Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41741 - 41760 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Apr 4, 2014 - 11:12am PT

Not a single combat related military death in March. First month in more than 10 years this has happened. Presumably since the invasion of Afghanistan.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 11:54am PT
hapless hagel: "i don't think it was matter of misjudging putin...what his intentions were, why he did what he did, we still don't understand fully..."

and he's talking about putin invading georgia...6 freakin' years ago!

of course, this makes perfect sense to libs: "we didn't misjudge, we just don't understand so, golly, we were just as surprised as...er...nobody, when putin invaded crimea 6 years later"

but, i tell you whut, we're gonna slap some sanctions on a dozen or so private rushin citizens, and we'll show that putin who he's messin' with

BOOM: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSBREA321P220140403

guess you don't understand that neither

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 11:59am PT
"Let’s think about this, for a second. Barack Obama only “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage when his re-election team deemed it necessary. Hillary Clinton came along even later, once the issue was clearly showing up in the “win” column. They blow with the wind, stand for nothing, but they’re given a pass. Meanwhile, as Allahpundit notes:

The difference between Eich and Obama is that, as far as we know, Eich didn’t lie to people’s faces about his views to further his own ambition. He could have publicly renounced his donation this week in the name of keeping his job, but apart from a statement about making sure that Mozilla supports everyone regardless of orientation, he didn’t. . .When forced to choose Eich evidently preferred to sacrifice his job [rather than recant]."

read the rest, if you dare...


Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
Peggy Noonan: A Catastrophe Like No Other

The president tries to put a good face on ObamaCare.

Put aside the numbers for a moment, and the daily argument.

"Seven point one million people have signed up!"

"But six million people lost their coverage and were forced onto the exchanges! That's no triumph, it's a manipulation. And how many of the 7.1 million have paid?"

"We can't say, but 7.1 million is a big number and redeems the program."

"Is it a real number?"

"Your lack of trust betrays a dark and conspiratorial right-wing mindset."

As I say, put aside the argument, step back and view the thing at a distance. Support it or not, you cannot look at ObamaCare and call it anything but a huge, historic mess. It is also utterly unique in the annals of American lawmaking and government administration.

Its biggest proponent in Congress, the Democratic speaker of the House, literally said—blithely, mindlessly, but in a way forthcomingly—that we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. It is a cliché to note this. But really, Nancy Pelosi's statement was a historic admission that she was fighting hard for something she herself didn't understand, but she had every confidence regulators and bureaucratic interpreters would tell her in time what she'd done. This is how we make laws now.

Her comments alarmed congressional Republicans but inspired Democrats, who for the next three years would carry on like blithering idiots making believe they'd read the bill and understood its implications. They were later taken aback by complaints from their constituents. The White House, on the other hand, seems to have understood what the bill would do, and lied in a way so specific it showed they knew exactly what to spin and how. "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan, period." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." That of course was the president, misrepresenting the facts of his signature legislative effort. That was historic, too. If you liked your doctor, your plan, your network, your coverage, your deductible you could not keep it. Your existing policy had to pass muster with the administration, which would fight to the death to ensure that 60-year-old women have pediatric dental coverage.

Enlarge Image

U.S. President Barack Obama is accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden as he speaks on the Affordable Care Act. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The leaders of our government have not felt, throughout the process, that they had any responsibility to be honest and forthcoming about the major aspects of the program, from its exact nature to its exact cost. We are not being told the cost of anything—all those ads, all the consultants and computer work, even the cost of the essential program itself.

What the bill declared it would do—insure tens of millions of uninsured Americans—it has not done. There are still tens of millions uninsured Americans. On the other hand, it has terrorized millions who did have insurance and lost it, or who still have insurance and may lose it.

