US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1520

On December 14 2014 14:34 IgnE wrote:


Whether GH has a point or not, it's odd that you would post this. Do you really not understand how ridiculous your post is? I don't really like using the word "ignorant" since it's been largely corrupted through vulgar usage, but it's the mote juste here. You might think you are scoring points with your absurd exaggeration of GH's argument, but all it really does is underscore the fact that you have no fucking clue what you are even arguing against because you are emphasizing exactly all of the points that GH would agree are absurd while being completely oblivious to the points he is trying to make.

Congressional Republicans who vow to defeat President Barack Obama’s “War on Coal” can do little to defend the industry against a growing international threat — the drying up of its once-promising markets overseas.

Just a few years ago, domestic producers had high hopes for selling coal to energy-hungry Asia, but prices in those markets are plummeting now amid slowing demand and oversupply, ceding much of the market space to cheaper coal from nations like Indonesia and Australia. Meanwhile, a lot of U.S. coal can’t even get out of the country, thanks to greens’ success in blocking proposed export terminals in Washington state and Oregon. And China, the world’s most voracious coal customer, just pledged to cap its use of the fuel and is promising to curb its greenhouse gas pollution.
Story Continued Below

The industry’s supporters in Congress notched a minor victory in this week’s $1.1 trillion spending deal, which bars the Export-Import Bank from cutting off financing for coal-burning plants overseas. But coal’s prospects will only darken further if the climate talks underway in Lima, Peru, pave the way for a global agreement next year to throttle carbon emissions, a step that scientists say can come only by limiting the world’s appetite for coal.

Meanwhile, the World Bank is backing away from funding coal projects, hedge funds are eyeing major U.S. coal companies as high-risk investments, and the strong dollar is hampering the market for all kinds of exports. The oil train boom also burdens coal producers’ access to rail lines from Western mining hot spots like Wyoming and Montana.

The upshot: Coal exports, which more than doubled from 2007 to 2012, are expected to fall by nearly one-fifth this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. In 2015, the number of tons exported could hit its lowest level in five years.

It’s sobering news for an industry already beset by EPA climate and pollution regulations that Republicans denounce as Obama’s “War on Coal” — their rallying cry on the way to big victories in the midterm elections. And it’s a far stretch from the export-driven boom that coal supporters like House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton were expecting as recently as a year ago.

“All that is missing is the additional infrastructure to make expanded exports possible, and achieving our export potential would have the added benefit of creating thousands, tens of thousands, of new jobs,” the Michigan Republican said at a June 2013 hearing on exports.

In recent years, with coal prices rising and China’s appetite seeming unquenchable, the industry was proposing a slew of projects to build or expand terminals at ports in the Pacific Northwest to export coal from states like Wyoming and Montana, where coal is abundant and cheap to produce. But now it appears that Chinese coal consumption will peak within the next decade, if it hasn’t already. Opportunities for the U.S. to capitalize on that market could be limited even if coal prices rebound and the West Coast export terminals go through.

On December 14 2014 14:59 Introvert wrote:


I think it's absurd to make that clip out by Hannity to be race related at all in the first place. The other guys were just shouting at each other. The rest of his points fall flat because his example that became the topic of discussion was ridiculous. There is no distinction because racism, prejudice, etc were entirely absent. Get mad at the dude on the far left if you want. There weren't hues of anything. Even the guy on the left was talking about a stabbing most of the time.

On December 14 2014 18:45 WhiteDog wrote:

To me, this indicate that he gained too much money to begin with. Nothing more.

On December 14 2014 17:02 IgnE wrote:


That's fine man. There are legitimate rebuttals to GH's posts, as there are legitimate objections to having jay-z act as a moral ambassador on behalf of an oppressed community seeking redress. Like the fact that jay is a man whose only goal in life has been to make as much money as possible, a man who seems to have strikingly little social conscience or sense of history, a man who, ironically for Fox, embodies the cold-blooded, calculating capitalist spirit of the American weltanschauung, to the point that he doesn't even seem to understand how thoroughly he's been subsumed by the very racist system he claims to speak out against.

The problem is that instead of speaking to any legitimate arguments about whether or not Fox's presentation of jay was racist, you approach it from the angle of someone who truly doesn't understand what "racism" encompasses. Normally when you grossly exaggerate your opponent's arguments (i.e. there's a secret racist conspiracy just waiting to put a coded racist slant onto everything they can) your point is to say, "see look, you are arguing dome version of this, but look how silly it looks." Except in this case GH isn't arguing any version of that. He agrees the very notion of anything like that is silly. That in fact racism doesn't have to be intentional at all. But time and again there are conservatives responding to allegations of racism with this completely off-base mockery of views that aren't even being advanced. It's like you aren't even aware of what the conversation is even really about. It is ignorant in the full sense of the word. Or maybe it's just a Freudian response to a deep-seated, unrecognized prejudice that irrupts upon the ego and manifests as this indignant absurdist rant. I don't know, but you see it all the time from Fox personalities. But as Gertrude says, "the lady doth protest too much."

In Kemet, Pythagoras, the "father of mathematics," learned calculus and geometry from the Kemetic priests based on a millennia-old papyrus.

On December 14 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:
More like it was off the cuff. I've spent untold posts here discussing accusations of racism real, imagined, or subconcious, (espeically when directed at me) only to realize it's never going to get through. My main point was- nothing in the clip was racist or racial at all. Everything else after that was filler.

Edit: I don't see any legitimate arguments when the example is bad. That was supposed to be evidence of something, but it wasn't.

On December 14 2014 18:45 WhiteDog wrote:

To me, this indicate that he gained too much money to begin with. Nothing more.

