|
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 August 13 2013 13:50 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:08 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."
In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.
"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."
The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens. Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. I don't think the American liberals aim to create that government. I stand by what I originally said. There is a political bent to the environmentalist addressing of climate change. It is politics first, it is big government first (soft tyranny, not overtly totalitarian). This is seen in the modern addressing of climate change. You have a wildfire, climate change. You have a hurricane, climate change. You have a decade of slowed temperature increase, it's just a pause before more climate change. The genuinely concerned are not those with the power with the microphones these days. It's agenda driven and it's getting more and more obvious. Actually you have 97% of scientists and decades of data analyzed. What you describe in this paragraph is in fact what conservatives usually pull: "Look at this snowstorm! Global warming is a hoax, don't liberals feel how cold it is today?" A lot of what you say is just blatantly made up from your own ...paranoia for lack of a better word. Addressing every issue as if it were climate change is nothing but your own mind's doing. Corporate media will always go for sensationalism and LCD sellers, but that doesn't demerit the environmentalists' and scientists' arguments and theories on climate change. Also who else would you expect to be bent towards addressing climate change, industrialists? Naming it political doesn't do anything, since nearly everything is political. Especially a topic like this. How could you avoid any politics when the right caters to business and industry without question and willfully ignores facts that result in their financial loss? What? Not sure what you're asking for. Business and industry will make a political fuss when they are going to be restrained.
True.
You may be stereotyping business interests too much for my taste.
|
On August 13 2013 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 13:50 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:08 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."
In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.
"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."
The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens. Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. I don't think the American liberals aim to create that government. I stand by what I originally said. There is a political bent to the environmentalist addressing of climate change. It is politics first, it is big government first (soft tyranny, not overtly totalitarian). This is seen in the modern addressing of climate change. You have a wildfire, climate change. You have a hurricane, climate change. You have a decade of slowed temperature increase, it's just a pause before more climate change. The genuinely concerned are not those with the power with the microphones these days. It's agenda driven and it's getting more and more obvious. Actually you have 97% of scientists and decades of data analyzed. What you describe in this paragraph is in fact what conservatives usually pull: "Look at this snowstorm! Global warming is a hoax, don't liberals feel how cold it is today?" A lot of what you say is just blatantly made up from your own ...paranoia for lack of a better word. Addressing every issue as if it were climate change is nothing but your own mind's doing. Corporate media will always go for sensationalism and LCD sellers, but that doesn't demerit the environmentalists' and scientists' arguments and theories on climate change. Also who else would you expect to be bent towards addressing climate change, industrialists? Naming it political doesn't do anything, since nearly everything is political. Especially a topic like this. How could you avoid any politics when the right caters to business and industry without question and willfully ignores facts that result in their financial loss? What? Not sure what you're asking for. Business and industry will make a political fuss when they are going to be restrained. True. You may be stereotyping business interests too much for my taste.
I mean I'll admit that certain companies want to be 'green' and appeal to that type of person (I think apple should be commended for their recycling initiative which is good financially as well as environmentally), but the reaction that business naturally would have is to oppose something that tells them "no, you can't make money this way". And it's hard to envision a reaction that doesn't involve politics.
|
On August 13 2013 14:29 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:50 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:08 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."
In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.
"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."
The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens. Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. I don't think the American liberals aim to create that government. I stand by what I originally said. There is a political bent to the environmentalist addressing of climate change. It is politics first, it is big government first (soft tyranny, not overtly totalitarian). This is seen in the modern addressing of climate change. You have a wildfire, climate change. You have a hurricane, climate change. You have a decade of slowed temperature increase, it's just a pause before more climate change. The genuinely concerned are not those with the power with the microphones these days. It's agenda driven and it's getting more and more obvious. Actually you have 97% of scientists and decades of data analyzed. What you describe in this paragraph is in fact what conservatives usually pull: "Look at this snowstorm! Global warming is a hoax, don't liberals feel how cold it is today?" A lot of what you say is just blatantly made up from your own ...paranoia for lack of a better word. Addressing every issue as if it were climate change is nothing but your own mind's doing. Corporate media will always go for sensationalism and LCD sellers, but that doesn't demerit the environmentalists' and scientists' arguments and theories on climate change. Also who else would you expect to be bent towards addressing climate change, industrialists? Naming it political doesn't do anything, since nearly everything is political. Especially a topic like this. How could you avoid any politics when the right caters to business and industry without question and willfully ignores facts that result in their financial loss? What? Not sure what you're asking for. Business and industry will make a political fuss when they are going to be restrained. True. You may be stereotyping business interests too much for my taste. I mean I'll admit that certain companies want to be 'green' and appeal to that type of person (I think apple should be commended for their recycling initiative which is good financially as well as environmentally), but the reaction that business naturally would have is to oppose something that tells them "no, you can't make money this way". And it's hard to envision a reaction that doesn't involve politics.
