Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Study: Turns out John Roberts was a raging liberal all along. Just kidding. He still thinks 11 year olds should be arrested for eating a french fry on the subway. But he does have a liberal history on some issues...including gay rights   (thedailydolt.com ) divider line 98
    More: Interesting, Reagan White House  
•       •       •

2228 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2012 at 1:05 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 01:21:11 PM  

ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...


Either Obama was going to murder John Roberts spats-wearing son, or John Roberts is gay (which is why he and his wife adopted) and Obama was going to out him. Which would have caused John Roberts job problems at the job for which Roberts has a lifetime appointment and no boss.

The same people that think that are typically the same people who think that Obama threatened to murder Chelsea Clinton and that Obama "got to" every judge that laughed Orly Taitz and Gary Kreep out of a courtroom.

Obama could wipe out a good 10% of his opponents if he held a press conference stating that he enjoys inhaling oxygen and that people should be careful not to ingest carbon monoxide.


/Mah freedom hose runs from the tail pipe right into the cab, just pipin' in freedom. Take that 0bammy!
 
2012-07-05 01:24:40 PM  

TheNewJesus: gay rights is not a "liberal" issue

gay rights is a civil rights issue


Thank you Jesus! (the new one)
 
2012-07-05 01:24:42 PM  
www.thegatewaypundit.com
 
2012-07-05 01:25:35 PM  

TheNewJesus: gay rights is not a "liberal" issue

gay rights is a civil rights issue



Can you think of a single civil right that republicans support?
 
2012-07-05 01:25:51 PM  

Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]


Goddamn right. There's plenty of signs and plenty of trash cans. If you can't farking read, or don't farking care, I don't care if they ban you from the subway for life, you precious snowflake fark. Our trains are clean, and it isn't because of the people who think that someone is there to wipe their asses for them wherever they go.

/Throw 'em on the third rail.
 
2012-07-05 01:25:52 PM  

hubiestubert: To be fair, supporting marriage equality is should be considered a Conservative position.


Yeah, no. A conservative position by definition resists a change to the status quo save in the face of an overwhelming reason to make the change. And if you mean small-government or strict constructionist, I doubt those would apply either given that they'd typically argue that marriage doesn't naturally fall under federal jurisdiction at all.

That said, at this point I don't think waiting on legalized gay marriage state by state will really be much slower than trying to shove it through as a federal issue. The only people that are really strongly opposed to the idea are the kind of religious asshats that even the majority of religious people think are taking shiat too far-- there's no business interest in opposing it (oh, noes, we might sell more wedding stuff, the horror), it has no financial impact on the government, and even the slippery-slope arguments aren't particularly terrifying to the average modern American (oh, no, it might eventually lead to the formalization of multi-partner relationships or increased adoption by gay people, how horr-- no, wait, that'd actually be kind of nice, especially the last part). There's not even any real oomph behind the religious opposition, the reactionaries have mostly given up and moved on to truly nonsensical shiat like opposing birth control for some reason. It's not even a divisive enough social issue that the Democrats feel a need to hedge their bets, the majority openly advocate it and a fair quantity of GOP types at the state/local level are conspicuously silent when it's time to bring the outrage on the issue.

Houston of all places elected a Gay mayor, for chrissake. Houston. Stick a fork in this issue, it's pretty clearly more or less done.

//Progress at the national level will be slowed down by lower turnover and thus older fogies, I suspect. Hell, NIMBY McNIMBYson didn't stop cockblocking Nuclear power until he died in the '00s, and no one has had any even semi-reasonable objections to that since the 1970s. So my money's on the states.
 
2012-07-05 01:25:53 PM  

Deftoons: GAT_00: WhoIsWillo: GAT_00: Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

Kennedy is a libertarian. Apply this logic and almost all his rulings make sense.

Well, the supposed theory behind libertarianism says he'd rule against DOMA. Libertarianism in practice says he'd vote for DOMA to remain.

This is the problem.

That's not Libertarianism in practice. That's a social conservative paying lip service to libertarianism. The problem is we have not seen too much Libertarianism in practice in this country, we have mostly seen social conservatives paying lip service to libertarianism but then doing a 180.

Maybe that was the point you were making all along, I don't know. But I felt I had to interject with that.


More or less. It's what libertarians in this county do, and that's what matters.
 
2012-07-05 01:28:52 PM  

Jim_Callahan: it has no financial impact on the government


Minor correction on your post: covering benefits for gay spouses would have a financial impact on the government. I don't think it's a big deal, but it IS an impact.
 
