Great Republican Ideas

[Keith&Co.]

Let's face it - no Republicans have stepped up in this thread. The thread is in the dumper. A high flow dumper.

You'd think they'd at least brag about all the ways they make the libs cry...

 

[Patooka]

Ya. Our place in Maine has a new toilet. It works great even when it splatters all over the side. TMI?

All three of ours are vintage 1996. But one cost way more than either of the others. Best toilet ever. High flow, virtually self cleaning, reliable. If it was a car it would be a new old stock '57 Chevy Bel Air Sport coup, straight 6, three on the tree. Nothing fancy, just always works like it should.

(ETA - Definitely TMI)

I'm surprised a thread about good Republican ideas segues to a discussion about toilets.

 

[crazyfingers]

Ya. Our place in Maine has a new toilet. It works great even when it splatters all over the side. TMI?

All three of ours are vintage 1996. But one cost way more than either of the others. Best toilet ever. High flow, virtually self cleaning, reliable. If it was a car it would be a new old stock '57 Chevy Bel Air Sport coup, straight 6, three on the tree. Nothing fancy, just always works like it should.

(ETA - Definitely TMI)

I'm surprised a thread about good Republican ideas segues to a discussion about toilets.

Ha. Are you really surprised?

 

[Patooka]

I'm surprised a thread about good Republican ideas segues to a discussion about toilets.

Ha. Are you really surprised?

*looks at feet sheepishly*

Noooo...not really.

 

[Elixir]

I'm surprised a thread about good Republican ideas segues to a discussion about toilets.

Ha. Are you really surprised?

*looks at feet sheepishly*

Noooo...not really.

Hey, I was trying to steer it toward something really good, and really American.

You'd think they'd at least brag about all the ways they make the libs cry...

That car makes me cry.

 

[ZiprHead]

*looks at feet sheepishly*

Noooo...not really.

Hey, I was trying to steer it toward something really good, and really American.

View attachment 34472

You'd think they'd at least brag about all the ways they make the libs cry...

That car makes me cry.

I actually prefer the 55s.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ya. Our place in Maine has a new toilet. It works great even when it splatters all over the side. TMI?

All three of ours are vintage 1996. But one cost way more than either of the others. Best toilet ever. High flow, virtually self cleaning, reliable. If it was a car it would be a new old stock '57 Chevy Bel Air Sport coup, straight 6, three on the tree. Nothing fancy, just always works like it should.

(ETA - Definitely TMI)

I'm surprised a thread about good Republican ideas segues to a discussion about toilets.

Well, Loren had a good response about dual flush toilets. When I was in Iceland, I noted that is how it works there. I think it's a good solution, provided a home actually has a problem in the first place.

Therefore, I retract my tongue-in-cheek toilet answer.

Now, I got nothing left.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think we have to go all the way back to Nixon for good republican proposals. He was good on the environment and actually proposed universal health care.

Ford fell down a lot.

Reagan was a disaster.

 

[crazyfingers]

I think we have to go all the way back to Nixon for good republican proposals. He was good on the environment and actually proposed universal health care.

Ford fell down a lot.

Reagan was a disaster.

IIRC, Truman first proposed universal health care. Europeans were all doing it after WWII. Never happened here obviously.

 

[crazyfingers]

I think we have to go all the way back to Nixon for good republican proposals. He was good on the environment and actually proposed universal health care.

Ford fell down a lot.

Reagan was a disaster.

IIRC, Truman first proposed universal health care. Europeans were all doing it after WWII. Never happened here obviously.

Upon further research, it was FDR.

 

[funinspace]

*looks at feet sheepishly*

Noooo...not really.

Hey, I was trying to steer it toward something really good, and really American.

View attachment 34472

You'd think they'd at least brag about all the ways they make the libs cry...

That car makes me cry.

One thing that comes to mind, that was at least a reasonable thingy was the Shrub's push for the 'No child Left Behind' act, when there still existed some bipartisanship...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on December 13, 2001 (voting 381–41),[8] and the United States Senate passed it on December 18, 2001 (voting 87–10).[9] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Is English good enough?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think we have to go all the way back to Nixon for good republican proposals. He was good on the environment and actually proposed universal health care.

Ford fell down a lot.

Reagan was a disaster.

IIRC, Truman first proposed universal health care. Europeans were all doing it after WWII. Never happened here obviously.

Upon further research, it was FDR.

Well, EVD (Eugene Debs) in 1904, but he wasn’t exactly getting the attention of many ears.

 

[Angry Floof]

I used to ask trumpsuckers to tell me what their principles were, just "So what are conservative principles?" Most just didn't answer at all. The one guy who did answer googled it and then copied and pasted something from the first or second search results. It was obvious because what he pasted was so different from how he used language, so I coped his text and searched on it, and yep, word for word from one of the top results. And it was just some bland "traditional" conservative values like small government, low taxes, etc. I called him out and laughed at him and then never heard from him again.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I used to ask trumpsuckers to tell me what their principles were, just "So what are conservative principles?" Most just didn't answer at all. The one guy who did answer googled it and then copied and pasted something from the first or second search results. It was obvious because what he pasted was so different from how he used language, so I coped his text and searched on it, and yep, word for word from one of the top results. And it was just some bland "traditional" conservative values like small government, low taxes, etc. I called him out and laughed at him and then never heard from him again.