On December 14 2014 23:00 WhiteDog wrote:

Yes some things are lacking (education, familly structure, social programs...) because some gain too much money.

On December 14 2014 21:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well he could of kept it all, and not "brought my boys with me" or provided those scholarships, or contributed to helping those victimized by natural disasters, or brought an NBA team to his community, and instead spent all of the money on mansions, cars, and jewelry like too many successful black people do.

I'm not going to lie and pretend that he and Beyonce wouldn't get away with being inordinately selfish within the black communities, who would otherwise object to 'white wealth' behaving the same way. But keep in mind that the number of black billionaires is minuscule (you can count them on your digits), the first not coming until the 2000, (not unrelated to the nations history) and rightly or not, black people like the idea of seeing someone 'like them' 'have it all' as much as anyone else, and the same "you could be a billionaire too!!" lines work on black people as much or more so than anyone else.



I agree with a lot of what you said. I wouldn't sign on to everything you said about Jay, mostly about his lack of a sense of history. As deficient as it may be, it's still heads and shoulders above most Americans (particularly if you examine areas outside of American/European History, especially among his harshest critics). Of course the lack of knowledge about African history isn't seen as a deficiency basically any where outside of Africa, despite it being the birthplace of mankind and home to some of the grandest most long-lived civilizations in history... Not knowing some of the most renowned and proclaimed ancient Greeks were taught by 'black skinned' teachers isn't viewed as a mark of 'grand ignorance' but as the "American/International Standard"...



Source



Let's start somewhere simple. Can you admit that there could be racist/racial hue even if you are 'sure' there wasn't? If you can't do that, there is no reason to continue because you are totally irrational (I admit there is at least the possibility there is nothing racial/racist about the issue). So, presuming we cleared that hurdle, let's look at where you have "spent untold posts here discussing accusations of racism real, imagined, or subconcious, (espeically when directed at me) only to realize it's never going to get through." I'm not sure what you are talking about here, so some sort of reference (link) or just an example would help me understand. You must have at least one example in mind or you are just assuming you did so without any specific recollection of actually doing it (which would seem a bit ridiculous)?

PS: BTW you claiming 'racism' was directed at you is evidence that we don't have a common understanding of what 'racism' means. If you asked me, what you experienced was perceived (perhaps real) discrimination/racial prejudice, but I and plenty of others (perhaps not here) would agree that it was certainly not 'racism'. This is mostly a semantic argument here though, but it's important to understand if we want to try to discuss what is 'racist/racism/racially tinged'

Because some people have interests in having less taxation possible and less government possible, and those people have power and can enforce their policies : it's class warfare. I'm pretty okay with being branded socialist, except in france that's almost an insult that mean free marketist in disguise.

On December 15 2014 00:40 Wegandi wrote:


I guess I'll be the first to point this out, but if you're using a source that says Pythagoras learned CALCULUS, well....not much else to say is there, considering calculus wasn't discovered ('invented' w.e), until Newton and Leibniz in the 17th Century.

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Climate negotiators salvaged a compromise deal in Lima early Sunday that sets the stage for a global pact in Paris next year, but rejected a rigorous review of the greenhouse gas emissions limits they plan.

More than 30 hours behind schedule, delegates from more than 190 countries agreed on what information should go into the pledges that countries submit for the expected Paris pact.

They argued all day Saturday over the wording of the decision, with developing nations worried that the text blurred the distinction between what rich and poor countries can be expected to do.

The final draft alleviated those concerns with language saying countries have "common but differentiated responsibilities" to deal with global warming.

"As a text it's not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties," said Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who was the conference chairman and had spent most of the day meeting separately with delegations.

The momentum from last month's joint U.S.-China deal on emissions targets faded quickly in Lima as rifts reopened over who should do what to fight global warming. The goal of the talks is to shape a global agreement in Paris that puts the world on a path to reduce the heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet.

Many developing countries, the most vulnerable to climate change's impacts, accuse rich nations of shirking their responsibilities to curb climate change and pay for the damage it inflicts.

In presenting a new, fourth draft just before midnight, Peru's environment minister gave a sharply reduced body of delegates an hour to review it. Many delegates had already quit the makeshift conference center on the grounds of Peru's army headquarters.

It also restored language demanded by small island states at risk of being flooded by rising seas, mentioning a "loss and damage" mechanism agreed upon in last year's talks in Poland that recognizes that nations hardest hit by climate change will require financial and technical help.

"We need a permanent arrangement to help the poorest of the world," Ian Fry, negotiator for the Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, said at a midday session.

Dick Cheney gave an unflinching defense of he CIA's post-9/11 torture program on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, dismissing criticisms of the program's forced rectal feedings, waterboarding and deaths.

"It worked. It absolutely did work," said Cheney, a driving force behind the George W. Bush administration's use of harsh tactics in response to the 9/11 attacks.

The Senate report on the interrogation program details forced rectal feedings that were medically unnecessary. But on Sunday, Cheney said the feedings were done for "medical reasons." The former vice president showed little remorse for the dozens of prisoners who were found to have been wrongfully detained, for the man who died in the program, or for people like Khaled El-Masri -- a German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan and sodomized in a case of mistaken identity.

"I'd do it again in a minute," said Cheney. He also spoke repeatedly of how the program was justified to get the "bastards" who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Cheney said he was more disturbed by the detainees released from Guantanamo and prisons in Iraq -- many under his own administration -- who have returned to the battlefield. He cited in particular the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was released from a U.S. prison in Iraq in 2004.

"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," Cheney said.

About the program's serious errors -- and the abuses that CIA Director John Brennan described as "abhorrent" on Thursday -- Cheney said, "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective."