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.
ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned.
Climate denial – from Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level – is seen as a major obstacle to US and global efforts to fight climate change, closing off the possibility of federal and state regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the ability to plan for a future of sea-level rise and extreme weather.
Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists.
“In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.
But since 2007, the oil company has given $1.87m to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change and an additional $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), according to financial and tax records.
In a statement to the Guardian this week, Exxon spokesman Richard Keil reiterated: “ExxonMobil does not fund climate denial.”
Lets all act shocked that people making money off carbon emissions are lobbying to deny science that says there might be issues with carbon emissions. Its ok, I am sure we wills start addressing the problem once it starts to effect crops and food supplies.
So it's true when the inspectors demand access.. Iran can delay 14 days, appeal another 7 days, and then wait for 3 more days?
The procedure for those 24 days is as follows: If IAEA inspectors suspect that illicit or undeclared nuclear activity is taking place at an unmonitored facility, like a military base, it must first request explanations from Iran. If the explanations don’t satisfy the inspectors, they can ask to visit the facility.
The Iranians can then suggest ways of resolving the issue that don’t involve a visit. But if the inspectors remain unsatisfied 14 days after first broaching their suspicions to Iran, the matter will be transferred to the eight-member committee overseeing the deal’s implementation.
The committee will have seven days to try to find a solution that satisfies everyone. But if no such solution is found, the committee will then vote on whether Iran must allow the visit.
That decision requires only a simple majority – five of the eight members. Since Iran enjoys reliable backing from only two other panel members, Russia and China, it will have trouble preventing a decision ordering it to allow the visit.
If such a decision is made, Iran must permit the visit within three days.
The procedure for those 24 days is as follows: If IAEA inspectors suspect that illicit or undeclared nuclear activity is taking place at an unmonitored facility, like a military base, it must first request explanations from Iran. If the explanations don’t satisfy the inspectors, they can ask to visit the facility.
The Iranians can then suggest ways of resolving the issue that don’t involve a visit. But if the inspectors remain unsatisfied 14 days after first broaching their suspicions to Iran, the matter will be transferred to the eight-member committee overseeing the deal’s implementation.
The committee will have seven days to try to find a solution that satisfies everyone. But if no such solution is found, the committee will then vote on whether Iran must allow the visit.
That decision requires only a simple majority – five of the eight members. Since Iran enjoys reliable backing from only two other panel members, Russia and China, it will have trouble preventing a decision ordering it to allow the visit.
If such a decision is made, Iran must permit the visit within three days.
The real issue could they dismantle the facilities in 30 days and have no one notice. From my understanding the processes necessary to create a bomb are large and not something you just throw together. At lot if requires heavy industry, like a Heavy Water Plant.
On July 15 2015 06:25 cLutZ wrote: Just to be clear, your compromise position there, is just the Democratic position. So you don't advocate compromise, just acceptance of the POV you prefer.
Lets go with Medicaid. Republicans think its an expensive, ineffective, boondoggle that takes too much state power and puts it under Federal control. They would block grant and reduce overall spending.
Democrats want to expand the program with more Federal oversight and mandates. Find the compromise!
Does the concept of an independent confuse you? Or compromise? Both sides get part of what they want.
Of course I advocated for the point of view I prefer, that's how politics work. I don't agree with mass deportation and would prefer the problem be resolved through a combination of deportation and a path to at least a work visa. In would like to see better deportation laws and a faster system for doing so.
I don't dislike Medicaid and I think health care should be regulated because medical insurance is a complex market that can be abused. So I would like the Republicans to stop worshiping the free market just long enough to realize that maybe it can't be used to solve every issue that relates to money.
Here, you described a compromise that Republicans could come to amongst themselves, but Democrats would not accept.
Here, you didn't describe anything, or perhaps just stated a compromise between Democrats and the status quo which gives Republicans nothing that would make America a better place from their POV.
But I don't care. Their party platform currently does not appeal me. I don't understand why you are confused by this. What is your goal in this weird line of questioning where you throw political issues at me like some sort of dog preforming tricks? If you are looking for something a little Republican in leaning, I don't really care for public sector unions.
If you don't care for their positions, then why are you talking about compromise? Don't you see how disingenuous your narrative is when you say, "Republicans should compromise more" while really hoping for none of their policy prescriptions to prevail?
