Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41321 - 41340 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Mar 25, 2014 - 09:18pm PT
The good thing about Obama is that he's willing to have a conversation

I rather enjoy his ability to actually carry a coherent conversation, as opposed to his predecessor's inability to form a sentence.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 25, 2014 - 11:47pm PT
One of the best second lines in a political ad ever.

Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2014 - 11:48pm PT
Don't Believe the Rand Paul Hipster Hype

Michael Tomasky

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/rand-paul-for-hipsters.html

The likely GOP presidential candidate has anti-surveillance state libertarianism in common with Millennials. But that's about all.

I don’t know how many Berkeleyites Rand Paul really and truly impressed last week with his visit there. If he’s the GOP nominee in 2016 and ends up with more than 23 percent of the vote in Alameda County (Mitt Romney notched 18 percent), I’ll eat my copy of The Post-Modern Aura in Moe’s bookstore window.


But it’s clear that he charmed a different group, the one that might in fact have been the real target audience of the visit: The Washington media taste-makers and “thinkfluencers” loved it. All the signs of 2016 swoonfest are clear already. This insider media group is going to build this guy up, find him “interesting” and “fresh,” and they’ll promote him over that old hecate (as they see it) Hillary Clinton in much the way they once promoted George W. Bush over Al Gore as the superior person to have a beer with.


But let’s put the brakes on this idea that Paul has some kind of natural and broad-based kinship with the Millennial generation. No. He doesn’t have anything close to that. In survey after survey, Millennials, on issue after issue, have views diametrically opposed to Paul’s. True, Millennials have a few libertarian impulses. But mostly, they’re something the Washington in-crowd sniffs at as passé. They’re big-government liberals.

Doubt me? Let’s cut right to the chase then. As it happens, Pew just released, in early March, a massive survey of Millennials’ political and social positions and attitudes (the pdf is here). The study compares the views of Millennials with those of gen Xers, Boomers, and Silents (as in Majority; the old folk). One question asked each group whether it supports a bigger government and more services. The overall yes response was 40 percent. The Millennials’ was 53 percent. They logged the highest favorable by 10 points.

Want more? Okay! Millennials aren’t wild about Obamacare, cuz who is. But the Pew results suggest that they mostly aren’t wild about it from the left. When asked if it’s the responsibility of the government to provide health care for all, the only group to say yes at a rate greater than 50 percent (54 percent) was Millennials.

Paul opposes same-sex marriage. So how’s he going to talk about that to voters of the generation that supports it to the tune of 68 percent. He is against marijuana legalization and even backs a bill that recently passed the House that would allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully enforce federal laws. This is aimed in part at states that have legalized pot. The problem for Paul is that 69 percent of Millennials back legalization. Paul is against abortion in virtually all cases, but 56 percent of Millennials say it should be legal “in all or most cases.” And finally, Paul has been against immigration reform, and 55 percent of Millennials favor legal status and a path to citizenship (again, they’re the only group above 50 percent).

In sum, on issue after issue, Paul is not merely at odds with Millennials. He’s about eight or nine area codes away. And they just aren’t his, or the GOP’s, friends in more general terms. They’re largely irreligious. Only half even bother to say they’re patriotic. And they’re extremely racially diverse, only 57 percent white, compared to the 72 percent whiteness of the 2012 electorate. How do you think this group is going to react to those clips of Paul telling Rachel Maddow back in 2010 that (not in so many words but in essence) he would have opposed the 1964 civil rights act?

But none of this matters, you see, because it’s not new and buzzy. All of Paul’s deeply reactionary positions and statements likewise will be minimized, because he takes one or two “interesting” positions that make him “a different kind of Republican.” All right, I’ll grant that much. Compared to Mitt Romney, he’s definitely different enough to get 22 percent of the Alameda County vote instead of 18 percent. But that’s really about as far as it goes. And while Hillary Clinton hasn’t proven herself history’s greatest campaigner, one thing she and her team do know how to do is define Republican opponents. Ask Rick Lazio about that.

