,

a few days ago you said, to paraphrase, that the lives of children (seatbelt laws) are secondary to the "liberty" of the adults in the car to make them buckle up or not.

Perhaps you missed my asking if you were trolling, low on coffee, or stand by that.

Appreciate your confirmation or non.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Feb 14, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
You're right, Norton, I missed it.

No, I wasn't trolling. I just may have stated the concept poorly. I don't think we've reached the point of negative marginal returns in child restraints. (As a matter of full disclosure: my father owned a one-man retail store specializing in baby furniture, including child safety seats. He was an advocate of using them long before regulators knew anything about the topic).

The only point I was making was that it would be possible to be so restrictive that the restrictions aren't worth the marginal increase in safety. For example, suppose we decided that anyone weighing less than 100 pounds must be in an approved restraining seat, and can only ride in the back seat. That would affect lots of adults, depriving many of the ability to drive themselves, and probably have almost no incremental benefit on safety in vehicles equipped with appropriate adult restraints.

What gets me going is when I hear someone promoting a proposed safety regulation with the phrase "If it saves just one life, it's worth it." As an economist, I always ask "What's the marginal cost of that change, and what are the marginal benefits?"

As an example of a regulation that was adopted without ever asking that question, consider the law in California that new drivers under the age of 18 cannot take passengers under the age of 25. Its effect has been to cause traffic jams of teenage drivers driving alone. In a place like Fresno, I question whether the marginal increase in teenage safety outweighs the marginal increase in air pollution, gasoline consumption, parking lot and highway congestion (particularly when high schools start and end their day), and any of a number of other costs unmeasured by those promoting the regulation.

Does that help?

John
jghedge

climber
Feb 14, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
"(particularly when high schools start and end their day)"

People learn pretty quickly to stay away from high schools when they let out, I live blocks away from a 5000 student school, and avoid it like the plague from 3pm to 4

Just basic common sense
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Feb 14, 2013 - 04:51pm PT
Never understood why CA doesn't use more school busses (I grew up in PA). Why does everybody drive their kids to school in separate cars?

On my street alone, with 12 houses, we have at least three families that take their kids to the same school every day in separate cars.

One school bus with a two mile route could probably reduce traffic at the local elementary school by fifty cars a day.

Yeah, I suppose I could work to change this in my neighborhood, but it seems to be a cultural thing here in CA.
jghedge

climber
Feb 14, 2013 - 04:53pm PT

The Grand Old Jurassic Party

http://prospect.org/article/grand-old-jurassic-party


The Republican Party is a presidential election away from extinction. If it can’t win the 2016 contest, and unless it has bolstered its congressional presence beyond the benefits of gerrymandered redistricting—which is to say not only retaking the Senate but polling more votes than the opposition nationally—the party will die. It will die not for reasons of “branding” or marketing or electoral cosmetics but because the party is at odds with the inevitable American trajectory in the direction of liberty, and with its own nature; paradoxically the party of Abraham Lincoln, which once saved the Union and which gives such passionate lip service to constitutionality, has come to embody the values of the Confederacy in its hostility to constitutional federalism and the civil bonds that the founding document codifies. The Republican Party will vanish not because of what its says but because of what it believes, not because of how it presents itself but because of who it is when it thinks no one is looking.

The contention by some that the GOP has an identity crisis is nonsense. It’s hard to remember any political organization in the last half century that had a clearer idea of itself. The party’s problem isn’t what it doesn’t know but what everyone else does know, which is that—as displayed in Congress on Tuesday night at the president’s State of the Union address, when Republicans could barely muster perfunctory support for the most benign positions favoring fair pay and opposing domestic violence—the party apparently despises women, gays, Latinos, African Americans, the poor, and the old. The more indelible this impression becomes, the more impossible it will be for even an estimable candidate, be it Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or the now famously desiccated Marco Rubio, to transcend the party that nominates him. This isn’t to say that the argument for limited government will die with the party. It has been part of the American conversation since James Madison and Alexander Hamilton squared off over the Constitution in 1789, with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams each in their corners holding the coats of their respective protégés. The intent of the argument, however, has changed from an essential advocacy of freedom to retribution against the weak.

The Republican Party was born of the most righteous of purposes, which was the containment and eventual elimination of slavery. Trumping the party’s love of the free market was the insistence that a human being should not be one of that market’s commodities: FREE LABOR, FREE LAND, FREE MEN was the party’s manifesto in the 1850s. Four decades after Lincoln, the party under Theodore Roosevelt believed that the captains, colonels, and generals of industry who most profited from the market had become the market’s biggest threat and needed to be constrained for the market’s sake. In the 1960s the candidacy of Barry Goldwater represented not the birth of modern corporate conservatism as later embodied by President Ronald Reagan and then Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and Eric Cantor, but a libertarianism more practical and less unhinged than the present-day version. Sometime in the last 30 years, however, the party became a flack to corporate culture at the expense of either freedom or individualism, and as the country grows more economically oligarchic, the Republican Party that best reflects that oligarchy loses political credibility with the public.

What the current party shares in its collective psychosis with the party of the ’60s is its yearning for martyrdom. If it’s true that what hold on power the GOP still has lies in congressional districts more and more resembling outliers—a power that will die off as figuratively as the constituents of those districts die off literally—it’s also true that many in the party are gripped by the death wish that thrills all martyrs and leaves them moist for self-annihilation. These Republicans have a different notion from other modern political parties of what a party is supposed to be. They don’t see a party as a coalition of disparate interests having just enough in common that together everyone gets what they need, if not what they want. Republicans believe that, definitionally, a party signifies principles so unyielding that any compromise of anything at all renders the party meaningless. Nothing better indicates the theocratic personality of the party than that the very notion of coalition is corrupt, even debased, like a congregation that allows infidels in its ranks. In the last couple of weeks a national poll reported that by three to two, Democrats are willing to compromise on certain things in order to achieve other, larger things. Among Republicans, the numbers are exactly the reverse. It’s not unreasonable that true believers conclude Karl Rove—as responsible as any single person for what the party has become—is now a hack, given that he is one and always has been, and given what for true believers is the rather belated revelation that Rove loves power for its own sake which, whatever else may be so, can’t be said of the party’s zealots.

Self cannibalization is the instinct of such movements. The more desperate the Republican Party becomes, the more voraciously it devours its Robespierres, Dantons, Héberts, if such comparisons don’t unduly flatter the romantic delusions of self-styled Republican Jacobins. Thus Senator Rubio’s superstardom is already on the descent, so blemished by his flirtations with reality not to mention with compassion on the matter of immigration reform that not only did he back away from the issue in his response to the president on Tuesday but it was necessary for Kentucky Senator Rand Paul to offer another, purer response to Rubio’s tainted one. Thus the face of Hispanic Republicanism, however far beyond the oxymoronic such a concept lurches, isn’t Rubio on Tuesday night but Tuesday afternoon’s new hotshot Ted Cruz, senator from Texas for 43 days and attacking the character of Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel so ruthlessly and without any facts that even fellow Hagel opponent John McCain objected. Thus the scowling response of congressional Republicans Tuesday night to the president’s clarion call on behalf of voting rights, which was last regarded as controversial 50 years ago by Southern segregationists and might have been considered in 2013 something of a gimme as far as applause lines go. Thus on further review the videotape reveals Speaker John Boehner—who initially stood with the rest of the country to applaud the victims of gun violence during the State of the Union’s concluding litany—looking out nervously at his seething and largely unmoved caucus (which leads him far more than he leads them) and, realizing the error of his heart, taking his seat again halfway through the honor roll of the dead, by the time the president got to Tucson.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 14, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
John, yes, your reply does help to reverse your earlier statement.

I am relieved that you really do not believe what you said, we all make gaffs.

Certainly then, you do believe that child restraints laws do not inconvenience the car's adult's "liberties" over the child's safety and that such laws are good and effective common sense legislation, unlike I grant you many other laws.

Simple and clear, thank you.



jghedge

climber
Feb 14, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
"One school bus with a two mile route could probably reduce traffic at the local elementary school by fifty cars a day."

Arguably the worst traffic snarl in LA is Sunset Blvd west of the 405 when school lets out - it's in Brentwood and Pacific Palisades, and the street is lined with private schools, and is a parking lot of Land Rover SUV's from 2:30 till sunset
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Feb 14, 2013 - 06:48pm PT



 Repubs don't mind it when men beat women…. Disgraceful
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Feb 14, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
As an example of a regulation that was adopted without ever asking that question, consider the law in California that new drivers under the age of 18 cannot take passengers under the age of 25. Its effect has been to cause traffic jams of teenage drivers driving alone. In a place like Fresno, I question whether the marginal increase in teenage safety outweighs the marginal increase in air pollution, gasoline consumption, parking lot and highway congestion (particularly when high schools start and end their day), and any of a number of other costs unmeasured by those promoting the regulation.


John, I think you fall prey to "internet thinking".....that is, if you haven't reviewed the information, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone.

There is a rather large body of information on the effects of a teen driving, with a passenger who is not significantly older. It serves as a major distraction, and creates a situation rather worse that if the teen was roaring drunk. I'm sure you are not a supporter of preserving the freedom to drive drunk?

For example:

Experts have long known that peer passengers increase teen driver crash risk. What hasn’t been well understood was how they increase crash risk.


The first study surveyed 198 teen drivers and found that teens who are most likely to drive with multiple passengers shared the following characteristics: considered themselves “thrill-seekers,” perceived their parents as not setting rules or monitoring their whereabouts, and possessed a weak perception of the risks associated with driving in general.

“Both male and female teen drivers with peer passengers were more likely to be distracted just before a crash as compared to teens who crashed while driving alone,” explained Dr. Curry. “Among the teens who said they were distracted by something inside the vehicle before they crashed, 71 percent of males and 47 percent of females said they were distracted directly by the actions of their passengers.”

Additionally, the researchers found males with passengers were almost six times more likely to perform an illegal maneuver and more than twice as likely to drive aggressively just before a crash, as compared to males driving alone.

“Teen passengers can intentionally and unintentionally encourage unsafe driving. Because it can be difficult for new drivers to navigate the rules of the road and manage passengers, it’s best to keep the number of passengers to a minimum for the first year.”

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 15, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
So what is the Republican message?

It can so easily expressed:
we are the party of special interests

we are the Party that works against the people and their general welfare
Why? for money

we are the Party of Evil
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 04:52pm PT
Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals
Friday, 15 Feb 2013 10:52 AM
By Jim Meyers






The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals.

In April the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”

The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.”


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-federal-crime-convicts/2013/02/15/id/490605?s=al&promo_code=12791-1#ixzz2L1EW0Qq1
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 15, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
Good reading rong
Thanks
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Feb 15, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
One can only wonder why gubbmint jobs and employers arent included..Good enough for john Q, good enough fer congress.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Feb 16, 2013 - 09:11am PT
Credit: philo
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Feb 16, 2013 - 02:04pm PT



 I'm glad Elizabeth Warren got elected….
Messages 41121 - 41140 of total 52605 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews