Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 04:16pm PT
|
the Fet = 100
SUAP = -100
What I find as a consistency with ideological conservatives, like SUAP, is that "they" want "rules" to apply to everyone but them.
And likewise, ideological liberals want more rules but want them to be applied to everyone.
Both don't jive with me but if I have a choice I'll take more rules with application across the board.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 07:59pm PT
|
The comments on "equal pay for equal work" need a reply.
The issue was whether the market or the courts will decide pay rates. As one who has a lot of experience with both, I trust the market much more than I trust the courts.
US gender discrimination laws are asymmetrical. If the plaintiff wins, the defendant pays the attorney's fees of both parties. If the defendant wins, the parties each pay their own attorney's fees. Put another way, if the plaintiff sues the defendant in a gender discrimination case, the defendant always pays its own attorney's fees.
Thus, as long as the defendant pays the plaintiff less than the cost of defense, the defendant comes out ahead. In theory, defendants can resort to abuse of process and malicious prosecution for redress, but the ability to prevail on either of those theories is practically nil.
This amounts to legal extortion, and the plaintiffs' bar -- which has bought and paid for Democratic politicians to carry its water for them -- designed it that way. The Senate bill that was defeated was nothing more than a repayment to the plaintiffs' bar by their Democratic lap dogs.
Sorry to use such inflammatory language, but the way certain parties try to present the facts concerning this bill deserves a decisive rebuke.
John
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 08:56pm PT
|
STFU - Isn't that just what the right wing does all the time?
Make up an excuse as to forgive (please see previous list of individuals, please add Swagert, Graham, Reagan, Buche 1, Nixon, Baker)....
How many have done time?
What's this about republicunts not wanting to sign the Start Treaty with Russia?
Republickunts wanting to spend more then Democrats do all the sudden?
Wholey shite, you people have two different personalities?
WTF STFU?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
|
What's this about republicunts not wanting to sign the Start Treaty with Russia?
A wise man once said, "Trust, but verify".
Do you really think Russia is abiding? Also, why are we dimishing when China, North Korea, and Iran are pursuing increases???
It's strategically stupid to show diminished firepower. Think about it. Russia isn't what we should be worried about or signed downsizing treaties with either.
Obama is a f*#king putz, or anti-American. Or both.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 09:17pm PT
|
STFUASB - "The BIG question -- if you libs are for liberty and freedom, why do you support politicians that constantly want to increase the size and scope of government in our lives?"
That's funny.
If you say that regulations are bad, then I can say that I would be glad to put more human beings in places where Corporations do not want human beings to be, and cross my fingers and hope that those human beings are not republcunt in nature, and will turn a blind eye to every dirty thing the corporation is willing to do to make a profit of the rest of the human beings here in the US.
But, I see this growing government thing quite a different way. Do you also consider the creation of Homeland Security as part of this "growing guv'ment"?
Because I do see it as a growing government.
Do you count the Military Contractors as "growing gove'ment"?
Because I do.
But then again, I see that the governor of of Ca is willing to cut just about all budgets, even police, fire, and first responders....
Does it seem that repukes couldn't care less about people? Because that's how they seem to be to me, plain and simple.
STFUAQYB - does that answer? if you'd like, I can try to break it down for an 8th grader? But basically all you have to know is that ref*#klicunts don't care about people. Again, plain and simple.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 09:20pm PT
|
Bluey - Where you been?
And without a spellchecker?
"dimishing" - Can you please tell me WTF this means, please?
thanks
Holy shite, "Do you really think Russia is abiding? "
What's it gonna take to get you to believe something? Would rash need to report it? Or would that be O'Brially? Or, don't tell me.... Feck?
Ask yourself What does the current russia have to gain from not getting rid of their sh#t?
Its aging, its unprotected, it able to be stolen by anyone who may or may not be a terrorist.... Is that what you want? Un-American as far as I can tell.
"A wise man once said, "Trust, but verify"."
- Another wiseman once said "Don't trust a complete idiot"
"Do you really think Russia is abiding? Also, why are we dimishing when China, North Korea, and Iran are pursuing increases???"
- What is your proof of this other than what has been reported to you from the 3 nazi sway/hate mongers listed above?
"It's strategically stupid to show diminished firepower. Think about it. Russia isn't what we should be worried about or signed downsizing treaties with either."
- You sir are very bright. One side of your team is telling a story about spending, and you seem to be talking about increasing our nuclear weaponry... What's it going to be? Oh, wait.. This is it... You have reached the promised land... We're back to the nuclear thread days of the cold war?
Yeah!
The terrorists win?
What ever happened to the "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" crap that bachus spewed?
At this time, I say if the president wants to round up all the nukes, and take them away from Russia, more power to'em.
But that's just blind old me, marching lock step with what my president wants, just like the good old days of the repuklickcunt baushe years?
blueyringworm is a f*#king putz, or anti-American. Or both. But mostly just dumb as rocks.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 09:45pm PT
|
GM..raise 20 billion dollars today...GM Volt...Motor Trend car of the year.
1.4 million jobs saved.
Government sucks!!!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:14pm PT
|
Skip..we welcome your hate.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:14pm PT
|
Gotta love those catch phrases that the Fox fog machine throws out there for all their drones to parrot:
-"man up" (especially funny when said by the women who want to be leaders)
-"way forward"
-"adult conversation" (yesterday's catch-phrase)
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 12:25am PT
|
I hate to say it, but this is the reason the repukes are so wrong on everything:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1321598/Help-Access-Fund-Unlock-Jailhouse
This is posted on the Jailhouse/Access Fund Donation request thread.
fattrad
Mountain climber
GOP Convention
Nov 18, 2010 - 11:42am PT
Hmmmmm, how much to buy the whole place??
The evil one
And then some jerk comes along and goes way off topic with this drivel:
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Nov 18, 2010 - 06:01pm PT
How about some press here on the AF's attempts to get Summit Rock opened in the Bay Area.
Sure it's a small area, but it's pretty close to the hearts of BA denizens. Lots of cool climbs there.
The parks dept. has basically said, "f*#k off, we don't want to talk to you anymore or negotiate" regarding the YEAR-ROUND raptor closure!
We may have to lobby the board of supervisors (intentionally not capitalized) to get more pressure. It will require money.
I know C-Mac is a North Bay climber, but we have encroaching LEO and parks dept.'s f*#king with us too. C'mon!!!!
This closure involves 1 nesting peregrine when you can drive through Mountain View and Palo Alto and see Peregrines everywhere on buildings and telephone/utility poles!!!!
This as clear as I can put it.
Totally self interested pukes is what's ruining America as I know it.
There is a better way.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 02:42am PT
|
Conservative Tolerance, Liberal Hate
Conservatives see themselves and everyone else as basically selfish. Since
we see ourselves that way, we don’t hold it against others when we see
them that way as well. Liberals are doing their selfish thing and that is
cool with us as long as they leave us alone to do our selfish thing.
Unfortunately they won’t leave us alone. They are not content to let us
wallow in our selfishness. If we insist on promoting our self interest and
refuse to make progressive advances toward enlightenment, it can only be
because we are stupid, evil or greedy. They become furious with our
absolute unwillingness to advance out of what they see as ignorance, evil
and greed. They grow to hate us for our retrograde, reactionary
unwillingness to give up our greedy self interest.
So this is the conflict of vision. Conservatives see liberals as, like
themselves, self interested and treat them like they believe self
interested people want to be treated: with a shrug and noninterference.
Liberals, on the other hand, see conservatives as stubborn, selfish,
greedy and evil – retrograde Neanderthals who refuse to be enlightened. It
is the height of irony that conservatives get tagged as “haters” and
liberals are deemed “tolerant.” The truth is exactly the opposite.
Conservatives are extremely tolerant of the selfishness they see in
themselves when they judge other people. Liberals, on the other hand, are
usually very intolerant of what they see as stubborn refusal by
conservatives to be enlightened. Liberals will not suffer a conservative
speaker on a college campus and will shout him down and drive him from the
lectern. Conservatives shouting down a liberal speaker is virtually
unheard of. It is liberals who are the intolerant haters, not
conservatives.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/conservative-tolerance-liberal-hate/blog-271591/
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 10:01am PT
|
O Canada: The Epitaph for Single Payer Health Care
Stanley Goldfarb
November 18, 2010 5:42 PM
“[H]ealth care system is coming apart at the seams….On the ground, there is too often a glaring lack of execution: long waits, bed shortages, unequal access to medication. Those failures are compounded by the fact that the ever-rising medicare bill is squeezing out education and other social priorities.”