If you can even get one believer in compromise-advocacy 'obstruction'-opposition to find they're actually against compromise and for obstruction provided its obstructing ideas they disagree with, then you're a miracle maker. I speak seriously. It's fine and dandy to state and believe, as others have done, that you think political opponents stand for policies that are destructive and you want them opposed everywhere they're advanced. But then that sleazy talk about your party being the party of ideas and the other party just curmudgeons with delight in gridlock-in-the-system, it's almost beyond words.
On July 15 2015 06:25 cLutZ wrote: Just to be clear, your compromise position there, is just the Democratic position. So you don't advocate compromise, just acceptance of the POV you prefer.
On July 15 2015 06:25 cLutZ wrote: Just to be clear, your compromise position there, is just the Democratic position. So you don't advocate compromise, just acceptance of the POV you prefer.
Lets go with Medicaid. Republicans think its an expensive, ineffective, boondoggle that takes too much state power and puts it under Federal control. They would block grant and reduce overall spending.
Democrats want to expand the program with more Federal oversight and mandates. Find the compromise!
Does the concept of an independent confuse you? Or compromise? Both sides get part of what they want.
Of course I advocated for the point of view I prefer, that's how politics work. I don't agree with mass deportation and would prefer the problem be resolved through a combination of deportation and a path to at least a work visa. In would like to see better deportation laws and a faster system for doing so.
I don't dislike Medicaid and I think health care should be regulated because medical insurance is a complex market that can be abused. So I would like the Republicans to stop worshiping the free market just long enough to realize that maybe it can't be used to solve every issue that relates to money.
Here, you described a compromise that Republicans could come to amongst themselves, but Democrats would not accept.
Here, you didn't describe anything, or perhaps just stated a compromise between Democrats and the status quo which gives Republicans nothing that would make America a better place from their POV.
On July 15 2015 06:25 cLutZ wrote: Just to be clear, your compromise position there, is just the Democratic position. So you don't advocate compromise, just acceptance of the POV you prefer.
Lets go with Medicaid. Republicans think its an expensive, ineffective, boondoggle that takes too much state power and puts it under Federal control. They would block grant and reduce overall spending.
Democrats want to expand the program with more Federal oversight and mandates. Find the compromise!
Does the concept of an independent confuse you? Or compromise? Both sides get part of what they want.
Of course I advocated for the point of view I prefer, that's how politics work. I don't agree with mass deportation and would prefer the problem be resolved through a combination of deportation and a path to at least a work visa. In would like to see better deportation laws and a faster system for doing so.
I don't dislike Medicaid and I think health care should be regulated because medical insurance is a complex market that can be abused. So I would like the Republicans to stop worshiping the free market just long enough to realize that maybe it can't be used to solve every issue that relates to money.
Here, you described a compromise that Republicans could come to amongst themselves, but Democrats would not accept.
Here, you didn't describe anything, or perhaps just stated a compromise between Democrats and the status quo which gives Republicans nothing that would make America a better place from their POV.
But I don't care. Their party platform currently does not appeal me. I don't understand why you are confused by this. What is your goal in this weird line of questioning where you throw political issues at me like some sort of dog preforming tricks? If you are looking for something a little Republican in leaning, I don't really care for public sector unions.
If you don't care for their positions, then why are you talking about compromise? Don't you see how disingenuous your narrative is when you say, "Republicans should compromise more" while really hoping for none of their policy prescriptions to prevail?
Let the intellectually honest resolve it in your minds: you stolidly oppose the policy prescriptions of the GOP (or conservative wing of the GOP). As pleasant as the talk of compromise is, you attack conservative ideas when talk of compromise occurs. You think that if the conservatives would just give up fighting for x, abandon these antiquated notions about issue y, then you could "find compromise" (Rhetoric on obstructionists). But that's not compromise, that's the talk of ideological victors demanding concessions from their defeated adversary.
If the Iranians can make every trace of a nuclear development facility disappear within 24 days they're insanely brilliant and they could have had nukes years ago.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney passionately denounced the Iran nuclear deal in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday night.
After Hannity asked Cheney why President Barack Obama wants the agreement, the former vice president bluntly said that he didn't know.
