Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41721 - 41740 of total 45497 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 3, 2014 - 11:34am PT
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Apr 3, 2014 - 11:50am PT
"You guys are so right."

Did he really write that?
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 3, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
oh, the irony...

http://time.com/47151/first-lesbian-only-cemetery/


do i need to explain?



Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 3, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
Those tonight show vids are some funny sh#t. So glad they finally bagged the Dorito Man. Maybe now people younger than 65 will watch that show. MAYBE... even some democrats!

:D

DMT
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 3, 2014 - 12:13pm PT
How is it that middle schoolers are able to see through GOP talking points when adults cannot? http://www.news-record.com/news/article_6dcd6144-babb-11e3-9826-0017a43b2370.html
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Apr 3, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
LOLZ! And the clown car rolls on:

"Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Matt Bevin continued to address his presence at a rally for supporters of legalizing cockfighting by saying America's Founding Fathers were very involved in the cockfighting world too.

"But it's interesting when you look at cockfighting and dogfighting as well," Bevin said in an interview on the Terry Meiners Show on Louisville's WHAS on Thursday. "This isn't something new, it wasn't invented in Kentucky for example. I mean the Founding Fathers were all many of them very involved in this and always have been [sic.]"

By gawd, GEORGE WURSHINTUN did TOO go to c*#k fites!

Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 3, 2014 - 06:55pm PT
COCKFIGHTING WAS INVENTED IN KENTUCKY WHICH IS ONE OF THE THIRTEEN COLONIES WHERE JESUS TOLD HIM TO INVENT IT THE SAME PLACE WHERE FREEDOM WAS BORN BECAUSE GUNS!!!!!111
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 3, 2014 - 07:20pm PT
Y KNOT!

CAT FIGHTS ARE LEGAL:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2378546/Womans-MMA
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 3, 2014 - 11:35pm PT
Yes. An "admitted socialist." Because here in America have a set of ideas should be framed in the same manner as a felon or adulterer.

Bernie looks like he's going to run which will be a good thing for the political conversation but if he doesn't run as a Dem he's going to do more harm than good.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 08:52am PT
what do the following gov departments have in common (i mean, besides bloated bureaucracy)?

•The U.S. Department of Education
•The Bureau of Land Management
•The U.S. Department of the Interior
•The U.S. Postal Inspection Service
•The Environmental Protection Agency
•The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

all have ARMED "law enforcement" divisions, some with over a thousand "agents"

http://watchdog.org/136244/federal-law-enforcement/


so...soldiers cannot carry guns, but education employees can?

arming teachers to protect students (which i oppose, btw) is evuhl, but arming federal education employees to...uh...i don't know what...is good? the weatherman needs armed guards but schools don't?


ahh, the lib conundrum...we hate people who carry guns (especially cops and soldiers) but we loooooooooooove gov (especially BIG GOV...the bigger the better)...we hate guns but, damn, guns are so useful for gov "enforcement"

lib rationale...ok, let's use those evuhl guns to create our utopia of complete gov control; then, once we give all the power to the gov, the gov won't need guns anymore and we'll all be happy...and the world will love us and get rid of their guns, too, and everybody will work for the gov and the gov will make sure everyone gets an equal share and the gov will take care of us and educate us and heal us and feed us and give us sex and drugs and phones

honestly, who could oppose such a paradise?
dirtbag

climber
Apr 4, 2014 - 08:54am PT
Coward. ^^^^^^^^^
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:14am PT
ahh, the lib conundrum...we hate people who carry guns



What a poisonous attitude! Maybe thats how you appreciate diversity of values Hookworm but please don't project your ethics onto others.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:36am PT
How about this Hooky..... you can project your values of devisivness and intolerance, I'll send you mine of humor OK?

Remember, if you can't laugh at yourself you likely have a hard time laughing period



APRIL 4, 2014
BOEHNER: “I DON’T WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE GET AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE”


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—A riveting scene unfolded in Congress today as a tearful Speaker John Boehner took to the floor of the House to tell his colleagues, “I don’t want to live in a world where seven million people get affordable health care.”

Tears streaming down his cheeks, Rep. Boehner appeared unable to maintain his composure as he delivered a speech interrupted by blubbering and sharp intakes of breath.

“What kind of a world is it where anyone can go on the Internet and get health care they can afford?” he said. “Not a world I’d care to live in, or leave to my children.”

“It’s not right… and it’s not America,” he said, breaking down.

Later, dabbing his eyes, a still-sobbing Boehner apologized to reporters for “losing it up there.”

“I don’t like to get so emotional,” he said. “But when seven million people signed up for Obamacare, a part of me died.”
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:48am PT
Responding to bookworm is probably the most fruitless thing you could do with your time here. Just soak in this posts for the "wtf" factor and move on. Post some constructive, intelligent content instead.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:53am PT
If you can handle metaphor as a means of content, the above Borowitz is as good as it gets
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 4, 2014 - 10:11am PT
I loves me some Borowitz.


In actual news, 192,000 jobs added last month and jobless rate holds at 6.7% http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?hp&_r=0

The jobless rate didn't drop because 500,000 people entered the job market. Also, the number of long term unemployed also went down which is a very positive sign. Obama's focus on that issue in the last few months may have helped.

Also,
Private employment rose to 116.09 million, finally moving beyond the previous high of 115.98 million recorded at the very start of the recession in January 2008.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Apr 4, 2014 - 10:23am PT
Baby bush has become an amazing talented artist!
seen it on the news last night...
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 4, 2014 - 10:24am PT
bookie the patriot has not been on a military base since his field trip in the fourth grade
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 10:24am PT
even if global warming is real, libs are wrong:

IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report
Richard Tol says alarmism is wrong.
By Alec Torres

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going.”

Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of adaptation to climate change and emergent risks, respectively.

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming.

“In the current SPM there are a number of statements in there that are widely cited that are just not correct,” Tol says.

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions. “Why do we show the maximum but not the average?” he says. Estimates say that “for a tenth of a percent of [worldwide] GDP we can protect all vulnerable populations along all coasts.”


The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.

Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.

First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.

“There are natural forces pushing these people in the same direction. I think the IPCC should have safeguards against this tendency, but it does not.”

However misleading the IPCC may be, Tol is not a climate-change skeptic. Though he is doubtful the IPCC, as a big UN organization, will be able to reform, he still plans to work on future reports because, he says, the “IPCC is important and it should be done right.”

— Alec Torres is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 10:36am PT
Newspeak and the Supreme Court

By Kevin D. Williamson

If I seem to have had Orwell on the brain lately, it is because his eternal relevance is particularly intense at the moment.

Consider Dahlia Lithwick’s argument in Slate, and, by extension and more important, Justice Breyer’s argument, on the matter of the McCutcheon decision. Regarding the question of corruption, Lithwick writes:


If dollars are speech, and billions are more speech, then billionaires who spend money don’t do so for the mere joy of making themselves heard, but because it offers them a return on their investment. We. All. Know. This.

. . . Breyer is quick to call out the chief justice’s narrow reading of quid pro quo corruption, noting that Roberts specifically excludes any efforts to “garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties” . . . . Breyer tersely writes: “Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action. A politically oriented ‘marketplace of ideas’ seeks to form a public opinion that can and will influence elected representatives.” The First Amendment doesn’t protect speech for its own sake, he continues: “The First Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.”

In short: Political activism must be suppressed, because it might be effective.

Lithwick and Breyer are putting forth an argument that is sensible only if one defines “corruption” as “successfully garnering influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.” Garnering influence over elected officials and political parties is the point of political communication. Justice Breyer’s thoroughly Orwellian position is that the public’s “collective speech” — a thing that, it bears noting, does not exist — supersedes the individual rights that are enumerated in the Constitution because the exercise of the latter would, he believes, damage the former. Breyer holds that this so-called collective right is necessary to allow the emergence of a marketplace of ideas “to form a pubic opinion that can and will influence elected representatives,” which, perversely, requires us to stop actual citizens from trying to “garner influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.” Which is to say, his argument is that in order for free speech to be meaningful as an abstraction, it must be suppressed in fact.

By Lithwick’s standard, communication is corruption if it accomplishes its purpose, which is to influence politicians and policy. To put it in Newspeak terms: “Suppression is freedom.”

One of the truths that the Left consistently ignores is that the question of using money to further political views is deeply tied to the issue of minority rights. There are many ways to influence policy, the most common one being prevalent numbers: The NRA is an effective organization not because it spends much money on politics (it is a relatively small spender) but because it has numbers on its side, a great many well-organized members. Gay-rights groups until quite recently operated in much the same way: Gays are a small minority, and for a long time they did not have very many energetic allies outside of their own community; their numbers were small, but they were committed, and they were willing to spend money to advance their argument. Were they self-interested parties seeking a “return on their investment”? Of course they were — that is the point of political action: to secure one’s interests.

A quick glance at the financial affairs of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association suggest very strongly that the Left does not care much about the flow of money into political affairs. There is almost nothing to the Left’s argument in the McCutcheon case, only the naked desire to disadvantage minorities that must rely primarily on financial rather than numerical influence to advance their interests. That kind of vulgar and reactionary majoritarianism is why we have a First Amendment in the first place, and a Second Amendment, too.

The right to dispose of one’s own property and the right to seek redress of grievances against the government under which one lives do not come from the state or the law, and they are not negotiable. The Supreme Court here has not created a right; it has only made a concession to the law described in the Declaration of Independence, which is beyond any court’s power to revise. The government of these United States exists at the sufferance of the people, not the other way around. The only scandal here is that Americans have been reduced to begging before the Supreme Court in order to have their fundamental rights recognized by the government under which they live.
Messages 41721 - 41740 of total 45497 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