Mr. Toles, do you mean “to get along?” They haven’t tried ANYTHING else! The Repugs have totally been a “take it our way or leave it” block. The party of NO.
The DC thing is very amusing. The party that talks endlessly about the evils of centralized power, of “elites” making decisions for people that they ought to make themselves; the virtues of local control, of personal rights and personal responsibility, find themselves having to oppose the clearly expressed wish of the majority of voters in the DC to end the century-old illegalization of marijuana.Interesting piece in the Times. A new study shows that only 20% of self-identified Republicans also classify themselves as white evangelical Protestants. Yet from that relatively small faction of the party comes nearly all the anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-immigrant fervor. Asked whether abortion should be legal in most cases, Americans as a whole say YES, YES, and STRENGTHEN. Non-evangelical Republicans either agree with the majority, or are about evenly split on the question. But white evangelicals disagree by large margins, and are about the only ones who do. And they, of course, have a large effect on the Republican Party as a whole, which could be quite different without them.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/opinion/frank-bruni-republicans-evangelicals-gays-and-abortion.html?smid=fb-share
In both Missouri and Kansas, the state legislators whine about how the dreaded Feds are trumping states’ rights, then turn right around and dictate to the counties and cities, ignoring the majorities’ wishes on a huge range of issues…….
The idea that legislation is forced down anybody’s throat when it wins the support of a elected majority of both houses and the president is frankly absurd. Remember what the GOP’s dear old Grover Norquist called bipartisanship? “Another name for date rape.”Of course, not being a Republican, I don’t agree with Grover, and think bipartisan legislation, when possible, is a good idea.But tell me, how much Republican support would Obama receive if he signed the Keystone bill? Would that improve the GOP’s opinion of him? Would it make them more willing to co-operate or compromise on other matters? He gets damned for vetoing it; If he signed it, the GOP would still damn him for having taken so long and for a stack of other things. Meanwhile few in his own party would be happy if made yet another concession to the disloyal opposition. So delaying this project until the full environmental impact is known, and we are more sure of where the price of oil is going, both make sense.From what I’ve read the Keystone is about as risky as Solyndra was. If oil prices remain this low, the Canadian oil will be too expensive to go after. And while the pipline may be perfectly safe, it will only take one major spill to make the project look like a terrible mistake. The number of jobs that the pipeline would produce would be small by every account.And by the way, I am not against the pipeline any more than I am in favor it. I don’t have a strong opinion either way. If it is risky, well, a lot of things are risky. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sometime worth the risk. Sometimes they don’t end well. You have to live with that. If it pipeline is a good and necessary thing, I’m sure it will be built in time. Delay is just delay.
There is a saying in historical preservation: “All victories are temporary, all defeats are permanent.” You can save something for another day, year, or century, but once it goes, it goes forever. This generally applies to conservation of all sorts. The conservation of institutions, customs, systems, values, etc., as much as of natural habitats, and material objects. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. This is the battle that conservationists and (true) conservatives are always fighting. This why conservationists and conservatives can get so passionate. The problem is, there probably isn’t anything in nature not worth preserving. There may be many thing in society, ancient, venerable things, that aren’t worth preserving; even things that we would be better off without.
“I think that 0bama is the one that just vetoed a bi-partisan jobs bill called the Keystone Pipeline.”If Republicans actually cared about temporary construction jobs, they’d fund bridge repair and replacement.
You (as is usually your habit) “exaggerate” statistics (by ~100%) to strengthen your case. The total was actually $43.9BN, $27.5BN going to Highways and $8BN to HSR: http://www.caba.org/resources/Documents/IS-2009-67.pdf
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
That elephant’s already on PCP, the donkey, just some Jack.
Liverlips McCracken Premium Member about 9 years ago
Mr. Toles, do you mean “to get along?” They haven’t tried ANYTHING else! The Repugs have totally been a “take it our way or leave it” block. The party of NO.
Alexander the Good Enough about 9 years ago
Peace, mister! The problem for the Republicans is that that stuff does nothing to make one any smarter.