2012-07-05 01:29:18 PM  

mahuika: ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...

Some Freepers think Obama threatened his family.


What makes me laugh is that ANY sort of coercion would have taken place days or even weeks ahead of the ruling, yet the FIRST time we hear about it is AFTER the ruling. Suddenly everyone is so sure... yet if they had any definitive proof, that proof would have been obtained before the ruling. It's clearly just reactionary...
 
2012-07-05 01:30:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I haven't seen more libertarian societies be anything other than what you described. But libertarianism has nothing standing in the way of greater social freedoms, while communism and capitalism both have economic realities standing in the way of their "pure" forms.

To answer the proposition you stated, however, I would say I have yet to see a "libertarian" in office who wasn't a corporate cock sucker who would stridently defend corporate "rights" while being at least willing, if not an active participant, in seeing personal rights diminished. That especially includes Ron Paul, who's willing to defend your personal rights to a limited degree - and EXCLUSIVELY at the fede ...


What personal rights are you talking about - abortion? Gay rights? If it's abortion, perhaps you have a point, but Ron Paul being gynecologist and delivers babies for a living, well I can understand his feelings on abortion (despite myself being pro-choice).

What about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian running for President (and former twice-elected Governor of New Mexico)?

A couple questions as well: Don't you think there are times when eliminating corporate "rights" (whatever that means) can crossover into individual rights? Perhaps there is a precedent that people would rather not to be set, despite the flaws that come with being free.

-Aren't most libertarians AGAINST corporate subsidies?

-Being against regulations doesn't mean one is a "corporate cock sucker." One of the reasons why some are against many forms of regulation is that it actually makes it harder for smaller businesses to compete with the larger ones, because large corporate firms have the money and personnel to keep up with the regulations while smaller businesses get regressively hurt trying to keep up.

Just wanted to show that more often than not, advocating a free country does not equal corporate rule or preference. It's actually the other way around. I know the left continues to think otherwise, but that's a debate as old as the hills.
 
2012-07-05 01:32:10 PM  

fracto73: Can you think of a single civil right that republicans support?


Guns.
 
2012-07-05 01:35:10 PM  

Deftoons: -Being against regulations doesn't mean one is a "corporate cock sucker." One of the reasons why some are against many forms of regulation is that it actually makes it harder for smaller businesses to compete with the larger ones, because large corporate firms have the money and personnel to keep up with the regulations while smaller businesses get regressively hurt trying to keep up.


So libertarians are small business cock suckers?
 
2012-07-05 01:40:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So libertarians are small business cock suckers?


Everyone's got a passtime, amirite?
 
2012-07-05 01:55:02 PM  

dletter: Anyone have an explanation for the "super old" (born in the 1910s) being more "progressive" than people born in the next 2 decades? Or is it that probably that is so old (85+) that there were probably only around 10 in that age group polled?


You're correct, that it's most likely just an artifact of the small sample size.
Similarly, there's actually some pretty high uncertainty on the values for the 1991-1992 group.

dletter: Also, I've never seen any attribution to this poll... people just seem to paste it in threads.


Mostly with "people" being "me".

The source is the US General Social Survey; the chart, generated by the Berkley Survey and Data Analysis web interface. As I recall, it's the combined results for filter YEAR(2004-2010) surveys on the question of MARHOMO versus a recode of birth year COHORT into decades (usually available as CHRTDEC); probably with compwt weighing, if any.

The Berkeley interface makes for a fun toy; there's a lot of data on US attitudes available, on a lot of topics.

Lsherm: Just a guess, but living through the Great Depression and WWII during your early adult years probably keeps your political focus on more economic/military concerns.


That's another possibility. Might also be fading echoes of the major push to secularism post-civil war, before the religious regrouped. It could also be that those folks are hoping to see great-grandchildren enough that they don't care if they're adopted.

But I'd go with sampling artifact. In particular, it looks like the sample of that cohort who were asked in 2004-2008 were slightly less conservative in political views than would be expected from earlier sample years. That's probably at the root of it.
 
2012-07-05 01:56:43 PM  

dletter: Anyone have an explanation for the "super old" (born in the 1910s) being more "progressive" than people born in the next 2 decades? Or is it that probably that is so old (85+) that there were probably only around 10 in that age group polled?

