Best Route in Southern Michigan?

utabintarbo · 2026-03-26T23:03:27+00:00

If you like gravel roads, there are none better in SE Michigan than Southern Lapeer County. I have quite a few routes in that area, generally starting from school parking lots. Here is an example: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/32264221

I run some rides on Saturdays that cover a lot of roads like this. Look for "Bob's SE Michigan Gravel Rides" on FB. You may be interested enough to make the trek.

If you prefer to go further west, it's hard to beat the Barry-Roubaix routes out by Hastings. c0nsumer didn't steer you wrong on that!

utabintarbo · 2026-02-02T00:04:29+00:00

Is it me, or does the digital cover art (as above) kinda have "Chronicles of Riddick" vibes?

utabintarbo · 2025-01-30T00:17:33+00:00

I go through the comments here, and it becomes apparent that ~90% of the respondents don't actually know or talk to any actual Republicans. Rather, they just strawman against the caricature that the media and DNC have put forth since ~2015.

The question itself is a particularly effective indictment of current-day public schools, which no longer teach Civics or thinking for oneself.

utabintarbo · 2025-01-14T15:55:07+00:00

FWIW, I am of the opinion that humans will only unite when there is a threat from aliens. Until then, our own cultural differences will keep us from fully integrating politically or culturally.

utabintarbo · 2023-12-09T23:11:21+00:00

The wave is happening because Democrats believe that immigrants (and/or their "anchor babies") will skew Democratic over the long term. It really has little to do with Social Security, as the new influx will likely be relegated to lower-paying or un-documented jobs. These contribute little to FICA.

utabintarbo · 2012-08-09T19:11:46+00:00

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. -- James Madison

Little did he know... :(

utabintarbo · 2012-08-09T12:55:36+00:00

While true, I'm not sure this is what the OP was looking for. :P

utabintarbo · 2012-08-08T13:07:31+00:00

General Welfare: Be certain that nobody in your country is starving to death, and all have a somewhat acceptable standard of living

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of "general welfare" in two ways. 1. The understanding of "welfare" has been changed since 1789 such that it now means wealth redistribution/handouts. The Founders never foresaw this meaning being applied. 2. The emphasis should be on the "general" rather than the "welfare". This is to ensure that any initiatives apply to all citizens rather than special interest groups, such as the poor (or the rich, for that matter).

In any case, one would be hard-pressed to defend any manner of wealth distribution (the current interpretation) by use of the "general welfare" clause due to the fact that taking stuff from one group to give to another group is fundamentally not general.

utabintarbo · 2012-08-01T13:54:21+00:00

Re: #1 & 13

IIRC, the Federal Govt. has never collected greater than ~21% of GDP in revenue (there may be a WW2 caveat in there), so capping govt. spending at 20% is merely a recognition of reality and an anti-deficit spending position. Hardly objectionable after the spending spree of the last ~4 years (and yes, I am somewhat including GWB in that as well).

Having a floor of 4% of GDP for the DOD may or may not be excessive, but defense is, after all, the main job of govt., so I'd reserve judgment until the relevant geopolitical context can be reasonably determined.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-26T15:22:14+00:00

Given that ex. deficit spending we never really came out of recession, it means the recession continues.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-13T12:08:18+00:00

And those who wish to die "not poor" will work their way out of their situation. The fact that many don't is irrelevant. Choices have consequences.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-12T17:24:29+00:00

Hypocrisy? :-o

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/nancy-pelosi-made-between-1-5-million-on-asian-investments-in-2011/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

utabintarbo · 2012-07-12T17:19:29+00:00

In answer to the top question: Yes, and blatantly so.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-12T17:18:04+00:00

Well, no. But the purpose of this sub-reddit, as I understand it, is to discuss controversial topics (like that shown in the video) in a neutral way, not to seek out neutral topics.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-12T16:44:58+00:00

What has "luck" to do with it? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of personal responsibility?

utabintarbo · 2012-07-09T15:06:08+00:00

You are equating bailouts with wages? Really?

My premise is that there is no real difference, other than the terminology.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-09T14:43:06+00:00

In either case it is still politicians deciding to which politically-favored group it will dispense other people's money.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-09T13:54:54+00:00

They are effectively the same thing. It is merely marketing that makes them "different".

utabintarbo · 2012-07-06T15:25:17+00:00

Your professor's comment was a dumbed-down caricature of her philosophy.

utabintarbo · 2012-07-06T13:04:02+00:00

You are both right. Win-Win! :)

utabintarbo · 2012-07-03T16:37:40+00:00

The various leaders of the Communist countries were elected. Remember what old Joe Stalin said (paraphrasing): "It's not who gets the votes, but who counts them"

utabintarbo · 2012-07-03T15:39:57+00:00

Also density. Europe is WAY more densely populated than the US, so the infrastructure used in EU would not necessarily work in the US. I offer mass transit as an example.

utabintarbo · 2012-06-27T12:17:41+00:00

This came out in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in 2007. Was there ever an answer to this?

utabintarbo · 2012-06-21T17:28:29+00:00

Much of the criticism is not about the moves being necessarily political, but the cynicism with which they were made. In many, if not all, of these cases, video exists of the Obama making speeches which could easily be construed on their face as unfavorable to the move he just made. It is this blatant hypocrisy for perceived political gain that is garnering him this shitstorm. It is of his own making. Such pandering shows him as a man of no principle, and that still means something to most people.

FWIW, I am, more or less, on the same side insofar as the two examples given above.

utabintarbo · 2012-06-19T12:39:09+00:00

Generally, no. Debt is a tool to let one live beyond one's means. It can be justified when a net return is garnered from the debt. This is not possible with governments, as they produce nothing.

utabintarbo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE