Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41741 - 41760 of total 55074 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
The entire CRF isn't much more than the picture bookworm posted.

True, if bound and printed. If printed out from the internet on one side of the page, it's a different story. The Dodd-Frank legislation, bereft of resulting regulations, is almost four inches high on my credenza. When all the regs are issued, it will probably look like bookworm's posts.

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:10pm PT

Rand Paul masks his true worldview

By Michael Gerson, Published: March 11

Since arriving in the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul has been probing here and there for issues of populist resonance. Audit the secretive, sinister Federal Reserve. Rein in those TSA screeners patting down little girls. In each instance, Paul (R-Ky.) has evoked the fear of oppressive government without tipping over into the paranoia of his father’s most dedicated supporters. It has been a diluted, domesticated, decaffeinated version of the ideology that motivated Ron Paul’s presidential races.

On drones, Rand Paul finally hit pay dirt. Thanks to his filibuster, Americans can now feel safe that if they are “typing e-mails in a cafe,” they will not be “summarily executed” by a Hellfire missile. This has admittedly not been a large problem since 9/11. Paul is careful to point out that he is concerned about the possible abuses of some future, Hitler-like president. (Though one imagines the advent of a Hitler-like president would present problems other than drone policy.)

Seeking an unobjectionable assurance, Paul was aided by a bungling Obama administration, at first incapable of effectively articulating its own policy. The Justice Department memo on drone strikes leaked last month said that a target must present an imminent threat of violence; capture must not be feasible; and the operation must comply with the rules of war. Offing a noncombatant at a Starbucks in Pittsburgh is not an option. But it took some time for the attorney general to say this plainly.

In the interval, Paul gathered the sudden, unexpected, Internet-driven momentum of a varied coalition. There were, of course, paleoconservatives who believe a tyrannical dystopia has already arrived. Paul feeds their fears on talk radio: “I am worried about them doing surveillance without warrants, flying over my farm, watching where I hunt, things like that.” It is bad enough to be killed in a cafe. But warrantless hunting surveillance? Will they stop at nothing?

But this group was joined by partisan Republicans who enjoyed watching the Obama administration squirm and yield. And by some, on the left and right, who believe that the drone program has inadequate oversight, or that U.S. security policy is overly reliant on targeted killings, or that the whole enterprise is ethically suspect.

It was Paul’s political genius to pick a ripe populist issue and drive home one narrow, uncontestable point. But in the course of a 13-hour filibuster, it becomes impossible to hide your deeper motivations. Paul employs the prospect of drone murders in an attempt to discredit the “perpetual war” in which “the whole world is a zone of war.” His actual target is the war on terrorism, which he regards as unconstitutional and counterproductive.

When Paul spoke at last summer’s “We Are the Future” rally in Tampa, he praised his father in particular for raising the issue of “blowback.” “Had he not talked about blowback,” said the younger Paul, “I don’t think anyone ever would have.” This, in the Paulite milieu, is the idea that U.S. policies of aggression and empire provoke terrorist attacks. In his own speech at that rally, Ron Paul claimed that if his non-interventionism had been in force, the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 would still “be alive.”

In various settings, Rand Paul has described himself as a foreign policy “realist.” But this is not the ideology of Chuck Hagel or others skeptical of democracy promotion and nation-building. Paul’s “constitutional foreign policy” denies the legal basis for the war on terror, would place severe constraints on the executive in defending the nation and hints at the existence of an oppressive national security state.

These views are not new. They were central to Ron Paul’s presidential runs. But now they have an advocate who is more skilled, picks his fights better and possesses a larger platform. If the younger Paul runs for president in 2016, it will set up a lively debate on foreign policy fundamentals.

On the other side of that debate are two administrations and the majority of members of Congress from both parties who, since 9/11, have found the threat of terrorism both real and unappeasable. In this period, the American government, with congressional authorization, has destroyed terrorist training camps; undermined terrorist communications, fundraising and planning; targeted terrorist leaders; and disrupted at least 40 plots aimed at U.S. targets.

Far from perpetrating imaginary terrors on Americans, the government has protected them from real ones. Which is the reason that ­Republicans, in the end, cannot ­#StandWithRand.

