BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
95

a vote for rothfus is a vote against cycling

He (or some inscrutable PAC) has been running a new ad criticizing Critz for voting to fund "a bikeway in Rhode Island", as an example of "wasteful spending". Ironically, literally 2 minutes later there's an ad showing him working on his kids bikes.


Not that I was going to vote for him anyways, but in case there is someone out there on the fence... it's not often you see explicit anti-cycling crap in campaign ads.


salty
2012-10-30 03:49:28

A vote for Rothfus is a vote "FOR" cycling!! Keith Rothfus wants to keep the money here to build more bike trails.He's a pro advocate bike enthusiast,while Tom Critz doesn't even want money to go to bike trails in our area!!That's why I will NOT vote for Critz and will be voting for Rothfus


lenny
2012-10-30 05:05:15

Prove it. What I said came directly from one of his own TV ads. What you just said is a complete fabrication as far as I can tell.


I can't claim Critz is any better, but at least he's not running ads characterizing cycling infrastructure as "wasteful".


salty
2012-10-30 05:31:54

The ad itself shows that Critz is the one against biking in Western Pa. Rothfus wants to keep the money here to fund bikeways and bike safety, not in another state like Rhode Island, and this is exactly just one of many examples, Rothfus was referring to Critz as being a "wasteful spender" with our taz dollars. They both debated each other on KDKA radio and Critz stated money going to our area for bikepaths and safety is a low priority for him and would rather see that money go to another state like Rhode Island instead!! Rothfus would like to keep our tax dollars for biking and safety in Western Pa.instead of being "wasted" in a place like Rhode Island!!


lenny
2012-10-30 10:16:17

I had a two-minute conversation with Keith Rothfus face to face, just me and him, during a neighborhood parade in 2010. He does not believe in funding mass transit.


'nuff said


stuinmccandless
2012-10-30 10:45:46

stu is my political conscience.


vote for stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!


sloaps
2012-10-30 11:11:20

Critz doesn't seem to care about 200 local layoffs at First Energy nor do his supporters, or the ones that come to my door, possess the ability to answer any questions about him or Rothfus. Haven't decided on who yet but I am not sure a pointed ad saying "sending money there and not here" is a great concern. Need to do my usual Sunday before the election searching. All the adds and campaigners do is tell me how much I hate our system.


orionz06
2012-10-30 11:20:04

I saw the same ad salty did. Whatever Rothfus' actual position is, it did come across as an indictment of some bike trail somewhere, NOT as opposing money moving out of our area. So that either needed to be framed more carefully, or maybe it was intentional.

With Critz I am concerned about his touting of his backing by the NRA, the most irresponsible advocacy organization on the planet. If the League of American Bicyclists were the NRA, they would be hollering and shouting that cyclists shouldn't have to ride on the right side of the road, stop at lights, or generally follow any laws of the road.

Either way I am less concerned about the position regarding cycling of either, I will be voting against any candidate who has the support of the moronic, white supremacist, misogynistic teabaggers.


edmonds59
2012-10-30 12:50:37

When people who are running for Congress say they're against money moving out of our area, what they're really saying is that they oppose Federal taxation, i.e., the income tax, and in the present context that means they oppose the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on high income earners. So if you don't want rich people to pay more taxes, you should support Rothfus; if not, you should support Critz.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 13:00:14

The NRA supports people breaking the law?


orionz06
2012-10-30 13:02:57

No, they support changing the laws so things that should be illegal, like owning assault weapons, aren't.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 13:06:54

Meh, that's an argument we will not agree upon as that is like saying cars kill people, not inattentive drivers. Probably not worth hashing it out when neither position will change. I will place a standing offer should you wish to handle such a heinous device I can arrange it.


orionz06
2012-10-30 13:13:53

I love how analogies fix everything.


dmtroyer
2012-10-30 13:36:05

They are both a bad choice.


When it comes to the bill Critz supported for the funding of bike paths in Rhode Island it was a quid pro quo for a political favor.


Politicians should all be required to wear car racing jump suits with patches of their corporate contributors so you know who they are sponsored by.


greasefoot
2012-10-30 14:12:42

What jona said. The NRA opposes any and all rational public oversight of gun ownership on principle, regardless of how insignificant the impact may be on legal gun owners. And they have a membership of frighten-able white males that they can keep fired up with "Red Dawn" style fantasy scenarios.

Richard Poplawski, though granted disturbed, killed three police officers in Stanton Heights in 2009 primarily because he was listening to the incessant NRA propaganda drumbeat that "Obama is coming for the guns!". Still waiting for them to accept responsibility for that. Did you get your special $200 NRA lifetime membership deal in the months after Obama was inaugurated?

I like the patch idea.


edmonds59
2012-10-30 14:19:28

Assault weapons are really fun. You should all try some before you pass judgment.


Isn't that the same rhetoric that you guys all push to cagers when they tell us to get off the road?


rice-rocket
2012-10-30 14:34:27

Wholly crap. Now I am confused on who is the better person to vote for. I certainly was dead set against the dumb drink tax because I don't believe you should penalize one industry to support another like that. It put a lot of bars out of business and there will be many more to come because of the long list of bar owners not paying it because they have no money. What about all those employees? Anyway, the NRA is a horrible lobby. Figured I might as well through that in. They are extremists to say the least. No balance at all.


2012-10-30 14:51:38

You know what's really fun? Machine guns. But I'm really glad they're hard to get hold of. I would be even happier if they were completely illegal, but, there's the NRA again.

Neither Rothfus nor Critz have or will have anything to do with the drink tax, which is a county tax. So don't worry about that issue.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 14:58:56

Machine guns are easy to buy. When was the last time a machine gun was used in a crime though? Seriously? I do not recall any incident in recent time where a select fire or full auto firearm was used. Make them illegal, won't stop bad people from doing bad things. You can wish it away but it won't change a thing. It draws many parallels to our shared struggles as cyclists. Legislate drivers to hell and back but all it takes is one pissed off person to hit and run or one person texting to destroy a family. In fact I would argue that cars can be worse as the goal for most every teenager is to turn 16 and get their license to drive a 2,000 pound vehicle without care. Entire markets exist to sell distractions to drivers. Many posters, most are likely anti-gun, have even acknowledged on this forum that people are the problem with cars yet when other devices are involved it is the device that is the problem, not the people.


The NRA uses fear better than anyone else. They are a very self serving group that doesn't really do what they were started to do. The NRA has also been anti-gun in the past, to the extent to keep the money pouring in. This was during the Clinton AWB from 1994-2004 (the one that didn't do anything).


orionz06
2012-10-30 15:16:02

@ rice rocket

Assault weapons are really fun. You should all try some before you pass judgment.


Isn't that the same rhetoric that you guys all push to cagers when they tell us to get off the road?


No.


@ rice rocket Talk to me 'bout dis.


Correlation does not imply causality.


Overall crime dropped. Great. Doesn't say anything about crime using assault weapons. Basically the artical gives the NRA credit for effective work by the Obama administration.


From the artical These are the same folks who have never been bashful about scare tactics, predicting doom and gloom when they don't get what they want. They hysterically claimed that blood would flow in the streets... So the writer is describing NRA tactics and ascribing them to liberals? And we're supposed to give him some creedence? How much has he learned from Rush Limbaugh?


Puts it in line for the Orwell awards, IMO.


mick
2012-10-30 15:25:46

Well, it's pretty easy to see that lots of folks need cars right now to get around. So we need them, for now, at least. But we definitely don't need assault weapons, machine guns, high-capacity magazines, etc. And mass murderers do favor them. So let's get rid of them, at least. It's not going to solve every problem with violence, but it will save some lives.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 15:37:30

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos


greasefoot
2012-10-30 15:42:33

There really needs to be a green candidate in the Critz Vs Rothfus race.


mick
2012-10-30 15:45:00

Correlation does not imply causality.


I know it's hard for you to see, but the point IS that it isn't correlated. So why are we fighting tooth and nail where it's effects are zero to nil, when there are plenty of better efforts in education and enforcement that is time much better used?


Again, drawing it full circle to cycling since this is a bicycle forum...isn't that what we say about motorists as well?


rice-rocket
2012-10-30 15:59:01

Why should I not be allowed to possess the same thing police would respond with to defend my home? Especially when I am more qualified to use it than they are? Mass murders favor a tool of convenience, be it a Uhaul truck or a gun.


The same ideas that are used to attempt to limit magazine capacity or parts of a firearm that have been mislabled "assault features" could also be used for motorcycles and cars. Horsepower limits? Some motorcycles, off the lot with $200 down and a little paperwork are capable of 180mph, who needs that? Who needs a car that goes faster than 75 mph? Wouldn't it save more lives if they didn't exist?


Wouldn't it save more lives if bicycles were not allowed on the road too? We ask for driver education, not bannishment of cars. What tool was used most recently in an attempted murder of a fellow cyclist? No one has said a damned thing about knife control.


orionz06
2012-10-30 16:08:39

Of course, the argument is that while we need knives, U-Haul trucks, etc. -- they serve a useful purpose -- we don't really need assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, etc., at least not in civilian hands. And getting rid of them will at least save some lives. So let's do that.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 16:20:05

But we definitely don't need assault weapons, machine guns, high-capacity magazines, etc. And mass murderers do favor them. So let's get rid of them, at least. It's not going to solve every problem with violence, but it will save some lives.


Do you remember the 2011 Norway massacre? 2 ton fertilizer bomb and semi-automatic weapons. I don't think the ability to fire quickly nor the magazine capacity (given that the killings took several hours) made a hoot of difference. I'd say automatic weapons would have saved people since (a) automatic weapons have much lower accuracy after the first shot, and (b) he would have run out of ammo sooner.


Of course, the argument is that while we need knives, U-Haul trucks, etc. -- they serve a useful purpose -- we don't really need assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, etc., at least not in civilian hands. And getting rid of them will at least save some lives. So let's do that.


Preservation of life isn't "useful"?


rice-rocket
2012-10-30 16:24:00

I know it's hard for you to see, but the point IS that it isn't correlated. So why are we fighting tooth and nail where it's effects are zero to nil, when there are plenty of better efforts in education and enforcement that is time much better used?


if you take a teaspoon of water out of the niagara river, the falls keeps flowing. that doesn't mean there's no correlation between water in the river and the falls.


also:


Wouldn't it save more lives if bicycles were not allowed on the road too?


no, it wouldn't.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-30 16:29:59

Lowering crime will save lives, limiting a tool that can be used for one will not do anything. And they do serve a useful purpose, perhaps not one that suits you, just like a truck does not suit me. I just didn't buy one.


If, god forbid it ever happens, my home is invaded and it is deemed necessary to shoot someone (not an ideal solution) I will likely use an AR-15. That is the same tool that Pittsburgh and Shaler Police will have in their hands when they respond 3-4 minutes later. In fact I am using the same gun, same brand, same ammo, and same sights as they are using. I am far more qualified than they are yet you see no useful purpose for me to have one?


@HV: Why would it not save more lives to take bicycles off the road? Our rash of summer deaths would not have happened, right?


orionz06
2012-10-30 16:36:22

@jonawebb--a little bit of a side point: what's your definition of "civilian?"


2012-10-30 16:38:14

@joanne, non-military, non-police. Someone not explicitly authorized by the state to use violence.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 16:39:55

How do you suggest one responds to a violent intruder in their home?


orionz06
2012-10-30 16:43:31

How do you suggest one responds to a violent intruder in their home?


what do you expect is the likelihood of a violent intruder in your home?


hiddenvariable
2012-10-30 16:44:24

@HV: Why would it not save more lives to take bicycles off the road? Our rash of summer deaths would not have happened, right?


because filling up the roads with cars is what causes the deaths in the first place. removing bicycles from roads would result in more people driving, and thus more people dying.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-30 16:45:25

What are the odds? Does it matter what the odds are? Do the odds need to be greater than they are now for me to have a plan for what if? I have a fire extinguisher but the odds of a fire are low. Did I waste my money?


How many people died from a car accident in town this year?


orionz06
2012-10-30 16:49:17

@jonawebb, police and other members of domestic law enforcement are by definition civilians like the rest of us.


I believe militarization of civil law enforcement is very dangerous, and language that implies that police are non-civilians is an insidious part of that.


/sorry, pet peeve :)


2012-10-30 16:52:20

I try to avoid political or contentious threads, but this much is worth stating: Even the strongest foes of gun control would have to recognize one of the law's recent "successes," so to speak: preventing Colin Albright's attacker from buying an AK-47 style rifle. Carry on.


jmccrea
2012-10-30 17:03:06

Critically think about that for a second. Why did the attacker not have an AK47? It was not because AK47's are unable to be purchased. I have one. You could buy one today if you wanted.


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:08:12

His mom would not let him have one because she was afraid he would kill the alligator with it.


greasefoot
2012-10-30 17:11:40

Winner!


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:12:29

I try to avoid political or contentious threads, but this much is worth stating: Even the strongest foes of gun control would have to recognize one of the law's recent "successes," so to speak: preventing Colin Albright's attacker from buying an AK-47 style rifle. Carry on.


It's pretty clear that Colin's attacker wasn't ready to take a life (thankfully). He was there, he had the tools, he did 90% of the damage, but stopped short. Do you think having a rifle would have changed that?


Also, the fellow in Norway was denied buying an "AK-47 style" as well, and still managed mass murder.


On a side note, I'm not sure why AK-47s are so completely radical in the media when 22LRs are statistically the deadliest, yet the smallest publicly available round.


rice-rocket
2012-10-30 17:13:16

Let's get rid of , because is not useful, and results in harm.

But harm will still occur if we get rid of !

Yes, but let's get rid of , because is not useful, and results in harm.

But people can still cause harm even if we get rid of !

Yes, but let's get rid of , because is not useful, and results in harm.

But doesn't cause harm in itself, it's only people using improperly!

... etc. ...


jonawebb
2012-10-30 17:17:29

@orionz, I'm a gun owner - but your argument about protection is silly, besides, a shotgun is the weapon of choice for close range combat not an assault riffle. And statistics show that you (or a loved one) are far more likely to die by your own gun than by some “intruder”.


Quite frankly I’m more concerned with hand guns than assault weapons, and I wish the justice system treated illegal possession more harshly. And I have no problem with cars being limited to 75mph, nor my not being able to own a certain type of firearm.


+1 the comment about concern of the militarization of our police


marko82
2012-10-30 17:17:46

The attack that occurred was spontaneous, as many are. The device used was what was readily available. The attacker would likely not have passed the FBI background check to purchase a firearm but could have stolen one. Perhaps he was not a hardcore criminal but that is not the real issue. The real issue is that someone chose to flip like that person did. That is what needs to be stopped. The fact that he used a knife just shows that he had a knife, nothing more. How would everyone feel if he was beat to death by someone who practices MMA? Having worked with some MMA guys and being strong for my size I absolutely fear the day that criminals hit the MMA gyms around town. The skill they could learn paired with their violent intent would be something to fear.


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:18:13

Look! A discussion about politics.....


/runs away


2012-10-30 17:19:02

^haha! Me too. I just like throwing in my two pence from the sidelines.


2012-10-30 17:22:38

I prefer an AR-15 for close range, as does Pgh Police, Pgh Port Authority, and many others. FBI is also using an AR variant. Shotguns have been relegated to breaching tools only.


Statistics show a lot, I won't dispute your statement, but we also have stats to show that making them illegal does nothing. So while we all agree that we want bad things to stop happening our approach is different. We happen to have two countries worth of data to show that bans do nothing and others show that AR's in the hands of almost all citizens also does nothing.


It is the same culture that has kids driving drunk while texting that has people killing each other however they can.


