Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41461 - 41480 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 28, 2014 - 12:17am PT
This is interesting though.


2012 donors to Obama; http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/search.php?cid=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A

2012 donors to Romney; http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/search.php?cid=N00000286&name=%28all%29&employ=%28any+employer%29&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=b&sort=A

interesting site!

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 28, 2014 - 12:48am PT

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Mar 28, 2014 - 01:10am PT

Reverse Citizens United, huh? Does this mean we can also bar unions from political contributions/statements? If not, explain why?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 28, 2014 - 03:09am PT
So now we are getting started into the next election cycle.

Who will the candidates be?

I think:

Dem-Clinton if she wants it, I think she does.

Repub-Worse than the last time, no Romney (earned the spot) equivalent.

Cruz- mod Repugs hate him. Is he even eligible? They say not, Canadian- Cuban. Holds Canadian Citizenship.
Christie- Right Repugs hate him. Hugged Obama. Moderates now wary. Twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.
Jindal- disappeared off the radar screen. An Indian?? Really??
Rubio- oops, immigration knocked him off for the conservatives. A Latin??
Bush-apparently not interested. Neither is the country.
Walker- polarizer, little experience
Rice- not interested.
Paul-interesting, but says crazy things. Scares people on both sides.

Everyone else---never heard of them.

Nobody with war experience, unusual for Repugs.

Watch the news. who can get on the news?
Christie, but all he can say is a "I am not a crook" equivalent.
Not all press is good press, in politics.

Who has gravitas? Who appears Presidential?

Colin Powell is the only one I can think of, but his day has passed.

When you look at whether someone is actually qualified by experience, I think of George HW Bush. Domestic, Foreign Policy, Security, Diplomacy, Business

But for the lesser-known, they have to get moving. They have to get in the media. Every day that goes by, they lose ground. I can't, at this point, even pick out a Repug that would be the least offensive to the various Repug factions, as was Romney.

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 28, 2014 - 09:02am PT


Not all Billionaires are parasite Koch suckers.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is one of the largest private foundations in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family."[4] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Raikes.
It had an endowment of US$38.3 billion as of 30 June 2013.[3] The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in the philanthrocapitalism revolution in global philanthropy,[5] though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations.[4] In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America, and Warren Buffett the first.[6] As of May 16, 2013, Bill Gates had donated US$28 billion to the foundation.[7]

Trad climber
Mar 28, 2014 - 09:28am PT
bluering posted
Interesting stats on political contributions by party affiliation;


Notice #59 on the list, down pretty far....1989-2014

Exercise that brain of yours, bluering. Your list states that Koch Industries has spent over $18 million since 1989 on political donations. It says nothing about the individuals who own Koch Industries who use Americans for Prosperity as a front group to hide political spending. That group alone spent $122 million in the 2012 election and because of the completely absurd finance laws (and SCOTUS interpretations) they never need to disclose their donors. Some of that money came from other PACs but no small amount of it came right out of the Kochs' pockets.

Furthermore, this isn't a contest about "who is worse" as you always make everything into. The point is that it is ALL bad! Unlimited, undisclosed expenditures on elections is fundamentally anti-democratic and everyone should be upset that billionaires are openly stating that they intend to buy elections and bankroll candidates that would never garner enough support from a broad base of voters to make it without them.

bluering, doesn't it bother you a little bit that a large part of your beloved Tea Party has been coopted by ultra-wealthy businessmen that want to use it to accomplish their own goals? Doesn't that undermine your image of it as a grass roots populist political movement?

bluering continued
Reverse Citizens United, huh? Does this mean we can also bar unions from political contributions/statements?

You do know that reversing Citizens United wouldn't bar anyone from political contributions, right? I ask that rhetorically because you clearly don't so let me tell you. Reversing Citizens United wouldn't bar anyone from political contributions.


The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates.

In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.

The decision did not affect contributions. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. The court said that because these funds were not being spent in coordination with a campaign, they “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

But why take the time to learn about an issue when right wing radio feeds you pre-built opinions, right bluering?

Social climber
"Sh#t shack across from the city dump"
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:09am PT

"Obama made his money (of which there is very little by Koch brothers measures) at first by being a derided "community organizer" and then by selling a book. He now makes the highest salary of his entire life by being President ($500,000/year). Trying to pretend that Obama and the Koch brothers are cut from the same cloth is roughly as insane as your assertion that Obama is a secret Kenyan citizen planted in the US to turn is into a Marxist utopia."...


Mar 28, 2014 - 10:16am PT
Philo: I am advocating for teachers.

Please don't advocate for me, I don't want you in my camp. Your climbs are fabulous and following in your climbing footsteps is a pleasure...

but please, don't be my advocate...

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:18am PT
Yer right there's a difference.

The Koch Bros create products that everyone wants and thousands of jobs.

Barry has fed at the public trough his entire career.

Trad climber
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:23am PT
Mmmm yes because the oil industry is well known for it's "we don't take no government money" position. Excellent point, TGT. Any chance you could make that into a contrived one panel cartoon?

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:39am PT
Love those Job Creators!

Let's build 'em a monument or sumthin'....
Dave Kos

Social climber
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:42am PT
Barry has fed at the public trough his entire career.

So now being employed as President of the United States makes someone a welfare case?

How stupid can this get?


Trad climber
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:44am PT
I think we all know the answer to that question.