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:11pm PT

Comrade climbers, join me in promoting Comrade Rand!

The future of the GOP!!

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
Ayn Rand Rand Paul Rand Paul Ayn Rand

Paul Ayn Rand Ayn Paul....hmmmmmm
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:17pm PT

Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture with Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush

This was the lecture I attended at UCLA. Very good talk, I thought.

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 12, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
I hope that Rand Paul declares as an Independent in 2016 and runs for President.

I figure he will take some 15 million votes away from whomever the Republican nominee will be.

In fact, I would gladly donate to Rand's campaign.

I mean, anyone who would vote against the Civil Rights Act is my kind of guy.

Mar 12, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
"I hope that Rand Paul declares as an Independent in 2016 and runs for President."

Yup, he's running - as the Tea Party candidate.

FauxNews will try to tear him down, all the other "liberal" outlets will hype him

He'll for sure get 5 or 6 Confederate states, if not more, and his coattails in those states will result in Tea Party congressional victories as well.

And the repub party will die.

Dave Kos

Social climber
Mar 12, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
I got a hole in the rand of my climbing shoe.

I tried the bicycle patch thing, and so far it seems to be holding up.

Mar 12, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
The regulations should be as long as they need to be. You see, in this day in age we have things called computers. You can "search" for stuff in a document of any length and pull it up immediately. Wow

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Mar 12, 2013 - 05:43pm PT
Paul "Lyin" Ryan opens mouth and changes shoe.

"This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."


Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 12, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
The regulations should be as long as they need to be. You see, in this day in age we have things called computers. You can "search" for stuff in a document of any length and pull it up immediately. Wow

Doesn't quite work that way, Binks. I can't put in "John Eleazarian" and have my computer bring up all regulations relevant to me. More importantly, I already have virtually all of my legal resources online. Using the computer to find them makes them no less onerous on my clients, and no less expensive.

The real problem with reliance on regulators is the "free lunch" assumed, namely that the regulators will possess enough knowledge to make efficient regulations. This doesn't mean I oppose regulation; I just don't automatically assume that regulation will make things better. The massive amount of regulation resulting from Dodd-Frank is certain to be expensive, and the more there is, the more likely it is that at least some of it will be destructive rather than constructive. I've already had to deal with some truly silly requests for information from the CFPB and from Kamala Harris's office, but I've also seen some rather silly (and quite destructive) policies of some lenders and loan servicers, too, so maybe the regulation will have a positive effect.

I guess my bottom line is that I find it irrational to assume that more regulation will make things better. It will simply make things more regulated.


Social climber
Mar 12, 2013 - 06:09pm PT
The regulations are usually better than the authorizing legislation. Federal regs are well organized, relatively easy to find and not particularly voluminous given the expanse of the guv.

Not saying the application to a particular circumstance is straight forward or that there are not a lot of regulations. But the assertion that there are 20,000 pages of regulations for one act is just stupid.

Take a look--- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Mar 12, 2013 - 10:11pm PT
The unthinkable has already happenned. The sequester was embraced with hardly a whimper and it has emboldened the Republicons.

Ryans budget is not even worth considering seriously excet for one thing.

It shows the republicons are going full scorched earth political war.

You think the sequester was strange.. You havn't seen anything yet.

We are about to see a shutdown of the government from no budget and we will for the first time in our history fail to honor our debts when they fail to pass the debt ceiling...

Gonna get a lot more interesting before it's over folks.. The republicons are ALL IN

You heard it here first.

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 12, 2013 - 10:21pm PT
The Dodd-Frank legislation, bereft of resulting regulations, is almost four inches high on my credenza. When all the regs are issued, it will probably look like bookworm's posts.


just what exactly is this constant obsession with the physical size of a particular piece of federal legislation anyway?

when you have a massive financial meltdown as we did in late 2007 which was a fuking direct reflection of the failure to recognize the inability of markets to be largely free of regulation, then yes god damn you need a big ass piece of legislation to lay out the abuses and state what will now be the law to make sure that sh#t does not happen again

yet I don't get it, this "conservative" notion that somehow the number of pages is, gasp, something to be criticized, just as you brought up the number and physical size of the ACA a couple years ago, as if that was somehow relevant

what is this sh#t, some kind of grade school shallow ass intellect?

