|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2013 15:26 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
What's funny is that the Soviet Union suffered from a very similar myopia about education, but in their case the political elite really did come to eventually comprise STEM technocrats. (A technocrat who's not a liberal, the horror!) Didn't work out too well for them that it's really a great model to emulate...
you can't call yourself a democracy unless your citizens are well educated in the humanities. it's meaningless.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 01 2013 15:26 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:
of course, when politicians/economists say "education," they really just mean "STEM"... I think that's a bigger problem than anything else
What's funny is that the Soviet Union suffered from a very similar myopia about education, but in their case the political elite really did come to eventually comprise STEM technocrats. (A technocrat who's not a liberal, the horror!) Didn't work out too well for them that it's really a great model to emulate...
basic humanities education is critical in the k-12 stage. in university a core of humanities and social studies courses is really great, but given the market driven education landscape, universities like to cut corners on the education part of the deal and only focus on training.
|
You guys are making me feel better about the money I did spend going to a liberal arts college  Although there are times I wish I had gone for a STEM field so I felt like I was actually doing something...
|
|
|
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker.
|
On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker.
4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP.
8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc.
|
On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc.
4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget.
8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker.
I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said.
|
On March 02 2013 02:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc. 4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget. 8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker. I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said.
I watched the press conference and that not what I heard. For example, he didn't mention the "3.5" number, he mentioned "2.5". Since when did the US have a "3.5 trillion budget"?
|
On March 02 2013 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:15 Sermokala wrote:On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc. 4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget. 8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker. I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said. I watched the press conference and that not what I heard. For example, he didn't mention the "3.5" number, he mentioned "2.5". Since when did the US have a "3.5 trillion budget"?
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUD
so its 3.8 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion sue me I'm a couple years behind on my number.
|
LOL google image "Obama is the antichrist"...
What has been seen cannot be unseen...
|
On March 02 2013 02:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:15 Sermokala wrote:On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc. 4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget. 8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker. I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said. I watched the press conference and that not what I heard. For example, he didn't mention the "3.5" number, he mentioned "2.5". Since when did the US have a "3.5 trillion budget"? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUDso its 3.8 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion sue me I'm a couple years behind on my number.
So you're not even making comments on what he said, you're just making comments...
|
On March 02 2013 02:23 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:15 Sermokala wrote:On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc. 4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget. 8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker. I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said. I watched the press conference and that not what I heard. For example, he didn't mention the "3.5" number, he mentioned "2.5". Since when did the US have a "3.5 trillion budget"? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2013-BUDso its 3.8 trillion instead of 3.5 trillion sue me I'm a couple years behind on my number.
My point was he didn't say that. In fact, a statement like "We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget" doesn't make sense, because you referred to the $3.5 trillion in the context of outlays in 1 year, whereas the $4 trillion is over 10 years.
|
On March 02 2013 02:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:10 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
Lol Obama's press conference.
1. Heres a bunch of things that are bad that happened because of what started today.
2. Its all the republicans faults.
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
4. We need to cut 4 trillion out of our 3.5 trillion budget
5. Brb going to go back on a campaign to tell why republicans aren't using common sense in this budget business on my $180k an hour airplane everywhere.
6. There are unreasonable people in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party. but this whole business is because republicans.
7. "Jedi mind meld" He actually said that.
8, The stories of impact is what will make our economy weaker. 4. Actually, he said we've already cut $2.5 trillion out of the $4 trillion needed to stabilized debt to GDP. 8. It's not the stories that will make the economy weaker, it's the cuts. But there will be stories of things cancel, people losing jobs, etc. 4. Its still him saying that we need to cut 4 trillion to a 3.5 trillion budget. I assume he ment over the next 10 years or something but he did insinuate that we needed to cut 4 trillion out of a 3.5 trillion budget. 8. Again he said that these "impact stories" will make our economy weaker. I'm not making comments on what he ment I'm making comments on what he said.
Anytime you hear people talk about the budget its over a 10 year period unless they specifically say otherwise. Its just sort of how they deal with budgets.
|
On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker.
|
On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker.
Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me.
|
On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me.
