Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42001 - 42020 of total 52599 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 11:11am PT
The wrongness of Republicans never stops!

Will they ever get a clue that they are Wrong??
Hell No!!

which just makes it all the worse

They will just say they need to repackage their wrongness in a new fancy box,

same wrong, same BS

Credit: Dr. F.


Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 25, 2013 - 11:27am PT
So you are for sensible Air Pollution Regulations

But are against Air Pollution Regulations that burden your cronies

Oh come on, Dr. F! That's neither what I said nor what I believe. I support air pollution regulations whose marginal benefits exceed their marginal costs, regardless of whose ox gets fed and whose gets gored. When I was farming cherries and citrus, the SJVAPCD regulations imposed substantial direct costs on the operations, but I supported them, even though it really hurt during hard freezes when I couldn't use smudge pots to save my orange trees from permanent damage.

I have no connection to any company with distribution centers in the Valley, as one example, but those distribution centers provide a lot of employment around here -- where our unemployment rate can run three times higher than that in the coastal metropolitan areas. When I see regulatory considerations of permitting new distribution centers here, I see on the SJVAPCD side only discussion of increased pollution, and none on the increased employment. When I see the same discussion on the zoning side, I see only discussion of the effect on employment, not on the effect on pollution.

Worse, I see potential competitors use the regulatory process to stifle competition, and to cheat consumers (whether private or public) by continuing to charge higher rates. The sort of regulatory reform I support would take an economist's view of the regulatory issues, and explicitly study and try to balance marginal costs and benefits. I'm not holding my breath.


Mar 25, 2013 - 11:34am PT
Craig and I both grew up in So Cal in the 70's, and we remember what the smog was like back then

It was a rare day when you could see the San Gabriel Mntns from Pasadena, and riding your bike made your lungs hurt and your eyes burn

Then the AQCMD stepped in, and the air quality is exponentially better

So yes, it's completely ridiculous to try to quantify that in terms of "cost effectiveness", should we extend that same criteria to water quality too?

"Marginal benefits", hahahaha. Breathing clean air is a marginal benefit...riiiight.

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 25, 2013 - 11:49am PT
Joe, I lived in the LA area from 1973-82, and in Pasadena the last three years. I know first-hand the benefits of the air pollution controls.

I still chuckle that I survived my Saturday rides up Angeles Crest Highway. When I rested, I'd look down, see the brown haze, and say to myself "I'm glad I'm above all that." When I rested higher, I'd look down, and realize that the brown haze covered where I'd stopped before. The process would continue with the repetition of a mathematical induction proof. I think the current generation may not realize what it was like to see the air you breathe.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 11:49am PT
If the costs are higher to produce a product in California, what's wrong with passing those costs off to the consumer?

It's not cheating or gouging, it's just business as usual
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 11:54am PT
So you are for sensible Air Pollution Regulations

But are against Air Pollution Regulations that burden businesses that you don't want to be burdened because of the possible burdens on things you think shouldn't be burdened

There, I fixed it for you John

Somewhere out there
Mar 25, 2013 - 11:59am PT
Yet another reason why Republigoons are wrong about everything... They listen to and mimic O'Railly

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 07:24pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.

Mar 25, 2013 - 10:54pm PT
So WTF is this??????

Obama implicated in nuclear and tsunami terrorist attack against Japan.


Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Mar 26, 2013 - 04:55am PT
Does this mean Obama is off the benghazi hook..? Thank goodness..

Mar 26, 2013 - 06:04pm PT
SCOTUS On SSM: "No One Cares".

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a sh#t?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be f*#king kidding me,” under his breath.

“I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog sh#t, and you are wasting our time.”

“Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?”

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the f*#k are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?”

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly.

“Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two shits what you do.”

“C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2013 - 07:21pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Government (and Jesus) Hating atheist Ayn Rand is the New Hero for those who want to justify their selfishness (as long as you can suck on SS before you die)

Ayn Rand And The Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned To Stop Loving My Neighbor And Despise Them Instead’


A fat, smug bastard friend of mine (that’s his chosen nickname, The FSB) pointed out to me some time ago that pretty much ALL conservative politics are selfish at their core. Take any conservative position on a social or economic issue and boil away all the rhetoric and what you are left with is “I got mine, screw you.”

I thought about that for a while. I suppose its simplicity struck me as being a little too easy, a little too sound bitey. So I sat down and made a list of conservative ideas and what they really mean:

•No gay marriage – Homosexuality makes me uncomfortable (due to misguided religious influence or poor upbringing or both) so gay people should be punished because of my beliefs. Stoopid homos…
•No welfare, food stamps or Medicaid – I’m not poor enough to qualify for these programs so my tax dollars shouldn’t pay for it. Stoopid poor people and by poor I really mean black…
•No health care reform – Why should I help pay for other people who are sick when I’m not? Stoopid sick people…
•No environmental protection – Environmental laws makes things more expensive for me and that’s bad. I also don’t understand the concept of long term impact; I want cheap gas and gadgets now! Stoopid…ah, you get the idea…
•Don’t raise my taxes – EVER. The government can find its own money to pay for stuff I want.
•Medicare – Young conservatives: Why should I help pay for old people and the disabled? Older conservatives: Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
•Social Security – Young conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made, people should take care of themselves, not depend on handouts from people like me. Older conservatives: Sacrifices need to be made BUT DON’T YOU TOUCH MY SOCIAL SECURITY!
•No abortion – The government should tell women what to do with their bodies because I don’t like abortion.
•No prayer in school? – GOVERNMENT OVERREACH!! I like The Jesus™ so everyone should have to listen to my prayers. No Muslim prayers, though. That’s indoctrination.

This list goes on for some time. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became: A conservative society is a borderline sociopathic society.

Dictionary.com defines a sociopath as: a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Conservapedia says a sociopath is “someone with a personality disorder characterized by an antisocial behavior and an absence of moral responsibility or social conscience.” (I would have cited Wikipedia but we all know they’re a liberal front for George Soros, I think I heard that on Glenn Beck)

The key words here are “moral responsibility” and “social conscience.” Conservative politics lack these essential characteristics. In their place we find greed, hate, lies, an inability to empathize and an overblown sense of entitlement and self importance. In other words: all the indicators of a seriously disturbed person. Except it’s a political philosophy and it has millions of disciples.

But Justin, how can you say that?

Well, that’s kind of easy. Who is the guiding light of conservatives (and Libertarians) all the way from corrupt CEOs down to easily manipulated Tea Party fanatics?

The answer? Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand’s specific worldview was that “The pursuit of his (man’s) own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.” This is in direct opposition to a functional humane society where the whole must be cohesive in order to provide for its weakest and most vulnerable. You’ll notice my inclusion of the word “humane.” You can have a perfectly functional society without a shred of humanity in it. Take, for example, the Industrial Age societies. They literally built the foundations for the world we know and yet they allowed or even encouraged child labor; essentially the slavery of children. Speaking of slavery, they had THAT, too, and no matter what Haley Barbour, Pat Buchanan and the other apologists revisionists would have you think, it was horrible and inhumane.

Ayn Rand’s ideal world is one where society has no say in your actions short of you physically assaulting another person: “The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force.”[ii] One is forced to wonder what she would make of Wall Street’s Epic Fail. Rand was a big champion of no regulation at all. Close your eyes and imagine what Wall Street could do with even less regulation than it had before. Think of all the possibilities. Taste the freedom.

Are you done vomiting yet?

Do you know why Rand’s laissez-faire utopia would fail? It’s the exact same reason a socialist utopia would fail: people are imperfect. We are greedy, envious, petty and selfish. There will always be some among us who will better themselves specifically to the detriment of others because they simply don’t care. There will always be those who, as they gain power and wealth, will want more at any expense. We saw this in action in communist Russia. It was rife with the kind of corruption described so very well in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others.

We see it today in that bastion of capitalism: America and its budding Oligarchy. As wealth and power becomes ever more concentrated, the rest of us suffer. Any attempts to remedy the situation by imposing restrictions on the rich and powerful to keep them from fleecing the country is met with howls of class warfare, Socialism and government overreach. Any attempts to remove even one of the sweetheart deals in place allowing those same rich and powerful anti-government types to pay less taxes (or no taxes at all) are also met with howls of “unfair treatment.”

Now that’s what I call the rich having their cake and eating it, too. And my cake. And yours. And his and hers and that guy over there. Hell, they’re eating all our cake and complaining that we took some of the crumbs!

These people are sociopaths, pure and simple. As long as they get what they “deserve”, it doesn’t matter what happens to anyone else. Homeless families are not their problem. Malnourished children are not their problem. Uninsured sick people are not their problem. The elderly reduced to abject poverty (as they were before the advent of Social Security) are not their problem.