knock it off, you are better than that

on second thought, no, you are not better than that, you prove it over and over with your inane constant digs, meanwhile throwing in something seemingly reasonable every now and then to convince the majority that your reasoning is less non partisan and therefore more "fair" than just the average uninformed, misinformed, dumb ass Republican
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 12, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
The Republicans are heartless treasonous bastards

The Libertarians are crazy heartless treasonous bastards
And they both are considered Fascists by any definition of Governmental ideology
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 12, 2013 - 10:29pm PT
Every Republican President since Nixon included a Bank Bailout that cost the Tax Payers billions, and others (cronies and insiders) cashed in to the tune on 100s of millions

The Republican Party is the Party of fiscal responsibility

The Democrats are Now the Party of the Moderate Conservatives, the liberals, and the fiscally responsible

And the Republicans are the Party of Big money special interests, and selling out the Middle Class

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 12, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
Koz...that patch on the rand you mentioned is called a filler , buster...RJ
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 12, 2013 - 10:40pm PT
Hey Derek i spied a couple 2 pitch (totally untouched i believe) granite formations in a canyon about 1.5 hours east of here and way off the highway but with a semi short approach-are you game for next week? Several good classic lines.
Anyway you guys are really drinking the koolaid if you think your representatives, regardless of political stripe, really have their constituents best interests at heart. The overwhelming majority of them are career pols whose only consideration of the populace is how to buy the needed majority of votes on election day. They then go back to being beholden to whatever pockets finance their victory, whether it's corporate, unions, or a myriad of other special interests, while enriching themselves and simotaneously picking your pockets if you happen to work for a living. The system is probably more corrupted than its ever been. It is in need of radical change which will come sooner rather than later unless their is a miraculous return to rationality in the general population.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 12, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
The New Republican "Serious??" Brainiac Economy Wonk, Paul Ryan, well versed on the Heritage Inst. talking point lies designed to flim flam the gullible to vote against their own future..

What Is It About America He Doesn't Get?

By Charles P. Pierce

Paul Ryan's latest "budget" only shows his goal is to stop the government from doing things.

Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from Wisconsin and most recent first runner-up in the vice-presidential pageant, has released his latest "budget," which is only a budget in the same way that what the guy says to the pigeons in the park is a manifesto. It is constructed from the same magical thinking, the same conjuring words, the same elusive asterisks, and the same obvious obfuscations of its actual intent that Paul Ryan and his running mate put forward in the last campaign, in which they were so thoroughly rejected that Ryan couldn't even carry his home town. In fact, in this fiscal fantasia, the magical thinking, conjuring words, and obvious obfuscations are now run by us at 78 r.p.m. so as to balance the budget in 10 years rather than in 40. It is very doubtful that a country that declined to savage itself on a 30-year layaway plan is likely to agree to do so over a decade so as to get all the savaging done at once. What is it about elections that Paul Ryan doesn't understand?

What is it about America that he just doesn't get?

And that is the central pivot to Ryan's entire career, and certainly to his completely unwarranted stature as some kind of economic savant. Paul Ryan's economics are not economics so much as they are a statement of political philosophy. All political economics are based in political philosophy but, in Ryan's case, political philosophy is not the root of his notion of a political economy. His political philosophy is his notion of political economics. He believes that there are certain things that the government should not do for its citizens, and he would believe that if the balance showed a 20-gozillion surplus. His goal is to stop the government from doing those things. Everything else he does — every "budget" he proposes — is in service to that philosophy. His whole career has been made within the confines of that philosophy. It has blinded him to the very real human effects of what would occur if his "budget" ever was adopted, it also has blinded him to his own staggering hypocrisy — a man seeking to demolish the very safety net that got him through high-school and college, a man talking about the perils of government who's never had a real job outside of it. He is engaged in an extended act of camouflage through which he concocts disguises for policy preferences that the country has told him, over and over again, it does not want, and which the country has told him, over and over again, do not reflect the country's idea of itself. When he laughed at Paul Ryan in that debate, Joe Biden laughed for America.