Sure, but it's also that different businesses are often opposed to each other. A lot of corporate lobbying is one business or industry lobbying against the other. So a lot of the time, even if you wanted to give into business interests wholesale, you can't, because there is no "business interest."
But I'm a little touchy on the subject, so bear with me 
|
On August 13 2013 11:43 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 11:29 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 11:12 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."
In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.
"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."
The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens. Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. Doesn't anyone else find it odd or ironic how pro-environment liberals are more conservative than the conservatives themselves? Instead of maintaining the natural order of things, conservatives would rather unleash businesses and the mob of the free market to decide the fate of the environment. (American)Liberals on the other hand have taken a distinctively conservative tone on this issue, often alluding to humans as sinful, polluting and wasteful, calling for restrictions on behaviour, laws to protect nature and essentially what amounts to anti-(classical)liberal measures to stop the further destruction of the planet. I just find it interesting how the two have flipped roles on this issue (among others). Generally speaking: Liberals support high personal freedom and low economic freedom.
Conservatives support low personal freedom and high economic freedom.
Statists support low personal freedom and high economic freedom.
Libertarians support high personal freedom and low economic freedom. Wow, that's a pretty ugly graph. And I think you messed up what you wanted to say. Because apparently conservatives and statists are the same, and libertarians and liberals are the same. Although I'm always pretty skeptical of what people mean by "economic freedom." Because it usually means bullshit. So I would just replace "economic freedom" with "bullshit", and that would sound good to me.
Yeah, I made some typos. I've fixed my original post. Here's a better graph:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Nolan-chart.svg)
On August 13 2013 11:43 DoubleReed wrote:
I have also noticed the weird switch of roles as well. You'd think conservatives and the religious would be all about Global Warming. It's the apocalypse that they're constantly begging for. They love to go on about how we're all doomed because of gay people and abortion or whatever. But something that actually is apocalyptic somehow doesn't appeal to them at all. How strange. I guess money talks.
Another weird switch is over gun control. You'd expect that liberals would support gun rights since this falls under personal freedoms, and that conservatives would support gun control as a means of maintaining law and order, etc.
The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy.
|
I think liberals (American) have a different sense of what personal freedom is in that personal freedoms end when they can infringe on other's freedoms (less freedom to destroy the environment but more freedom for others to enjoy it, less freedom to own guns but ostensibly more freedom to not get shot).
But yeah, generally speaking parties are just a mishmash of philosphies squashed under one roof.
|
On August 13 2013 14:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 14:29 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:50 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:08 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. I don't think the American liberals aim to create that government. I stand by what I originally said. There is a political bent to the environmentalist addressing of climate change. It is politics first, it is big government first (soft tyranny, not overtly totalitarian). This is seen in the modern addressing of climate change. You have a wildfire, climate change. You have a hurricane, climate change. You have a decade of slowed temperature increase, it's just a pause before more climate change. The genuinely concerned are not those with the power with the microphones these days. It's agenda driven and it's getting more and more obvious. Actually you have 97% of scientists and decades of data analyzed. What you describe in this paragraph is in fact what conservatives usually pull: "Look at this snowstorm! Global warming is a hoax, don't liberals feel how cold it is today?" A lot of what you say is just blatantly made up from your own ...paranoia for lack of a better word. Addressing every issue as if it were climate change is nothing but your own mind's doing. Corporate media will always go for sensationalism and LCD sellers, but that doesn't demerit the environmentalists' and scientists' arguments and theories on climate change. Also who else would you expect to be bent towards addressing climate change, industrialists? Naming it political doesn't do anything, since nearly everything is political. Especially a topic like this. How could you avoid any politics when the right caters to business and industry without question and willfully ignores facts that result in their financial loss? What? Not sure what you're asking for. Business and industry will make a political fuss when they are going to be restrained. True. You may be stereotyping business interests too much for my taste. I mean I'll admit that certain companies want to be 'green' and appeal to that type of person (I think apple should be commended for their recycling initiative which is good financially as well as environmentally), but the reaction that business naturally would have is to oppose something that tells them "no, you can't make money this way". And it's hard to envision a reaction that doesn't involve politics. Sure, but it's also that different businesses are often opposed to each other. A lot of corporate lobbying is one business or industry lobbying against the other. So a lot of the time, even if you wanted to give into business interests wholesale, you can't, because there is no "business interest." But I'm a little touchy on the subject, so bear with me
Businesses have more common interests then opposed ones, the only times its opposing is when 2 or more companys trying to get one specific government contract. Most interests are common, like low corporate taxes, low labour rights/minimum wage etc. There also a few interests wich are common for a whole sector, like the defense industry wanting more government spending on defence,or the finance industry wanting less regulation.