Also, I've never seen any attribution to this poll... people just seem to paste it in threads. Not that I don't think the general trend is accurate, but, there is a [citation needed] here.


The graph is built from the results of the General Social Survey that was conducted in 2010. It's an enormous survey that, for the most recent version, asked almost 5,500 questions of more than 55,000 respondents. The specific question in the chart provided is MARHOMO, or homosexuals should have the right to marry one another. A new version is slated for release this year, and that will include people born in 1993 and 1994. Odds are every single cohort will see an increase in support; the last college freshman survey I saw showed 80% of them supported marriage equality, and that's noticeably higher than even the youngest cohort in that graph.

As for your other question, I've wondered why the oldest cohort has a higher support level than anyone else born before Eisenhower, but I think it's simply an artifact of the sample size at that age.
 
2012-07-05 02:00:17 PM  

abb3w: [snip]


Damn you! You beat me by two minutes!
 
2012-07-05 02:02:02 PM  

WhoIsWillo: ManateeGag: The latest butthurt i heard from my republican friend is it was blackmail that made roberts turn to the dark side. No idea what he assumes obama has on roberts though...

If Barack Obama had dirt on John Roberts, why wouldn't he have used it in Roberts confirmation hearing?


Because it's better to have the dirt you know than the dirt you don't know. Duh.
 
2012-07-05 02:06:37 PM  
Oh, and on the topic of gay rights, I don't see any way even the current SCOTUS could possibly vote to uphold DOMA. Scalia, sure, he'll say it's constitutional because he hates the homosexual agenda (whatever the fark that is), and Alito might as well. But Kennedy wrote the opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and I find it exceedingly hard to believe he would prevent irrational discrimination against gays and bans on homosexual sodomy while allowing the federal government to exercise an enumerated power it almost certainly doesn't have. And if Clarence Thomas has any intellectual consistency whatsoever, he'll see that DOMA restricts the state's right to define marriage and have it recognized by the federal government.
 
2012-07-05 02:10:02 PM  

Serious Black: Oh, and on the topic of gay rights, I don't see any way even the current SCOTUS could possibly vote to uphold DOMA. Scalia, sure, he'll say it's constitutional because he hates the homosexual agenda (whatever the fark that is), and Alito might as well. But Kennedy wrote the opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and I find it exceedingly hard to believe he would prevent irrational discrimination against gays and bans on homosexual sodomy while allowing the federal government to exercise an enumerated power it almost certainly doesn't have. And if Clarence Thomas has any intellectual consistency whatsoever, he'll see that DOMA restricts the state's right to define marriage and have it recognized by the federal government.


OK, so we'll just put Thomas in the "will uphold" category.
 
2012-07-05 02:13:30 PM  
"Stalin and Mao weren't true scotsmen communists! If you'd only give communism a few more chances, this time we'll get it right!" Gee whiz, never heard that argument before. Get a new one.
 
2012-07-05 02:15:10 PM  

born_yesterday: Serious Black: Oh, and on the topic of gay rights, I don't see any way even the current SCOTUS could possibly vote to uphold DOMA. Scalia, sure, he'll say it's constitutional because he hates the homosexual agenda (whatever the fark that is), and Alito might as well. But Kennedy wrote the opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and I find it exceedingly hard to believe he would prevent irrational discrimination against gays and bans on homosexual sodomy while allowing the federal government to exercise an enumerated power it almost certainly doesn't have. And if Clarence Thomas has any intellectual consistency whatsoever, he'll see that DOMA restricts the state's right to define marriage and have it recognized by the federal government.

OK, so we'll just put Thomas in the "will uphold" category.


Yeah, I know, I know, that's asking a lot of him.
 
2012-07-05 02:25:41 PM  
It's a shame that Chief Justice Roberts is the only member of the Supreme Court that puts the duty of the position above his personal political views.
 
2012-07-05 02:30:49 PM  

GAT_00: Politicandy: So if he (possibly) has a liberal streak when it comes to gay rights, but he also tends to defer to Congress, then where does that leave DOMA?

He believes that HCR gives him cover as an independent instead of the GOP shill he is, so he'll probably back DOMA against equal rights.

There's nothing liberal about the man. If he defers to 'authority' then he'd consider the actual Congressional law and not the Constitution the authority and back it.

Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.


He is a supreme court justice. He doesn't need cover.
 
2012-07-05 02:34:23 PM  

I alone am best: GAT_00: Politicandy: So if he (possibly) has a liberal streak when it comes to gay rights, but he also tends to defer to Congress, then where does that leave DOMA?