Paul will try to make Millennials forget about all those reactionary positions. The press will largely help him. But Clinton will remind them—and at some point, so will he. The GOP base will demand it, and the jig will be up.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:32am PT
Holy crap that ad is amazing. It's too bad she doesn't realize that cutting Obamacare will actually increase the deficit. Well, either that or she just assumes that TGT is too dumb to figure it out.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:58am PT
the perils of big government:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/n-j-democrat-frank-pallone-republicans-were-right-to-worry-about-sandy-aid-being-mishandled.html#url=/articles/2014/03/24/n-j-democrat-frank-pallone-republicans-were-right-to-worry-about-sandy-aid-being-mishandled.html



now, cue the libs' usual blathering about how repubs don't care about people and want people's lives destroyed by natural disasters and don't think anybody should ever receive any government aid ever


the problem is with BIG government; why not just give the governor a prepaid debit card or a checkbook? that way we could easily track every penny he spends and verify if the money is used for its intended purpose

with multiple layers of government and intertwined bureaucracies, the money becomes harder to track and corruption becomes easier to hide

the libs' solution for government corruption? more government
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 26, 2014 - 08:23am PT
don't buy insurance, pay a penalty

buy insurance that you believe is best for you but is not approved by big bro...oops...big government, pay a bigger penalty


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-insurance-better-unapproved-insurance-under-obamacare_786056.html



bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 26, 2014 - 08:39am PT
http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/26/free-birth-control-and-unfree-photograph/print

Free Birth Control and Unfree Photographers

Jacob Sullum|Mar. 26, 2014 7:00 am


According to The New York Times, a case the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, involving a challenge to Obamacare's requirement that businesses pay for their employees' contraceptives, "pits religious liberty against women's rights." Similarly, last month's controversy over an Arizona bill aimed at protecting business owners from being forced to treat homosexual and heterosexual couples alike was widely perceived as a conflict between religious liberty and gay rights.

Both of these debates are more accurately described as clashes between real rights and fake rights. To put it more politely, they pit negative liberty, which requires freedom from external restraint, against positive liberty, which imposes demands on other people's resources. Under the latter vision, giving freedom to one person requires taking it away from another.

In the Supreme Court case, two family-owned businesses, the craft store chain Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania cabinet manufacturer, argue that forcing them to provide health insurance that covers birth control methods they view as tantamount to abortion violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Under that law, "government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" only if it is "the least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling governmental interest."

That was the test the Supreme Court applied under the First Amendment until 1990, when it reversed course and decided any burden was acceptable as long as it was imposed by a neutral, generally applicable statute. The decision triggered outrage across the political spectrum, and three years later a nearly unanimous Congress responded by passing RFRA.

Arizona has its own version of RFRA. S.B. 1062, the bill that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last month in response to nationwide criticism, would have clarified that it protects businesses (one of the issues raised by the Hobby Lobby case) and that it applies to legal actions brought by private citizens. The bill's chief sponsor said he was reacting to a discrimination complaint against a New Mexico photographer who declined to take pictures of a gay wedding; there have been similar cases involving a Colorado bakery and a Washington florist.

Arizona currently recognizes no such cause of action, so S.B. 1062 would have had no immediate effect on interactions between businesses and gay couples. And if Arizona's legislature one day decided to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, the law could still be upheld as "the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest."

But does the government have a compelling interest in forcing people to accept behavior that violates their deeply held beliefs? There is an important difference between requiring the government to treat gay and straight couples the same and requiring private citizens to do so. One is a matter of equal treatment under the law, while the other is intolerance disguised as its opposite: intolerance of intolerance, to put it charitably.