"You asked the key question, Sean. And that is: What the hell is the president thinking of when he thinks this is a great deal? And I frankly simply do not understand. I haven't met anyone who can explain it to me," he said.
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday morning that the US and other powers had struck a deal with Iran to curb its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. In exchange, Iran earned a number of concessions, including the rollback of economic sanctions.
But Cheney, like many Republican foreign-policy hawks, has a litany of concerns about the agreement, which he said would only lead to Iran getting a nuclear bomb if implemented. Cheney predicted that other countries would then arm themselves with nuclear weapons in response.
On July 16 2015 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: If the Iranians can make every trace of a nuclear development facility disappear within 24 days they're insanely brilliant and they could have had nukes years ago.
That is exactly what I was thinking. And once the inspectors want to see something, you know that every satellite possible will be pointed at it. The process for making weaponized plutonium is massive.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney passionately denounced the Iran nuclear deal in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on Tuesday night.
After Hannity asked Cheney why President Barack Obama wants the agreement, the former vice president bluntly said that he didn't know.
"You asked the key question, Sean. And that is: What the hell is the president thinking of when he thinks this is a great deal? And I frankly simply do not understand. I haven't met anyone who can explain it to me," he said.
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday morning that the US and other powers had struck a deal with Iran to curb its ability to produce a nuclear weapon. In exchange, Iran earned a number of concessions, including the rollback of economic sanctions.
But Cheney, like many Republican foreign-policy hawks, has a litany of concerns about the agreement, which he said would only lead to Iran getting a nuclear bomb if implemented. Cheney predicted that other countries would then arm themselves with nuclear weapons in response.
On July 16 2015 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: If the Iranians can make every trace of a nuclear development facility disappear within 24 days they're insanely brilliant and they could have had nukes years ago.
That is exactly what I was thinking. And once the inspectors want to see something, you know that every satellite possible will be pointed at it. The process for making weaponized plutonium is massive.
Also, the Iranians have no incentives to try and pull a stunt like that (from my perspective). If they fuck up this deal, sanctions come back and they have to deal with their own people going "really? we don't want some stupid nukes, we want iPhones."
On July 16 2015 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: If the Iranians can make every trace of a nuclear development facility disappear within 24 days they're insanely brilliant and they could have had nukes years ago.
That is exactly what I was thinking. And once the inspectors want to see something, you know that every satellite possible will be pointed at it. The process for making weaponized plutonium is massive.
Trump already blasted Kerry and Obama saying it was of the worst deals hes seen been made in his life.
On July 15 2015 21:58 Sermokala wrote: Wow you really are a joke of the minimum wage movement. You're against training people skills so they get out of minimum wage jobs because you think burger flipping is so vital to our economy that people should be able to live off it?
You can't bash reps for being obtuse when you're wearing ideology blinders like that.
The iran deal is pretty bad compared to say cold war deals but the enemy in this case is on a hard clock and we're not. So any deal is good.
Thats not what he said at all. He said that there will always be someone working those burger flipping jobs and that person should not need government assistance to live. Ofcourse people should be able to get education but that doesn't mean those jobs stop existing.
But the point of those jobs isn't and shouldn't be enough to support a family. They don't produce anything or contribute to the economy in any meaningful way. He bashed scotty (I don't support the guy) because he suggested that the government should be concentrating on training people into new skill positions instead of raising the minimum wage into something people could live off of.
The problem with the $15 minimum wage is that it'll eliminate manufacturing jobs and other non service industry jobs that actually contribute to something instead of filling people into a proverty cycle where low level service jobs are all they end up having.
I made a post awhile back about how I think the minimum wage is a bandaid to income inequality. First it's 12, then it's 15 and then it's 20+. We don't need to jack up the minimum wage so burger flippin' Joe makes $15 an hour, we need more middle class jobs and education so people can fill them. Slap a big fat tax on people making over 250K a year to fund the education, create a community investment deduction that allows you to avoid the tax penalty if you create jobs.
And I'm sure that those rich people won't have created an entire industry dedicated to avoiding that new tax created overnight.
It would work if liberals said "flat tax" on the rich instead of big tax. rich people don't pay less in tax because they're taxed less they pay less because they can access loopholes to avoid paying tax.
EPT