He believes that HCR gives him cover as an independent instead of the GOP shill he is, so he'll probably back DOMA against equal rights.

There's nothing liberal about the man. If he defers to 'authority' then he'd consider the actual Congressional law and not the Constitution the authority and back it.

Kennedy might swing against DOMA, but HCR also showed that you're best using a pair of dice for Kennedy.

He is a supreme court justice. He doesn't need cover.


Supposedly that is why he switched on HCR. I don't really believe it either.
 
2012-07-05 02:37:04 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Houston of all places elected a Gay mayor, for chrissake. Houston. Stick a fork in this issue, it's pretty clearly more or less done.


I live in Katy, work in Hockley. I've been assured by REAL TEXANS that all the liberals live in the city and the REAL Texans live outside of town.
 
2012-07-05 02:44:38 PM  

hubiestubert: You want to deny folks marriage in your own churches, go for it. That is your right and no one is arguing that you will be forced to perform ceremonies that you don't believe in. It is akin to saying that everyone will be forced to perform a bris. Marriage equality is not about forcing any one to perform ceremonies or join folks in your own church, but about allowing ministries the freedom to choose if they will or will not. And not bind atheists to the beliefs of faiths that they don't hold to. Really, holding any of our citizens to faiths that they don't hold to.


I agree with just about everything you said in your entire post, but I am calling out the section above. You see, certain churches are telling their parishioners that they will be forced to perform gay marriages, or they will lose their tax-free status. I think we should just take away the tax free statuses of all churches, so they will no longer fear losing it. Let them apply for charitable status for their charity work, and let's bring all their financials out into the light.
 
2012-07-05 02:46:26 PM  
Conservatives and evangelicals place so much importance on who nominates supreme court justices because they've been tricked into thinking that "conservative" judges will actually do something about their favorite carrot-and-stick issues like abortion. It's a shame they never learned that supreme court justices don't have a D or an R behind their names.
 
2012-07-05 02:48:43 PM  

DeaH: hubiestubert: You want to deny folks marriage in your own churches, go for it. That is your right and no one is arguing that you will be forced to perform ceremonies that you don't believe in. It is akin to saying that everyone will be forced to perform a bris. Marriage equality is not about forcing any one to perform ceremonies or join folks in your own church, but about allowing ministries the freedom to choose if they will or will not. And not bind atheists to the beliefs of faiths that they don't hold to. Really, holding any of our citizens to faiths that they don't hold to.

I agree with just about everything you said in your entire post, but I am calling out the section above. You see, certain churches are telling their parishioners that they will be forced to perform gay marriages, or they will lose their tax-free status. I think we should just take away the tax free statuses of all churches, so they will no longer fear losing it. Let them apply for charitable status for their charity work, and let's bring all their financials out into the light.


They might be telling their parishioners that, but that's simply not true. We can't help that they're lying to their people. Any more than than we can help that they are teaching hate instead of love and charity...
 
2012-07-05 03:11:07 PM  
Subby, if you've ever seen the rats on the Paris Metro, you too would think that 11 year olds should be arrested for eating a french fry on the subway.

/I've seen german shepherds smaller than those rats
 
2012-07-05 03:16:33 PM  

Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.


That's the entire metro - plenty of old and no-AC cars on the orange and red lines too.

The metro's problems are mostly due to it having diversity issues with its employment practices.

/yes NE/NY/Chi snobs, you need AC when the summer average is 95+ degrees and the windows don't open
//wondering when they end up killing 1/2 a car of people by stalling a train outside in August for 2 hours
 
2012-07-05 03:38:46 PM  

beta_plus: Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

That's the entire metro - plenty of old and no-AC cars on the orange and red lines too.

The metro's problems are mostly due to it having diversity issues with its employment practices.

/yes NE/NY/Chi snobs, you need AC when the summer average is 95+ degrees and the windows don't open
//wondering when they end up killing 1/2 a car of people by stalling a train outside in August for 2 hours


This is why you get, rightly, accused of being a racist.
 
2012-07-05 03:40:06 PM  

Serious Black: As for your other question, I've wondered why the oldest cohort has a higher support level than anyone else born before Eisenhower, but I think it's simply an artifact of the sample size at that age.