Similarly, there is an important difference between demanding that the government refrain from interfering with people's reproductive choices and demanding that business owners subsidize them. Just as no one has a right to pictures taken by an unwilling photographer, no one has a right to an IUD or a Plan B pill purchased with the money of people who do not want to pay for it.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) disagrees. "We don't allow religious beliefs to be used to discriminate against others," says Brigitte Amiri, a senior attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, explaining why the Supreme Court should uphold the contraceptive mandate. ''Religious freedom is a fundamental right," says Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, "but it's not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors."

That is why, according to Mach, photographers, bakers, and florists must be conscripted for gay weddings. Exactly who is imposing on whom in that situation? By choosing positive liberty over negative liberty, the ACLU is forsaking the freedoms it claims to defend.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 09:21am PT
bookworm thinks that "freedom" means having the legal power to oppress others.

He also doesn't understand law, because gays are not a protected class in Arizona and photographers can freely discriminate against them. The proposed law would have allowed anyone to discriminate against anyone for any reason and would have been a complete mess. It succeeded in providing bookworm with his victim trip for the month though.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 09:28am PT
A Pope who might actually "get it:" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/world/europe/pope-accepts-resignation-of-high-spending-german-bishop.html?hp&_r=0

BERLIN — Pope Francis on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, the bishop of Limburg, whose extravagant spending on renovations for his personal residence angered his congregation and ran afoul of the pontiff’s message of humility and modesty for the Roman Catholic Church.

The Holy See accepted the German bishop’s offer to resign “given that it has come to a situation in the Limburg diocese that prevents Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst from fruitfully carrying out his duties,” the Vatican said in a statement on Wednesday.

German news reports said that Bishop Tebartz-van Elst, 54, had poured more than 31 million euros, or about $43 million, into the renovation of his residence and other church buildings, including €15,000 on a bathtub and an expensive reopening of the roof of his personal chapel to allow for the suspension of a cross.
Fritz

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
Mar 26, 2014 - 10:11am PT
More economic good news this morning to distress the

Nathering Nabobs of Fox News Negativity.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Orders to U.S. factories for long-lasting manufactured goods rose in February by the largest amount in three months, helped by solid gains in demand for airplanes and autos.

Economists hope that manufacturing and the broader economy are emerging from a winter slump. They expect the overall economy slowed to growth of less than 2 percent in the January-March period. But they are forecasting growth will rebound to around 3 percent for the rest of the year. If that occurs,

it would be the fastest annual economic growth since 2005.
*http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2014-03-26-Durable%20Goods/id-24dff9004f654772aa7850f577de7744*
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 10:15am PT
I'm eternally hopeful but we've had good forecasts every spring since like 2009 or 2010 that have been stymied by disappointing summers.
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 26, 2014 - 10:57am PT
F*#K the NRA! I want my Country back from the strangle hold of these parasites.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yapwaa/america-stands-its-ground?xrs=playershare_fb

Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:10pm PT
A win for Hobby Lobby would create two classes of people - those who must live by the rule of law, and those who can choose not to for 'religious reasons' - in other words, any reason they can come up with.

Aside from the obvious discriminatory aspects of such a system, companies would then be able to cherry pick the laws they choose to adhere to, as Hobby Lobby is attempting to do by denying its employees mandated health insurance, and wield the money they save as financial advantage over their law abiding competitors. Penalizing companies for respecting the law is not a great message for a government to send.

When someone starts a business in this country, they agree to adhere to its laws in doing so. If an entrepreneur isn't down for that - well, don't start a business in this country.

Pretty simple, really.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:11pm PT
great news for dirtbag climbers concerned about paying for mandatory health care (or paying the penalty for not having health care)...

that whole "mandatory" thing ain't exactly "mandatory"...and that whole "deadline" thing ain't exactly a "deadline"...meaning that whole "penalty" thing ain't exactly a "penalty":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-will-allow-more-time-to-enroll-in-health-care-on-federal-marketplace/2014/03/25/d0458338-b449-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost


doh!

so, the "deadline" is march 30, but you have until mid april to ask for an extension

too bad for all the suckers who already signed up...that's what you get for believing barry's red line warning
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:34pm PT
Can somebody splain to me why there is a deadline at all? I mean if you
want people to have healthcare a deadline seems an inappropriate concept.
dirtbag

climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
:-) ^^^^^
Jim Brennan

Trad climber
Canada
Mar 26, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
Reilly, that was beyond the palliative.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
Tvash said
A win for Hobby Lobby would create two classes of people - those who must live by the rule of law, and those who can choose not to for 'religious reasons' - in other words, any reason they can come up with.