Crabbyrino Premium Member about 9 years ago
You’re gonna need a bong…and the really good stuff…and a MIRACLE.
BaltoBill about 9 years ago
You must have already smoked some to come up with that BS.
Doughfoot about 9 years ago
The DC thing is very amusing. The party that talks endlessly about the evils of centralized power, of “elites” making decisions for people that they ought to make themselves; the virtues of local control, of personal rights and personal responsibility, find themselves having to oppose the clearly expressed wish of the majority of voters in the DC to end the century-old illegalization of marijuana.Interesting piece in the Times. A new study shows that only 20% of self-identified Republicans also classify themselves as white evangelical Protestants. Yet from that relatively small faction of the party comes nearly all the anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-immigrant fervor. Asked whether abortion should be legal in most cases, Americans as a whole say YES, YES, and STRENGTHEN. Non-evangelical Republicans either agree with the majority, or are about evenly split on the question. But white evangelicals disagree by large margins, and are about the only ones who do. And they, of course, have a large effect on the Republican Party as a whole, which could be quite different without them.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/opinion/frank-bruni-republicans-evangelicals-gays-and-abortion.html?smid=fb-share
Godfreydaniel about 9 years ago
In both Missouri and Kansas, the state legislators whine about how the dreaded Feds are trumping states’ rights, then turn right around and dictate to the counties and cities, ignoring the majorities’ wishes on a huge range of issues…….
Godfreydaniel about 9 years ago
Probably a lot of states would have that same problem.
Doughfoot about 9 years ago
The idea that legislation is forced down anybody’s throat when it wins the support of a elected majority of both houses and the president is frankly absurd. Remember what the GOP’s dear old Grover Norquist called bipartisanship? “Another name for date rape.”Of course, not being a Republican, I don’t agree with Grover, and think bipartisan legislation, when possible, is a good idea.But tell me, how much Republican support would Obama receive if he signed the Keystone bill? Would that improve the GOP’s opinion of him? Would it make them more willing to co-operate or compromise on other matters? He gets damned for vetoing it; If he signed it, the GOP would still damn him for having taken so long and for a stack of other things. Meanwhile few in his own party would be happy if made yet another concession to the disloyal opposition. So delaying this project until the full environmental impact is known, and we are more sure of where the price of oil is going, both make sense.From what I’ve read the Keystone is about as risky as Solyndra was. If oil prices remain this low, the Canadian oil will be too expensive to go after. And while the pipline may be perfectly safe, it will only take one major spill to make the project look like a terrible mistake. The number of jobs that the pipeline would produce would be small by every account.And by the way, I am not against the pipeline any more than I am in favor it. I don’t have a strong opinion either way. If it is risky, well, a lot of things are risky. That doesn’t mean they aren’t sometime worth the risk. Sometimes they don’t end well. You have to live with that. If it pipeline is a good and necessary thing, I’m sure it will be built in time. Delay is just delay.
There is a saying in historical preservation: “All victories are temporary, all defeats are permanent.” You can save something for another day, year, or century, but once it goes, it goes forever. This generally applies to conservation of all sorts. The conservation of institutions, customs, systems, values, etc., as much as of natural habitats, and material objects. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. This is the battle that conservationists and (true) conservatives are always fighting. This why conservationists and conservatives can get so passionate. The problem is, there probably isn’t anything in nature not worth preserving. There may be many thing in society, ancient, venerable things, that aren’t worth preserving; even things that we would be better off without.
Jason Allen about 9 years ago
“I think that 0bama is the one that just vetoed a bi-partisan jobs bill called the Keystone Pipeline.”If Republicans actually cared about temporary construction jobs, they’d fund bridge repair and replacement.
Robert C. Premium Member about 9 years ago
You (as is usually your habit) “exaggerate” statistics (by ~100%) to strengthen your case. The total was actually $43.9BN, $27.5BN going to Highways and $8BN to HSR: http://www.caba.org/resources/Documents/IS-2009-67.pdf
gammaguy about 9 years ago
mdavis4183: “It’s ILLEGAL to smoke pot outside and at work.”.That’s OK. They’re not immigrants, so illegal doesn’t matter.