It is interesting then that you could make the assessment that the people who were able to live the longest are overall more "open minded" on that issue than the ones who died off (since, one would assume if all of the people who were alive that were born in the 1910's, and asked that question, it would not be as favorable). I seem to recall studies saying bitter, unhappy people die sooner.
 
2012-07-05 03:55:16 PM  

hubiestubert: To be fair, supporting marriage equality is should be considered a Conservative position.


Removing the concept of marriage as a legal entity should be the conservative position. Legal constructs for merging ones assets is one thing, marriage is a religious matter that should have nothing to do with the law.
 
2012-07-05 04:06:35 PM  

GAT_00: beta_plus: Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

That's the entire metro - plenty of old and no-AC cars on the orange and red lines too.

The metro's problems are mostly due to it having diversity issues with its employment practices.

/yes NE/NY/Chi snobs, you need AC when the summer average is 95+ degrees and the windows don't open
//wondering when they end up killing 1/2 a car of people by stalling a train outside in August for 2 hours

This is why you get, rightly, accused of being a racist.


Whether or not he's a racist, that series of articles (the diversity one was just the first of three) outlined severe problems with the DC metro system. If you had to ride it daily, you'd know the whole thing needs work. They managed to kill 9 passengers in 2009 in a completely avoidable accident.
 
2012-07-05 04:12:27 PM  

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: "Stalin and Mao weren't true scotsmen communists! If you'd only give communism a few more chances, this time we'll get it right!" Gee whiz, never heard that argument before. Get a new one.


Ya, we should go for pure capitalism... I wanna be a Standard Oil dynamite supplier so we can break unions the old fashioned way!

What's that? Economic history doesn't boil down to single people or events and the only sustainable systems consider both the needs of individuals and groups? Oh noes!

Seriously, read Wealth of Nations... Adam Smith is considered the father of modern Capitalism... it's a great read, and doesn't say what most people think it says.

/theory of moral sentiments was also good.
 
2012-07-05 04:18:12 PM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: beta_plus: Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

That's the entire metro - plenty of old and no-AC cars on the orange and red lines too.

The metro's problems are mostly due to it having diversity issues with its employment practices.

/yes NE/NY/Chi snobs, you need AC when the summer average is 95+ degrees and the windows don't open
//wondering when they end up killing 1/2 a car of people by stalling a train outside in August for 2 hours

This is why you get, rightly, accused of being a racist.

Whether or not he's a racist, that series of articles (the diversity one was just the first of three) outlined severe problems with the DC metro system. If you had to ride it daily, you'd know the whole thing needs work. They managed to kill 9 passengers in 2009 in a completely avoidable accident.


Yes, I'm wrong for not taking the Moonie Times seriously. That's all you have?
 
2012-07-05 04:25:38 PM  
If you aren't 100% Conservative and spend every minute you are awake trying to out Conservative other Conservatives, then you're a damn dirty LIBERAL hippie.
 
2012-07-05 04:57:33 PM  

GAT_00: Yes, I'm wrong for not taking the Moonie Times seriously. That's all you have?


No no - The Washington Post spent a great deal of time investigating Metro as well. Metro's management failures are legendary in the DC area, and they're even more notable because the DCMATA has been fighting oversight since that accident instead of trying to figure out how to keep it from happening again.

The "lack of diversity" story isn't a cause of Metro's problems so much as a symptom: it's an insular club that fights accountability and responsibility reflexively. If you aren't willing to play the game, then they don't hire you. Even worse, the system they've set up rewards protecting the system at the expense of everything else, service and safety included.
 
2012-07-05 05:12:42 PM  

SurfaceTension: Walker: We take the no food or drink rule on the DC subway system very seriously. Or else the cars will look like this:

[img.photobucket.com image 299x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 300x400]

[img.photobucket.com image 400x300]

Actually IMO this is about the only thing WMATA does right. The DC system is very clean, and in over 4 years of using at least 4 times a week, it I've never seen a rat, a mouse, or a cockroach. And that's a direct result of the draconian "no food or drink" rules they have.


The Boston T is remarkable clean. Cleaner than the DC Metro in fact. You can eat and drink on them and they sell food in some of the stations. I guess all this means is that people in DC are farking pigs.
 
2012-07-05 05:16:05 PM  

beta_plus: Lsherm: I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

That's the entire metro - plenty of old and no-AC cars on the orange and red lines too.

The metro's problems are mostly due to it having diversity issues with its employment practices.