No, that’s not from an item in the New York Times; rather, that’s from a piece in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Nov 7, 2010 about Canada’s health care system. Its problems provide a glimpse of what a fee-for-service medical care produces in a single payer system: no demonizing of insurance companies, no teeth gnashing about the uninsured, and no end to the concern about how to pay for health care. The Globe and Mail goes on to point out that most European countries have done what Canada needs to do: “Adopt a model that pragmatically mixes public and private elements both in funding and delivery…”
The conflict in Canada is over whether fairness means sameness, and whether everyone should get the same care under the same conditions or, as in most European countries, should a two-tier system be implemented. In these cases, those with more resources can get health care services without waiting and, on occasion, with enhanced ambience.
There really is not a single Canadian system but rather a series of provincial systems each with its own approach to the issue. The series in the Globe and Mail is surprisingly, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced. There are some abuses in the private system, where it is allowed, but there are major deficiencies in the public system because of growing demand for services. On the whole though, an 8 percent inflation rate in health care costs in Canada is unsustainable and having a single payer system is not enough to make the problem go away.
Paul Krugman, in a recent appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” boiled the choice for Medicare down to identifying what works and what does not. This is an economist’s view of health care and it is beyond superficial. As the Canadian system shows, central control leads to, for example, a one-year wait to have a colonoscopy in Quebec. It might make sense from an economist’s perspective, but the populace is not that happy about it and demanding better government care. (Krugman also conveniently avoids talking about what does not work with Medicare, relying instead to focus on the positive.)
So think again about a single payer plan. It is struggling in a nation with about 1/10 the U.S. population. Plan B is needed. Ideological arguments about how we need to eliminate insurance companies and do away with a competition-based system simply do not square with the results of the Canadian experience. Yes, the cost of care for the average Canadian on a per capita basis is much less than in the U.S., but the availability of services is also much less for all the “discretionary” services that Americans, and particularly seniors, have come to expect.
Americans have looked at what Obamacare offers and realized that while it may help a small fraction of the population that is uninsured or underinsured, the promise of government run health care, such as what the Canadians receive, is not appealing. A model that involves competition based on quality and service, that takes advantage of technology, and that places the decisions for care in the hands of patients and physicians, as each has an economic incentive to be highly efficient, is what is required. Moreover, the choice denied to most Canadians to spend more to receive the services they desire is a deficiency that America should avoid.
Barack Obama, and most of the progressive movement, has declared that a single payer system is the end game for health care reform. If they are successful, we’ll be seeing this sort of article in the New York Times pretty soon.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 12:28pm PT
|
Yep, bend over baby...
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 04:58pm PT
|
jghedge - I second
"Hahaha
Have fun campaigning for Sarah Palin in 2 years, your delusion will fit right in, just like it did with...uhh...what were their names, Christie Whitman and...Carlo...who?
Hahahaha
Loser"
bwahahaahhaha
that must hurt, but then again... do they even remember voting for the losers?
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 05:15pm PT
|
fatsuckhole - "Nov 19, 2010 - 08:19am PT
Jingy,
I will be writing a nice size check for Jailhouse, any libs chipping in????
This lib just chipped in.
Put your money where your mouth is.
And just to think. You wasted all that time supporting people who eventually failed to meet the public's standards in one way or another...
I'd like to thing that within a few weeks you'd be able to cut this 40K amount by a third, right?
Or is it all just lip service from the conservatives?
Confirmation
Your Confirmation Information
11/19/2010 01:54 PM (PT)
Access Fund
Rob Bertken
?? ?? Ca. ??
Thank you for donating to Jailhouse Rock conservation!
The following summarizes your contribution:
Payment Amount: ??.?? (just to keep you guessing)
Reference ID: 116428636
Access Fund contact information:
Email Address: membership@accessfund.org
I guess the over all question would not be "any libs chipping in?", but rather "does anyone who still has a job have enough disposable income to provide for the future of a pretty decent climbing location?"
I can understand if conservatives don't send off a few coins... after all, it's not like any of them can climb at this location anyway. And that, I believe, has more to do with mindset than anything else.
|
|
tomtom
Social climber
Seattle, Wa
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
|
Sarah Palin's Alaska
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2010 - 09:39pm PT
|
A Sarah quote: Don't retreat; just reload.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!