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:23:04

It's pretty clear that Colin's attacker wasn't ready to take a life (thankfully). He was there, he had the tools, he did 90% of the damage, but stopped short. Do you think having a rifle would have changed that?


i don't think it's fair to say he "stopped short". i think he fully intended his victim to die, and thought he had done enough to make that happen.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-30 17:26:01

I agree. Knife wounds are not nearly as deadly as people believe and the survival rate is quite high. Thankfully he got where he needed to be in time.


And just so everyone knows, I mean nothing ill from my examples and dread any events like this happening again.


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:29:13

What are the odds? Does it matter what the odds are?


yes. preparing for impossible contingencies is hardly something anyone wants to do. should i walk around with a parachute on my back in case a roc comes and swoops me up, and i happen to get away?


Do the odds need to be greater than they are now for me to have a plan for what if?


this is a tough question, and i don't know the answer. i don't know what the odds are, just that they are low enough that *i* don't need to plan for what if. others may disagree, and i could potentially be convinced that they do so reasonably.


…but we also have stats to show that making them illegal does nothing.


we do? i'd like to see this.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-30 17:32:39

Home invasions are not impossibilities. Odds are likely that you will do nothing and I will have a plan and we will both never see anything happen. I also like shooting so it works out for me. I assume you do not so it works out for you.


Look at violent crime in Australia and Great Britain and how it has "improved". Look at our crime and our laws. Look at CA and NY, two of the strictest states in terms of firearms and you won't find improvements.


Truth be told though most of those buying firearms with the thought of preserving their life are better served going to the gym and buying healthier food.


orionz06
2012-10-30 17:39:55

I would like to see some references here - both to Marko69's contention that guns in the home kill innocent and to the contention that gun control does nothing and that gun ownership is overall protective to innocent people.


I would really like to see some fo these references. I'm not sure the results would fit my preconceptions, but it's hard toimagine otherwise ;)


mick
2012-10-30 17:42:51

Can we get back to the candidates' approaches to transportation policies?


stuinmccandless
2012-10-30 18:07:45

It put a lot of bars out of business and there will be many more to come because of the long list of bar owners not paying it because they have no money. What about all those employees?


Please someone correct me if I am wrong. The drink tax is paid for by the people consuming the drinks, not the people dispensing them. If a bar owner is not paying a drink tax but is collecting it they are stealing.


rsprake
2012-10-30 19:14:35

@Stu, it appears that you have the most information from your conversation. There's the ad about the bike lane, and there's Critz's votes on transportation (which seem mostly party-line stuff, but he's in the minority party in the House) and not much else online that I can find.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 19:31:56

Critz supported funding for bike paths in Rhode Island. The state of RI is only 37 miles wide…I could ride across it in a few hours…I wonder how much federal money was involved.


greasefoot
2012-10-30 19:39:15

I've ridden those bike paths, and they're great.

We got Federal funding here for things like the Hot Metal Bridge bike path (it was an earmark by Santorum -- !) And I've never looked into it but I assume the GAP was federally funded at least in part.


jonawebb
2012-10-30 19:46:20

@Jonawebb I assume the GAP was federally funded at least in part.


Oddly enough, the section of the GAP through Frostburg (that is, in Maryland) was funded by Pennsylvania. I think it was part of the deal with getting the Big Savage Tunnel rehabbed, which would have been pretty silly if the trail didn't go through to Cumberland.


After they got the money Maryland dragged theri feet until PA threatened (or maybe did) take them to court.


I was told this by the guy who owns the Trail Inn in Frostburg.


mick
2012-10-30 19:54:01

Part of the reason I assume that it was partly Federally funded was that it passes through John Murtha's district, and he was Mr. Earmark. I would really be surprised if he hadn't gotten some funding in a transportation bill for it. (Which, BTW, is the same district Critz & Rothfus are fighting over now).