(We were a little tough on Ezra Klein yesterday and, in the past, he has been dreadfully soft on Ryan. But, good lord, Ezra parks Ryan's latest barrel of bushwah deep into the cheap seats. Well struck, young man.)

There's a clear tell to be found when Ryan starts explaining about "communities." It is a wonderful passage because it is so deeply weird, and so deeply ahistorical, and so deeply divorced from the way actual people live their actual lives that it makes you wonder if, instead of being the coddled golden child of the wingnut welfare state, Ryan was raised by tinkers on Mars.

We are a self-governing people. Yet, if we can't manage our own affairs, we can hardly govern a nation. It's in the assembly hall and the boardroom-in the town meeting and the state legislature- that we learn how to govern. And that's where we forge our common bonds. Yes, government is one of those bonds. But it can't unite 300 million people-not on its own. It needs our communities to tie us together. Today, our communities-our families, in particular-face many dangers: rising health-care costs, a stagnant economy, a massive debt, an uncertain world. These dangers require a lean, dynamic government-one that can protect its people and keep its word. They also require government to respect its limits-to understand it plays a role in our lives, but not the leading one.

Bear in mind when you read this that Ryan doesn't have the faintest fcking idea what he's talking about here. Let's begin with the easy part. What's the deal about "government"? Government encompasses both "the assembly hall" — unless Ryan is talking about the Indiana University basketball team, which I doubt — and the town meeting. Those are government as much as is the federal government, which seems to be what Ryan's really talking about. This puts Ryan on the wrong side, not only of history, but of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which was called because "government," as expressed by the assembly halls and the town meetings, and the state legislatures, were tearing the country apart. You know why Paul Ryan likes local government so much? It's because local government is the easiest to buy. It's the easiest to intimidate. It's the easiest to break.

What does he mean by "communities" if not the self-government within which we create them? And how, exactly, is a city council, which probably spent the last two days arguing about, I don't know, Agenda 21's plan to steal our golfs, supposed to reassure me against "an uncertain world"? These are not the words of a man from planet Earth. But he does have some more word salad to share on the subject.

While we belong to one country, we also belong to thousands of communities — each of them rich in tradition. And these communities don't obstruct our personal growth. They encourage it. So the duty of government is not to displace these communities, but to support them. It isn't to blunt their differences or to flatten their character — to mash them all together into a dull conformity. It's to secure our individual rights and to protect that diversity.

The two greatest achievements of the Civil War period that were not directly connected to the Civil War itself were the intercontinental railroad, and the Morrill Act, which set up the land-grant universities all over the country. Neither of them would have been possible had representatives sharing Paul Ryan's views of "community" not absented themselves from both the national legislature, and the nation itself. Both of them were dedicated in giving the children of those communities a chance to break out of grinding, hopeless conformity mashed into them by a whimsical national economy, disease, flights of locusts, and the occasional murderous blizzard.

There was no more period of this country's history in which "communities" and the people in them were so thorough mashed "into a dull conformity" than in those deregulated, robber-baron, laissez-faire days for which Ryan has been so obviously nostalgic ever since his hometown sugar daddy got him a job in Bob Kasten's office. And, as for "communities" encouraging, and not flattening, our personal growth, well, Loretta Lynn was the coal-miner's daughter so, scoreboard! (And if you can't sing, well, coal mine, moonshine, or move it on down the line.) As for rest of the discussion of how things get mashed into conformity in our "communities," I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Hannibal:

Tom's most well now, and got his bullet around his neck on a watch-guard for a watch, and is always seeing what time it is, and so there ain't nothing more to write about, and I am rotten glad of it, because if I'd 'a' knowed what a trouble it was to make a book I wouldn't 'a' tackled it, and ain't a-going to no more. But I reckon I got to light out for the territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.

We've all been there before, Huck. We can see a grifter coming over the ridge

Read more: Paul Ryan 2014 Path To Prosperity Budget - What Is It About America He Doesn't Get? - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-newest-budget-031213#ixzz2NNqs7SoF
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 12, 2013 - 10:49pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Messages 41741 - 41760 of total 55074 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