No, no this goes way beyond that. This would create a whole new dimension of corporate personhood: corporation as religious worshipper. And even further it would create a precedent that says that an employer can impose their religious beliefs onto their employees. It's hard to imagine either of those concepts being constitutional (and actual Constitutionalists should bristle at the very notion).



Reily asked
Can somebody splain to me why there is a deadline at all? I mean if you
want people to have healthcare a deadline seems an inappropriate concept.

This is an excellent question and if we had a nationalized healthcare system it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, we have a corporatist system and we outlawed excluding people based on preexisting conditions. Without a defined enrollment period a moderate Republican (meaning a conservative Republican who got sick) who refused to buy health insurance (to stand up to the evils of Obamacare!) could simply choose to not buy health insurance until they got into an accident or were diagnosed with cancer and then call an insurance company from the emergency room and they would be required to cover the hospital visit. This would obviously break the system potentially sinking health insurance companies and jeopardizing the entire healthcare finance system.


bookworn spewed
so, the "deadline" is march 30, but you have until mid april to ask for an extension

too bad for all the suckers who already signed up...that's what you get for believing barry's red line warning

This is one of the dumbest things ever written on the internet. The insurance coverage starts in July either way. So if you were a "sucker" as you put it and signed up already then you have the horrible misfortune of getting the exact same thing as you would have gotten for the exact same price as if you got an extension and waited until mid-April. Thanks for helping to illuminate exactly how much you know about any of this.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 26, 2014 - 03:56pm PT
I'm eternally hopeful but we've had good forecasts every spring since like 2009 or 2010 that have been stymied by disappointing summers.

I've experienced the same, HDDJ, but if we don't blow it, I think we can post GDP growth in excess of 3.0% for the remainder of the year, which would provide a true economic expansion. My main fear is that the proximity of elections may cause politicians to feel compelled to "do something." If they can control that urge and leave the economy alone, the economic fundamentals would allow the sort of rising tide that really does float all ships.

On a different note, and with much reluctance, I have trouble with a "religious" exemption for a business. We have recognized "religious corporations" for well over a century in American law, but they were always non-business entities (e.g. churches). Can we fashion a principled distinction between a closely-held corporation such as Hobby Lobby, and, say, Exxon? To me, that forms the crux of the problem.

This case differs greatly, to me, from Citizens United, say. While I strongly sympathize with the Green family, the individuals aren't the plaintiffs here, so how do we determine a business corporation's religious beliefs? In any case, the Greens' statement that they would "be forced" to shut the business down with an adverse ruling strikes me, from an Evangelical Christian perspective, as poor stewardship. They could always sell it to someone who doesn't mind the required coverage.

Then there's the other side. How can anyone argue with a straight face that this will create "two classes" under the ACA, when the crazy quilt of exceptions the Administration has granted has already created a great deal of inequality under that act.

Oh well, that's what keeps law interesting.

Finally, to get into the Way Back Machine and go back to our health care discussion of last week -- your argument concerning why care givers practice "cover your ass medicine" (i.e. so they won't get sued), actually agree with what I'm saying. What I advocate is a change in the law so that there can be no cause of action for agreeing not to take a particular action. I don't know if I've made my position any less unclear now than what I did before, but our views of the current tort system's effect on medicine are much closer than you think.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 26, 2014 - 03:57pm PT
Reilly, that was beyond the palliative.

Very well done, sir!

John
Messages 41321 - 41340 of total 45391 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