Here you go:

"Rick Sebak of WQED-TV, the master of ceremonies for the dedication Friday and an occasional user of the trail, introduced some of those whose efforts were instrumental in establishing the Great Allegheny Passage. In addition to Boxx, they included:


U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, who helped secure some of the early funding; "

(http://old.post-gazette.com/sports/outdoors/20010902walsh0902p3.asp)


jonawebb
2012-10-30 20:06:14

I wonder why RI got funded. For all we know it was a deal that benefited PA more than RI.


orionz06
2012-10-30 20:33:55

since my son now works for port authority ill be voting for critz i never was a big port authority supporter but now i have to support it


bear250220
2012-10-31 01:50:58

I'm trying to recall the details of that conversation. Rothfus was running against Altmire in 2010. It was early September, just after Labor Day. McCandless has a town festival the weekend after. Rothfus and his whole family were marching in the little parade, and I was standing toward the end. He was talking with people along the street. The parade came to a halt, and he was within 15 feet of me. After he exchanged some preliminary hellos with others close by, I got him talking about transportation policy. The essence of it was he was toeing the GOP line of let transit agencies fund everything through fares; not the state's problem; everyone needed to take a pay cut. I don't think he got as far as to talk about unions, but he was clearly not interested in any sort of progressive thinking when it came to making sure transit actually worked, that it had any sort of benefit other than as a form of public assistance, rather than as a public service. I also talked with his wife, who recently transplanted from Texas, where they apparently don't have any sort of transit outside of large cities.


It all had the effect of reaffirming in my mind that the entire GOP had a set of talking points for any candidate for any office, and that those were the answers to give on transit. We didn't discuss cycling, but I suspect you're not going to get much fresh thinking on that topic, either.


stuinmccandless
2012-10-31 02:31:07

"How do you suggest one responds to a violent intruder in their home?"


It is kind of like asking how do you react to a lightning strike? I mean how many home break ins are there? None in my area. If someone broke in, I would say, take what you want and would you like some ice cream. I mean, goodness if they break in what are the chances you will have a gun in your hand? Do you think you will have time to get to your gun, take the safety off, aim and fire if someone breaks in? Probably not, but it is fun to think you are Rambo.


2012-10-31 02:44:09

Considering that over 50% of gun deaths are related to suicide I think money spent instituting an AWB for the sake of saving lives would be better spent on suicide education and prevention.


boostuv
2012-10-31 11:41:22

I try to avoid political or contentious threads, but this much is worth stating: Even the strongest foes of gun control would have to recognize one of the law's recent "successes," so to speak: preventing Colin Albright's attacker from buying an AK-47 style rifle. Carry on.


Can anyone site that he wasn't able to purchase one? I got the impression that he did end up with the AK ("lied when purchasing an AK-47" according to trib implying that he bought it), but it came out later that he lied on his purchasing form. The news sources i saw said was that he was being charged for lying on his app by saying that he didn't smoke weed, but he later admitted that he does.


How the Trib worded it:

The same day as the stabbing, court records show, District Judge Thomas Torkowsky arraigned Scholl on charges that he lied when purchasing an AK-47 in July. Torkowsky released him on $10,000 unsecured bond, according to court records.

Scholl stated on his purchasing form that he didn’t use marijuana, but admitted later that he was a regular user and that he owned a sawed-off shotgun, which is illegal, police said.


http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/2839704-74/scholl-police-west-arrested-homestead-jail-pittsburgh-albright-stabbing-steps#axzz2AtMPH8ow


erok
2012-10-31 15:47:05

It looks like I was incorrect, based on the Trib's wording. Here is how the PG described it on October 26, which gave me the impression that he was actually prevented from acquiring the rifle:

"State police arrested Mr. Scholl on Sept. 5 on charges that he lied about a 10-year history of smoking marijuana when he filled out a form to buy an AK-47 rifle from a sporting goods store and used a file to scratch off the serial number from a shot gun. He was arraigned shortly after 11 a.m. that day and posted bail.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/arrest-made-in-bicyclist-attack-on-south-side-659263/#ixzz2AtWYdiqX"


In any case, I sure am glad this guy is off the streets.


jmccrea
2012-10-31 16:29:47

You know, if people are going to lie on those forms, it defeats the whole purpose.


jonawebb
2012-10-31 16:47:26

People can lie on forms? Who knew.


rice-rocket
2012-10-31 16:49:08

You can do anything you want until you get caught at it.


stuinmccandless
2012-10-31 16:59:38

smoking marijuana might make one less likely to use this in a state of anger or rage, just saying.


erok
2012-10-31 18:24:01

@gg yes, I would have enough time to get gun and shot them. With a little practice (100 amos per month) you start shooting with both open eyes and aiming right away. Break in is not a 0 seconds act. I have a gun at home. My daughter was on our school rifle team, my wife used to be on a rifle team back in Russia. So next gun is going to be a decent rifle and some scopes.