Ayn Rand and her delusional rantings provide a rationalization for this immoral behavior. After the Enron scandal and again after the crash in 2008, CEOs started to reread Atlas Shrugged: “CEOs put the book down knowing in their hearts that they are not the greedy crooks they are portrayed to be in today’s business headlines but are heroes like the characters in Rand’s novel.”[iii]

Heroes? Really? Is that so?

I would love to walk a group of Wall Street executives out to a Tea Party rally and have them explain to the crowd all the ways these “heroes” have stolen away the TPers money and future. Then announce that it’s OK because Ayn Rand says self interest and greed are good so whatever these “heroes” do in pursuit of that goal is morally just, even necessary. I figure the cognitive dissonance would make at least half of the crowd’s heads explode.

Mahatma Ghandi said a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. By this very simple criterion, the conservative sociopathic society would be found wanting and yet the conservative movement claims to be the party of God, family and human decency. It is none of these things as we’ll examine in my next liberal descent into madness, “Republican Jesus.”
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2013 - 07:41pm PT

The Day That TV News Died

by Chris Hedges
Published on Monday, March 25, 2013 by TruthDig.com
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 26, 2013 - 08:06pm PT
Well good Doctor, there's a few things i have learned to depend upon you for. You do an excellent job of policing and steering your two most popular threads and you can always be counted upon to provide a rousing diatribe to stir up your minions and to bait in new or old meat to eviscerate.You should be paid by the far left as an experimentalist in minion crowd control and opposition instigation.

Mar 27, 2013 - 08:38pm PT
Laffer and Moore: The Red-State Path to Prosperity


"Red states in the Southeast and Sunbelt are following the Reagan model by reducing tax rates and easing regulations. They also offer right-to-work laws as an enticement for businesses to come and set up shop. Meanwhile, the blue states of the Northeast, joined by California, Minnesota and Illinois, are implementing the Obama model of raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy to fund government "investments" and union power."


Actually we're raising taxes because WE'RE SUPPORTING THE RED STATES


They only get to "follow the Reagan model by reducing tax rates and easing regulations" because they're being subsidized. By us. Which, since Reagan tripled the national debt, fits the Reagan model to a tee.

Take away Blue State support of the impoverished Red States, and they'd turn into Haiti overnight.

Note also on the provided link that there is only one "donor" Red State now - Texas.

EVERY OTHER RED STATE is now a debtor state. All but one.


Mar 27, 2013 - 08:58pm PT


"Consider the South. We predict that within a decade five or six states in Dixie could entirely eliminate their income taxes. This would mean that the region stretching from Florida through Texas and Louisiana could become a vast state income-tax free zone."

Gee, I wonder why?

Amount received for every dollar paid in federal tax per state

Mississippi $2.02
Louisiana $1.78
Alabama $1.66
Kentucky $1.51
S Carolina $1.35
Tennessee $1.27

The real question is - with numbers like that...why is it going to take a decade?

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 27, 2013 - 09:04pm PT
best quote of the night!

#21 Merge obamacare with the post office. It will save the post office and bring back house visits. Just put an ambulance light on the postal jeeps and America is good to go.

FOWARD to the DEtroitification of America!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 27, 2013 - 09:14pm PT
Hedge, you're leaving out a huge swath of middle America from North Dakota in the north to Texas in the south and from Idaho-Utah in the west to as far east as Georgia. What's their numbers? Are they likewise making it easy on the evil job creating industrial corporations who actually produce resources and goods we need ?

Mar 27, 2013 - 09:16pm PT
"What's their numbers? Are they likewise making it easy on the evil job creating industrial corporations who actually produce resources and goods we need ?"

See for yourself:

Credit: jghedge

Note that only Texas is left among the Red "donor" states - all the other Red states in the donor column have turned blue.

In fairness, NM is now blue, meaning 6 "debtor" states are Blue States - out of 20

Meanwhile, 26 "debtor" Red States - out of 27 Red states total.

Oh, and you'd have to ask China about "producing resources and goods we need", since we send our resources there, and import our goods from them.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 27, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
Hedge-Can you at least get your propaganda right? I thought Florida, Colorado,Nevada,New Mexico,West Virginia,and Ohio all went blue for Obama? Rather amateurish attempt to distort the truth wouldn't you admit?
Messages 42001 - 42020 of total 52599 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