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 28, 2014 - 10:46am PT

oh come on, why mince words anymore

there are certain posters that are flat out racist

who wake up every morning angry that a "half white" man ( Ron said) is in the White House

TGT is one of many, ignorant racist pricks

Dr. F.

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2014 - 11:01am PT
Every career Military Professional = fed at the Government trough

Every Congressman and Senator= feeds at the Government Trough

Every Teacher, Public Utility Worker, Roads, infrastructure, Government Worker, Social Security recipient = feeds at the Government Trough

TGT = unknowingly feeds from the Government trough, and is your typical moronic hypocrite
Dr. F.

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2014 - 11:04am PT
A Truce on Moral Superiority

By Tina Dupuy On March 27, 2014 · Add Comment · In Column

The distinction of liberal or conservative often hinges on the association with the word “hypocrite.” To liberals, being a hypocrite is a mortal sin. There’s nothing worse than being accused of not living up to the standards you ascribe to. Hypocrite is a dirty word to call a liberal. It’s even worse than calling them “liberal.”

In contrast, conservatives see hypocrisy as proof they have morals even if they sometimes fall short of them; the important part is being pro-morality. To them, liberals have no standards which is why they never fail to live up to them. Conservatives are comfortable with a “do as I say, not as I do” approach to governing. (See: Every Republican lawmaker drawing a government paycheck while disparaging those on the federal dole.)

Longstanding id of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, while currently married to his fourth wife, told listeners, “The institution of marriage has been targeted for destruction, essentially, and the road to destroying it is being paved.” He was referring to gay marriage, calling it immoral. Divorce, being the technical and literal destruction of marriage, never came up.

Conservatives don’t like the homosexual lifestyle because of its alleged promiscuity, so naturally, Republicans are against homosexuals being able to marry each other.

This is why the stock character of the closeted gay conservative lawmaker who’s publicly anti-gay is so pervasive. They are really opposed to homosexuality as a lifestyle. It’s immaterial that they themselves are gay—it’s what they believe that’s important. There’s a morality disconnect. If you bring it up to a conservative they’ll counter, “Would you prefer we have no values at all?”

As if those are the only two options.

Liberals believe morals should be egalitarian—everyone judged equally by the same standards—rich and poor, black and white, old and young, gay and straight. Conservatives think there’s merit in forcing their morals upon others, that they’re keeping some version of the Garden of Eden alive by evangelizing its existence. “We used to be better. Let’s get back to that time.” Or perhaps when you’re a Republican it’s working toward morality that satisfies the requirement of being moral.

“There likely is no senator who has been before the Senate Ethics Committee more often than Sen. David Vitter. He has solicited prostitutes, employed a known criminal, and tried to bribe a Cabinet member,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. The Republican is currently running for governor of Louisiana. Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina, Appalachian Trail aficionado, just won his old seat back in Congress. Tennessee Republican Congressman Scott DesJarlais, a physician by trade, has had several documented affairs with his patients. In West Virginia they have a Republican candidate for the local board of education (of all things), former State Senator Vic Sprouse, who’s been divorced four times and skipped out on child support for his seriously ill son. And these aren’t even scandals. These are just Republicans whom other Republicans have voted for.

If homosexuality ceased to be considered a sin and all Americans were judged by the content of their character instead of whom they love, it’d be hard for Republicans to find people to be morally superior to. We’d go back to being scandalized by the way people treat one another, not by which gender they’re attracted to. This is what makes liberals nuts: hypocrisy. All those aforementioned politicians are all in states where gays can’t be legally married. To be the self-appointed standard-bearer of morality, yet hold their personal lives to different metrics, is what the Republican Party has come to stand for.

I propose a truce. Liberals can stop dismissing Republicans as hypocrites and Conservatives can allow homosexual couples the legal right to be as bad to a spouse as some Republican incumbents.


Mar 28, 2014 - 11:12am PT
The Kochs is a side show.

The issue is our enormous and growing income disparity - a huge threat to our national well being, economy, stability, and basic values - you know, what this country is suppose to be about?

The income disparity numbers are not in dispute. Our country is a severe outlier in the developed world in this regard.

Since this enormous problem is only worsening - our current system doesn't work and is not sustainable. There is no question that we need to change it.

This is a topic the Right tends to obfuscate its way out of - by talking about how the Kochs create jobs blah blah blah. It's a dodge.

Let's talk about the high and growing income disparity which has and continues to create a huge slave labor class below the poverty line in this country - and which is eroding the middle class. Forget the Kochs or Gates.

Step one is to reset tax policy back to the progressive structure that supported the middle class and gave the poor a leg up - and away from Bush's asset stripping, exploitation regime.

Trad climber
Mar 28, 2014 - 11:15am PT
Were you born poor and worked hard in service of others? Moocher!
Were you born rich and worked hard in service of yourself? Hero!

Tvash said
The income disparity numbers are not in dispute. Our country is a severe outlier in the developed world in this regard.

Conservatives don't need to dispute them they just dismiss them. You can't convince people to want to do something about this if they have chosen to believe that people fall into poverty because of their own failures and lack of values. And then beyond that they have convinced themselves that the best tools to help solve these problems are actually the cause of the problems. You're dealing some serious "up is down" thinking here.

Trad climber
Bay Area
Mar 28, 2014 - 11:27am PT
Well said
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 28, 2014 - 11:40am PT
Yes, it is the poor fault. They are lazy and should be working three low-paying jobs instead of two.

Messages 41461 - 41480 of total 45428 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