2012-10-31 20:08:50

The situation with a home break-in is a little different from what you appear to be expecting. You do not know what is going on, while the criminal knows exactly what is happening. The noise you heard might be nothing, or some neighbor kid playing a joke, or a stranger who is just mixed up or maybe mentally ill, who means you no harm. So you're standing there with a gun, hopefully trying to figure this out, while the criminal who is maybe armed himself knows exactly what he is doing. I don't think having an AR-15 versus any other gun gives you much of an advantage.


jonawebb
2012-10-31 20:31:31

@jonawebb It does not matter what you think. It matters what I think. :) And I think differently. I don't go and check without a weapon. And I don't expose myself. So intruder has no idea where I am and what I have. and having AR gives me a lot of advantage. Like I told a little bit of training and you would think and act differently. More training and you would do it subconsciously. Like riding a bike. But training is a must.


2012-10-31 20:42:33

[Is this the Bike Pittsburgh Message Board? I'm finding this thread hard to follow.]


Well, I did understand this much: "Don't vote for Rothfus, he's anti-transit and anti-biker".

An elected official who has the good sense to support bike-friendly expenditures (wherever they might land) seems a great deal more valuable to us and to society than one who's determined to (further) trash transit. Get a clue.


As for the rest of the discussion, may I add:

I'm gonna bang, bang you - I'll shoot you down with my love gun, baby

Bang, bang you


CHILD, DESMOND / STANLEY, PAUL -- © Universal Music Publishing Group, EMI Music Publishing.


Also, "Lenny" needs to relax.


ahlir
2012-10-31 21:57:04

Ahir.....Just the opposite when it comes to a bike friendly advocate in our area.Rothfus wants money to stay here in Western Pa. to fund bike safety and bike trails!! Critz wants funded money for biking to go to other areas like Rhode Island.As far as guns are concearned,I agree with you. Guns have nothing to do with biking!! I'm neither a member of the Republican or Democrat Party,but I'm voting Rothfus because he's better for when it comes to biking in Western Pa. Rothfus and all his family members are big users of our area bike trails.


lenny
2012-10-31 22:17:13

Not for the first time, I'm extremely glad to live in Mike Doyle's district.


epanastrophe
2012-10-31 22:32:14

Is Rothfus on record as a concrete supporter of biker-important issues? (Trail development, street signage, anything?) It's not enough to just say stuff, or to be talked into taking your kids on a ride up the GAP (possibly by your campaign director). It counts more if you actually did something.


I'm more inclined to believe someone like Stu, who we know to be knowledgeable on transit issues.


I somehow doubt that money allocated to Rhode Island trails came specifically from Western PA. If it did, I'd like to know exactly how that happened. In any case, are you asserting that Critz has never, throughout his career, brought any money to Western PA? Even if this sounds like a bit of an over simplification, do you have any evidence to support your claim that Critz diverts money from this region? Remember, Critz was a long-term associate of Murtha's, who had been responsible for bringing many benefits to his district. Lacking evidence to the contrary, I would assume that their concerns are similar.


Most of the people who frequent this board are reasonably bright, and would likely respond more favorably to a cogent argument than what, in all appearances, comes across as slander based on a minor detail pulled out of some larger context. Is this the best you can say about Rothfus?


ahlir
2012-10-31 22:42:26

@buffalo^2:

I would instead say that Doyle is glad that you live in his district.


ahlir
2012-10-31 22:53:34

How silly. How does one prepare for a lightning strike, since we are on such subjects? lol


2012-11-01 00:36:24

@gg How does one prepare for a lightning strike ... ?


Fly a kite in a thunderstorm.


mick
2012-11-01 00:39:28

From the horse's mouth, or possibly his handlers:


A recent mailer from the Republican Party of Pennsylvania (Paid for by the Republican Federal Committeeof Pennsylvania) sez...."The Keith Rothfus jobs plan includes reduced government spending, reduced regulations, lower taxes and limited government." Of particular note are "limited government" and "reduced government spending".


From the Tea Party Patriots website, one of their three core principles is "Constitutionally Limited Government"..."CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. America’s founders believed that government power should be limited, enumerated, and constrained by our Constitution. Tea Party Patriots agree. The American people make this country great, not our government."


Are bike lanes/trails in the Constitution?


With reduced government spending, do you expect Transportation Enhancement spending to be restored? Do you expect federal transportation spending to continue?


offtn
2012-11-01 01:18:18

So these half literate sack nobbing morons conveniently ignore entire section 8, article 1, of the big C?: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..." etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.


edmonds59
2012-11-01 01:38:39

Pay debts, theres a good one.


boostuv
2012-11-01 01:58:56

offtn? "Lenny" is that you? Welcome back to the conversation!


It's a bit late (for me),but here's a few quick comments:


1) Bike lanes are not in the Constitution. It's not what the Constitution is about. Did you somehow manage skip out on civics in grade school? Or were you one of those victims of "home schooling"? Really now...


2) The government is YOU (or more precisely, *US*). It's not the Crown, and it's not the "Union". This is a democracy. We end up being governed by what the majority of the citizenry decides is a reasonable set of representatives. Your champion, I would hazard, is not one of reasonable ones. The rest of us want someone who is representative.


You could always move to the South, if you're actually serious about your stuff.

[Yes, that's snide. Deal with it.]


ahlir
2012-11-01 02:35:19

@ Lenny -


I'm curious as to your support for Rothfus. Could you point us to some public statement of Rothfus that would show that bikers should support him?


The more specific proposals that would benefit bikes the better.


I can't speak for others here, but statements to the effect that he wouldn't let tax money from PA go to other places would not be the slightest bit convincing to me.


You've posted a lot of good stuff over the years here. The posting history (that anyone can look at) really shows you as committed bicyclist. So I'm curious about this.


Rothfus strikes me as just another Republican paying lip service to the constitution and seriously sucking up to billionaires that would like to eliminate taxes on large fortunes of all sorts. If there is something special about him with regard to bicycles, I'd like to hear the details.


mick
2012-11-01 03:12:04

Yeah, I think the ad is pretty clear it's not the "Rhode Island" part of it that he objects to. He's just flat out against "wasteful spending". You know, the stuff besides wars and highways and corporate welfare and the like.


salty
2012-11-01 03:18:06

I'll take spending PA money to put a trail somewhere else as opposed to not putting a trail anywhere


Rothfus is from the same party that brought a huge photograph of a penny-farthing on the congress floor and said "Why are we spending money on this?" What's this guy done so far to distinguish himself from them?


For whatever it's worth, I use the river trails on a regular basis to commute to work and I've used the Montour trail in the past to do the same


sgtjonson
2012-11-01 03:31:15

re: debt, T bills are still pretty well regarded relative to the market junk that's out there. I have some nice Facebook stock I can sell you (just kidding, I'm not an idiot).


edmonds59
2012-11-01 10:28:14

BTW I'm pretty sure that the vote Rothfus is complaining about that built bike trails in Rhode Island was Critz's vote for the surface transportation bill (Extension of Surface Transportation Funding and Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline). Which included funding for all sorts of things that were far more expensive than bike trails. Interesting he picked that as the thing to make a commercial about.


jonawebb
2012-11-01 12:57:24

@jonawebb BTY I'm sure you are wrong.

(H.R. 5880) This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a specific earmark that provided $1M for a bike path in RI. The house rejected the amendment by a vote of 163-260


greasefoot
2012-11-01 13:46:21

Welcome to porkbarreling.


rice-rocket
2012-11-01 14:53:17