a vote for rothfus is a vote against cycling

← Back to Forums


salty
Participant
#

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.


Lenny
Participant
#

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


salty
Participant
#

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”.


Lenny
Participant
#

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!!


StuInMcCandless
Participant
#

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


sloaps
Participant
#

stu is my political conscience.

vote for stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!


orionz06
Participant
#

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.


edmonds59
Participant
#

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.


jonawebb
Participant
#

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.


orionz06
Participant
#

The NRA supports people breaking the law?


jonawebb
Participant
#

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


orionz06
Participant
#

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.


dmtroyer
Participant
#

I love how analogies fix everything.


Greasefoot
Participant
#

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.


edmonds59
Participant
#

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.


rice rocket
Participant
#

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?


Anonymous #

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.


jonawebb
Participant
#

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.


rice rocket
Participant
#

orionz06
Participant
#

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).


Mick
Participant
#

@ 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.


jonawebb
Participant
#

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.


Greasefoot
Participant
#

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos


Mick
Participant
#

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


rice rocket
Participant
#

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?


orionz06
Participant
#

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.


jonawebb
Participant
#

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.


rice rocket
Participant
#

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”?


HiddenVariable
Participant
#

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.


orionz06
Participant
#

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?


Anonymous #

@jonawebb–a little bit of a side point: what’s your definition of “civilian?”


jonawebb
Participant
#

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


orionz06
Participant
#

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


HiddenVariable
Participant
#

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
Participant
#

@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.


orionz06
Participant
#

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?


Anonymous #

@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 :)


Jacob McCrea
Participant
#

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.


orionz06
Participant
#

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.


Greasefoot
Participant
#

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

← Back to Forums

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.

Supported by