/yes NE/NY/Chi snobs, you need AC when the summer average is 95+ degrees and the windows don't open
//wondering when they end up killing 1/2 a car of people by stalling a train outside in August for 2 hours


No way. Green line trains tend to be newer from what I've noticed.

It's the RED LINE that's the worst line by far. All the cars are old and the tracks are shiat so the trains go slow. They're always crowded because there aren't enough trains. Red line is the worst by far. Green line is pleasant.
 
2012-07-05 05:34:37 PM  

Lsherm: The "lack of diversity" story isn't a cause of Metro's problem


And that's why I mocked it.
 
2012-07-05 05:45:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Roberts worked at a law firm where the lawyers are expected to do pro bono work on civil liberties cases. And Roberts did a bunch, do everything from just preparing paperwork to actually arguing the cases himself, including a few he argued to the Supreme Court. Sure he said that a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he's presenting when he was up for his nomination, but keep in mind he chose to work for a law firm the requires lawyers to do pro bono civil liberties work.


All lawyers are expected to do at least 50 hours of pro bono work per year, and the ABA encourages said work to be with non-profit agencies or court self-help offices. These are more likely to be civil rights cases than tax cases or contract disputes.

That doesn't of course lessen in any way what Roberts did. Just so you know.
 
2012-07-05 05:53:59 PM  

Lsherm: GAT_00: Yes, I'm wrong for not taking the Moonie Times seriously. That's all you have?

No no - The Washington Post spent a great deal of time investigating Metro as well. Metro's management failures are legendary in the DC area, and they're even more notable because the DCMATA has been fighting oversight since that accident instead of trying to figure out how to keep it from happening again.

The "lack of diversity" story isn't a cause of Metro's problems so much as a symptom: it's an insular club that fights accountability and responsibility reflexively. If you aren't willing to play the game, then they don't hire you. Even worse, the system they've set up rewards protecting the system at the expense of everything else, service and safety included.


So, it's run like a private business... which I've been assured is the best way.
 
2012-07-05 06:12:27 PM  

hubiestubert: The idea that some churches' rites take precedence over others is a fairly radical interpretation. The idea that some citizens are more equal than others is another radical position. Marriage equality is not a matter of radicalism, but a matter of holding up the equality of citizens and their various faiths.


I have to disagree there. The idea of a state-sponsored religion is totally traditional. Every nation in the world had one up until just a few hundred years ago. It would have been a radical position to have a nation declare "we will not endorse one faith over the others" -- and indeed, when the US adopted just such a stance, it was. What we're calling "religious conservatives" nowadays are closer in that regard to true conservatism -- rule by tradition -- than the "small government" types who have adopted the term. Their conservatism harkens back to policies which were once called liberal, such as the equality of all people and limited government interference in the lives of individuals. The social conservatives are just reaching back a bit farther. Unfortunately, it has become fairly common for both views to coexist in the same individuals.
 
2012-07-05 08:52:11 PM  

firefly212: So, it's run like a private business... which I've been assured is the best way.


It's run like a crony job-fair for an entrenched public union.
 
2012-07-06 01:05:57 AM  
At least Roberts isn't a complete theocrat like Thomas.

/Why do 2 justices have first names as their last names?
 
2012-07-06 02:23:20 AM  

Lsherm: firefly212: So, it's run like a private business... which I've been assured is the best way.

It's run like a crony job-fair for an entrenched public union.


Oh, really, are we going to pretend that private industry isn't the land of nepotism and cronyism? We can't all have governor dads get us our first job for 50k+ a year.
 
2012-07-06 08:00:29 AM  

Lsherm: I used to ride the green every day to Anacostia (worked at NRL) in the 90's. I thought maybe it had gotten better in the intervening years, but I rode it again last year for two months working on a contract and it was the same. That chicken store must still be open somewhere.

I did wonder if Metro had some grand conspiracy against poor neighborhoods, though. The cars on the green line seemed older, and their air conditioners never worked very well, either.

/now I want fried chicken


Well, would YOU put the nice new cars on the line where people are going to put chicken-grease covered hands all over them?

But yeah, the DC Metro can be incredibly fascist about their rules, and honestly, I support that. It was some severe culture shock to grow up taking the perfectly clean Metro and then to move to Philly and step onto the Broad Street Line for the first time *shudders*


/my roommate and I filled out surveys on how to make SEPTA cleaner. Answer: quit letting filthy motherfarkers on the buses
//we've kind of given up on the subways
 
Displayed 48 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report