The program is unique in that it touches on an intimate and very human part of life, the health of one's body, and yet normal people have been almost wholly excluded from the debate. This surely was not a bug but a feature. Given a program whose complexity is so utter and defeating that it defies any normal human attempt at comprehension, two things will happen. Those inclined to like the spirit of the thing will support it on the assumption the government knows what its doing. And the opposition will find it difficult to effectively oppose—or repeal the thing—because of the program's bureaucratic density and complexity. It's like wrestling a manic, many-armed squid in ink-darkened water.

Social Security was simple. You'd pay into the system quite honestly and up front, and you'd receive from the system once you were of retirement age. If you supported or opposed the program you knew exactly what you were supporting or opposing. The hidden, secretive nature of ObamaCare is a major reason for the opposition it has engendered.

The program is unique in that the bill that was signed four years ago, on March 23, 2010, is not the law, or rather program, that now exists. Parts of it have been changed or delayed 30 times. It is telling that the president rebuffed Congress when it asked to work with him on alterations, but had no qualms about doing them by executive fiat. The program today, which affects a sixth of the U.S. economy, is not what was passed by the U.S. Congress. On Wednesday Robert Gibbs, who helped elect the president in 2008 and served as his first press secretary, predicted more changes to come. He told a business group in Colorado that the employer mandate would likely be scrapped entirely. He added that the program needed an "additional layer" or "cheaper" coverage and admitted he wasn't sure the individual mandate had been the right way to go.

Finally, the program's supporters have gone on quite a rhetorical journey, from "This is an excellent bill, and opponents hate the needy" to "People will love it once they have it" to "We may need some changes" to "I've co-sponsored a bill to make needed alternations" to "This will be seen by posterity as an advance in human freedom."

That was the president's approach on Tuesday, when he announced the purported 7.1 million enrollees. "The debate over repealing this law is over. The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. . . . In the end, history is not kind to those who would deny Americans their basic economic security. Nobody remembers well those who stand in the way of America's progress or our people. And that's what the Affordable Care Act represents. As messy as it's been sometimes, as contentious as it's been sometimes, it is progress."

Someone said it lacked everything but a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It was political showbiz of a particular sort, asking whether the picture given of a thing will counter the experience of the thing.

There's a brute test of a policy: If you knew then what you know now, would you do it? I will never forget a conversation in 2006 or thereabouts with a passionate and eloquent supporter of the decision to go into Iraq. We had been having this conversation for years, he a stalwart who would highlight every optimistic sign, every good glimmering. He argued always for the rightness of the administration's decision. I would share my disquiet, my doubts, finally my skepticism. One night over dinner I asked him, in passing, "If we had it to do over again, should we have gone in? would you support it?"

And he said, "Of course not!"

Which told me everything.

There are very, very few Democrats who would do ObamaCare over again. Some would do something different, but they wouldn't do this. The cost of the blunder has been too high in terms of policy and politics.

They, and the president, are trying to put a good face on it.

Republicans of all people should not go for the happy face. They cannot run only on ObamaCare this year and later, because it's not the only problem in America. But it's a problem, a big one, and needs to be hard and shrewdly fought.

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
Apr 4, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
This thread moves right along when hookworm does a bunch of posts. I just scroll right over them --------and BANG! It's over!
Dr. F.

Trad climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 4, 2014 - 12:30pm PT
We need some good liberal Rage to get things going here
Where'e Werner when ya need him


Apr 4, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
Fuk fuk fuk fuk

Gwad damn stoopid everything!!!!

Does that work ??????

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Apr 4, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
The next few years should be interesting. The GOP really has nothing to offer but obstruction, criticism and the promise of returning to the "good 'ol (boy) days". As the ranks of the angry old white men continue to dwindle, it will be harder to find any support for their antiquated vision of America.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
i already knew barry was (er, is) a sorry ceo, but now i know why...and to think i have a libby writer to thank for the explanation:


i never understood why you libs never called him out on gay-hating, but you can make up for it by calling out this writer for his racism (see, by claiming gay-haters make sorry ceos, he's claiming barry is a sorry ceo...and, since barry is black, any criticism of him is automatically racist)...let the protests and obligatory firing-resignation begin

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 4, 2014 - 12:42pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#352192
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Apr 4, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
CEO of Firefox maker Mozilla steps down

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich will step down following uproar over his apparent opposition to gay marriage.

In a statement released Thursday, Mozilla — which makes the Firefox Web browser — apologized for not reacting more quickly to the controversy surrounding Eich, who made a 2008 donation supporting California's ban on gay marriage, The Guardian reports.

Harvesting his crop of hate.


Apr 4, 2014 - 01:15pm PT
There's a new Hobby Lobby going in just north of town I noticed.


Social climber
Apr 4, 2014 - 03:07pm PT
Hobby Lobby's 401k invests in contracetive manufacturers. Classic!

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 03:27pm PT
another reason to love big gov:


i blame global warming

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 4, 2014 - 03:31pm PT
another reason to love big gov:

you ought to

your entire life depends on big government

your paycheck, your healthcare, and your retirement pension

nobody sucks off big government more than Booky, NOBODY

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 4, 2014 - 07:25pm PT
honestly, libs, i'm going to miss you though, probably, not as much as you're going to miss your computers:


let the protest of intel microchips begin! bollocks to those repubs who say libs are unprincipled or lack conviction; just watch them take down intel--like they took down the ceo of mozilla--by refusing to use or buy any intel products

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:47pm PT
I just sent Mozilla this email

How can I trust a browser when the management does not believe in free speech?

You are off my machine!

Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Apr 4, 2014 - 09:49pm PT

You yammering Repubs have got nuthin'.

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
Apr 4, 2014 - 11:35pm PT
Since it is somewhat slow here tonight, I will update you on Idontno Politics. We have two conservative Republican Senators and two conservative Republican Representatives in the U.S. Congress.

However! Our LDS Conservative Republican Representative, Mike Simpson, was one of the few Republicans who crossed the Tea Party:

In October 2013, Simpson voted to end the United States federal government shutdown of 2013.

When asked about the Grover Norquist pledge to oppose any net increase in taxes, Simpson said, "Well, first the pledge: I signed that in 1998 when I first ran. I didn't know I was signing a marriage agreement that would last forever."
quoting Wikipedia:

Sooooooo! Now there is a hot primary race, with the Koch brothers running a Republican Trial Lawyer Tea Party candidate against the mainstream Republican Conservative Simpson.

What makes it interesting is: the U.S. Chamber of commerce, and other mainstream Republican donors are spending as much money on ads for Simpson as the Koch brothers are for ads against him.
Simpson! Too liberal for Idaho!)

It will all come down to who the LDS church tells their members to vote for, but----that's a well-kept secret.

Trad climber
Apr 5, 2014 - 07:33am PT
TGT posted
I just sent Mozilla this email

How can I trust a browser when the management does not believe in free speech?

You are off my machine!

1. Freedom of speech protects citizens of encroachment by government. If this guy got fired for advocating for unionization you'd be arguing that "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with it.
2. Mozilla didn't want a bigot as CEO, they sure don't care if they have one as a customer.

I think I found the perfect state for you, TGT!


Mssissippi Governor Phil Bryant has signed into law Senate Bill 2681, the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act (MRFRA). Opponents of the law believe it is so broadly written as to invoke a license to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people on the basis of “religious freedom.”

“I am proud to sign the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act today, which will protect the individual religious freedom of Mississippians of all faiths from government interference,” Bryant said. “Mississippi has now joined 18 other states to defend religious freedoms on a state level.”

The original version of the law was very similar to a bill Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed in Arizona in February after it became apparent that the law could be used by businesses to turn away LGBT customers.

I hear Mississippi is also working on a browser that blocks gay content and things created by gay people as well as preemptively stopping conversations about homosexuality. Here is their working prototype:

Messages 41741 - 41760 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