You do understand that capitulation means surrender, yes? You're implying that because one side did not completely surrender, both are equally to blame, regardless of how reasonable their positions may or may not be.
|
On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is utterly bereft of specifics; in my experience, "this is how politics works" tends to follow or precede gross oversimplification. It does not take a genius to look at Boehner's position and actions in Congress and see just how unpopular "moderation" is amongst Republicans. Democrats, while certainly not without some degree of blame in this mess, are at least upholding a facade of solidarity; as far as I know, no Democrats have bullied the likes of Reid or Pelosi with threats to their leadership positions or future elections, and if you think the cuts to entitlements that come along with the sequester are not a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, you have another thing coming. My point is that there is far more at work in this debacle than the traditional "two party mess".
|
doesn't our new austerity include some cuts to military spending? That's a silver lining I guess
|
On March 02 2013 05:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 05:42 LaughingTulkas wrote:On March 02 2013 05:12 HunterX11 wrote:On March 02 2013 02:04 Sermokala wrote:
3. there's a silent secret "common sense caucus" out there but they don't want to reveal themselves or say anything because they're afraid of partisanship.
This is true though: the Senate hasn't been holding things back, nor the mainstream GOP at all, but the Tea Partiers in the House who really are happy to see the sequester go into effect. Many House Republicans fear being primaried from the right more than being defeated by Democrats. Look at what a bad spot Boehner is in: he's had incredible offers of near-capitulation from Obama, and he hasn't been able to get them put into law because the freaking anarcho-capitalists have been blocking him, and even threatening to unseat him from his spot as Speaker. Obama could have capitulated more then, but he (and dems) apparently like the sequester more than what those republicans wanted. This is how politics works. Each side wanted the sequester more than what the opposition wanted, so sequester it is! To blame one side more than the other seems silly to me. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is utterly bereft of specifics; in my experience, "this is how politics works" tends to follow or precede gross oversimplification. It does not take a genius to look at Boehner's position and actions in Congress and see just how unpopular "moderation" is amongst Republicans. Democrats, while certainly not without some degree of blame in this mess, are at least upholding a facade of solidarity; as far as I know, no Democrats have bullied the likes of Reid or Pelosi with threats to their leadership positions or future elections, and if you think the cuts to entitlements that come along with the sequester are not a bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, you have another thing coming. My point is that there is far more at work in this debacle than the traditional "two party mess".
You, and the poster above you, are making judgement calls about "what is reasonable" and applying it to both positions as if it is established fact. In actuality, it is true that both sides got what they wanted more than the other. If Obama didnt' really want sequester at all costs, he could have taken the Republicans offer, but he would rather have sequester than that. Conversely, if the Republicans didn't want sequester at all costs, they could have taken the Democrats proposals, but they would rather have sequester than that.
So both sides agreed that they would rather have the sequester than what the other side was offering. Which means neither sides offer was acceptable to the other side. (Since you seem pro-Obama I'll make a point against him: If he really didn't want sequester, he could have capitulated a lot less overall, but left out tax increases and probably have got what he wanted, it's not just about how much you capitulate, but what you capitulate on. It's all politics to capitulate on everything EXCEPT the opposites side's main issue and then act wounded when they don't accept.)
|
The State Department released a draft environmental impact assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline Friday afternoon, suggesting that blocking the project would not have a significant impact on either the future development of Canada’s oil sands region or U.S. oil consumption.
The analysis, which will inform the decision President Obama must make later this year on whether to grant TransCanada the permit to construct the pipeline connecting Alberta’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, does not give environmentalists the answer they had hoped for in the debate over the project’s climate impact. Opponents say a presidential veto of the project would send a powerful message to the world about the importance of moving away from fossil fuels and make it more difficult for Canada to export its energy-intensive oil.
But the detailed environmental report — which runs close to 2,000 pages long — also questions one of the strongest arguments for the pipeline, by suggesting America can meet its energy needs over the next decade without it. The growth in rail transport of oil from western Canada and the Bakken Formation on the Great Plains and other pipelines, the analysis says, could meet the country’s energy needs for the next decade, even if Keystone XL never gets built.
The president is not likely to make a final decision on TransCanada’s permit application until mid-summer at the earliest. The analysis will be subject to at least 45 days of public comment once it is published next Friday in the Federal Register, and the State Department will have to respond to hundreds of thousands of comments before finalizing its environmental impact statement. The State Department will also have to conduct a separate analysis of whether the project is in the national interest, a question on which eight other agencies will offer input over 90 days.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