As evidenced in the thread already the distinction should not be Democratic/Republican but rather Liberal/Conservative. It's easy to place the latter distinction into historical context. "Democratic/Republican" is just labeling. Maybe there are conservative examples of advancing the common good but liberal examples abound in history.

Essentially, when something bucks the status quo it's liberal. The people who wrote our constitution were liberal within historical context because they bucked the standard European monarchial systems. Self rule is Liberal. Democracies are liberal. Just some examples.

There are liberal republican ideas and conservative democratic ideas.

Are we sneetches?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't even lib/con anymore. It is liberal and anti-liberal.

Liberal: Well, the studies appear to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, let's get it done.
Anti-liberal: Well, I'm against Covid-19 vaccinations now.

 

[Angry Floof]

I used to ask trumpsuckers to tell me what their principles were, just "So what are conservative principles?" Most just didn't answer at all. The one guy who did answer googled it and then copied and pasted something from the first or second search results. It was obvious because what he pasted was so different from how he used language, so I coped his text and searched on it, and yep, word for word from one of the top results. And it was just some bland "traditional" conservative values like small government, low taxes, etc. I called him out and laughed at him and then never heard from him again.

As evidenced in the thread already the distinction should not be Democratic/Republican but rather Liberal/Conservative. It's easy to place the latter distinction into historical context. "Democratic/Republican" is just labeling.

?? I didn't use party names. I just said "conservative."

 

[thebeave]

Yeah, the low-flow toilets are crappy crappers. I wouldn't really call the Republicans right on this, though--the correct solution is the dual-flush design. One flusher for pee, one flusher for poo. The basic problem is one of compatibility. The floor connection is set at a certain distance from the wall and the pipe has to bend sufficiently to reach that point--and that causes problems with a low-flow design. (Look at your toilet--most toilets you can see the path the drain takes. Note how much more gentle the curve could be if the drain point was set closer to the wall, or even in the wall.)

Nah, you just have a crappy toilet. We had one too. When we bought our first home, it had just been remodeled. They used a cheap toilet. Never flushed well and it always got dirty very quickly. When we remodeled the bathroom again ourselves I spent extra money on a good high flow toilet. It worked great. All toilets have a flow rating on the box. Just pick one with a high flow rate.

What do you mean by high flow rate? Per US govt regulation, the highest you can get from a brand new toilet is 1.6 gal/flush versus the old days of 3+ gal/flush.

The early models of low flow toilets from the early 1990's were terrible. Just a bad design, especially those low boy Kohlers where the water just sort of swirls around for 5 minutes in a mini whirlpool before the waste finally goes down (if you're lucky). Plumbers these days call those toilets "boat anchors", and most will refuse to service them, as they cannot be made to work well and the plumbers will get frequent callbacks from frustrated homeowners. Toilets have come a long way since the early days, and the designs have been more or less perfected, all the way down to the 1.28 gal/flush. Some have tried to make a 1 gal/flush toilet, but those have problems, so around 1.28 gal/flush might be the practical limit. Do your due diligence before buying a toilet. You can't go wrong buying just about any model of a Toto toilet. They are a little more expensive perhaps, but are excellent, mostly trouble free flushers. Anyone who is still complaining about low flow toilets is just blowing steam and have not been keeping up with the times. Unless the govt tries to lower the flush limit below 1.28, then you have a point.

As far as Loren's point about the 12" rough-in distance (by far the standard these days), that's the first I've heard of that. There are many examples of reliable, low flow toilets that work with a 12" rough-in. There are new toilets with 10" and 14" rough-in's available (rare though), but they don't seem to perform any better, AFAIK.

 

[Gospel]

Hey, I was trying to steer it toward something really good, and really American.

View attachment 34472



That car makes me cry.

One thing that comes to mind, that was at least a reasonable thingy was the Shrub's push for the 'No child Left Behind' act, when there still existed some bipartisanship...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on December 13, 2001 (voting 381–41),[8] and the United States Senate passed it on December 18, 2001 (voting 87–10).[9] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Is English good enough?
View attachment 34475

Dayum, both those ladies are sexy as hell. I wouldn't be able to afford either one and that's a good thing for those girls cause I'd mess them up rolling on donks and a sound system you can hear 10 kilometers away.

Edit: For the rep asking what's Donk.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I used to ask trumpsuckers to tell me what their principles were, just "So what are conservative principles?" Most just didn't answer at all. The one guy who did answer googled it and then copied and pasted something from the first or second search results. It was obvious because what he pasted was so different from how he used language, so I coped his text and searched on it, and yep, word for word from one of the top results. And it was just some bland "traditional" conservative values like small government, low taxes, etc. I called him out and laughed at him and then never heard from him again.

As evidenced in the thread already the distinction should not be Democratic/Republican but rather Liberal/Conservative. It's easy to place the latter distinction into historical context. "Democratic/Republican" is just labeling.

?? I didn't use party names. I just said "conservative."

A fact not lost on me. I was merely adding to your distinction.

 

[Angry Floof]

?? I didn't use party names. I just said "conservative."

A fact not lost on me. I was merely adding to your distinction.

Oh, gotcha.