|
The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy.
Really, because my takeaway is that liberals are driven by a pragmatic desire to solve problems, while conservatives and libertarians are driven simplistic ideologies that sound nice but have no bearing on the real world (taxation is theft!).
Come on, just because you can make a graph or spectrum of things doesn't mean the graph is an accurate representation of real life. These kinds of graphs just feed into the silly centrist notion that all sides are legitimate and have good points on all issues. It's all just equivocation of the same idiotic "Well liberals want restrictive gun laws! That's just like peddling nonsensical bullshit about sex to women in the form of 'crisis pregnancy centers!'"
I get really exhausted from people constantly trying to equivocate to seem wise and "above it all." It's nothing more than a social dominance trick, because it allows people to essentially not take sides in a conflict while pretending to be reasonable (instead of the distinct possibility of just being half-crazy).
|
|
|
On August 13 2013 21:30 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 14:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 14:29 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:50 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 13 2013 13:08 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. I don't think the American liberals aim to create that government. I stand by what I originally said. There is a political bent to the environmentalist addressing of climate change. It is politics first, it is big government first (soft tyranny, not overtly totalitarian). This is seen in the modern addressing of climate change. You have a wildfire, climate change. You have a hurricane, climate change. You have a decade of slowed temperature increase, it's just a pause before more climate change. The genuinely concerned are not those with the power with the microphones these days. It's agenda driven and it's getting more and more obvious. Actually you have 97% of scientists and decades of data analyzed. What you describe in this paragraph is in fact what conservatives usually pull: "Look at this snowstorm! Global warming is a hoax, don't liberals feel how cold it is today?" A lot of what you say is just blatantly made up from your own ...paranoia for lack of a better word. Addressing every issue as if it were climate change is nothing but your own mind's doing. Corporate media will always go for sensationalism and LCD sellers, but that doesn't demerit the environmentalists' and scientists' arguments and theories on climate change. Also who else would you expect to be bent towards addressing climate change, industrialists? Naming it political doesn't do anything, since nearly everything is political. Especially a topic like this. How could you avoid any politics when the right caters to business and industry without question and willfully ignores facts that result in their financial loss? What? Not sure what you're asking for. Business and industry will make a political fuss when they are going to be restrained. True. You may be stereotyping business interests too much for my taste. I mean I'll admit that certain companies want to be 'green' and appeal to that type of person (I think apple should be commended for their recycling initiative which is good financially as well as environmentally), but the reaction that business naturally would have is to oppose something that tells them "no, you can't make money this way". And it's hard to envision a reaction that doesn't involve politics. Sure, but it's also that different businesses are often opposed to each other. A lot of corporate lobbying is one business or industry lobbying against the other. So a lot of the time, even if you wanted to give into business interests wholesale, you can't, because there is no "business interest." But I'm a little touchy on the subject, so bear with me Businesses have more common interests then opposed ones, the only times its opposing is when 2 or more companys trying to get one specific government contract. Most interests are common, like low corporate taxes, low labour rights/minimum wage etc. There also a few interests wich are common for a whole sector, like the defense industry wanting more government spending on defence,or the finance industry wanting less regulation.
Business interests are opposed very frequently. A casino operator wants to open a new casino, and the local realtors oppose it. Ethanol is supported by farmers and the industry, opposed by refiners and consumers. Clean energy is often opposed by dirty energy and yet loved by finance. Credit card companies want higher fees, retailers want lower.
Even when there's agreement, say lower taxes, you still get loads of schadenfreude over the details.
|
This thread is reserved for pretending to care, not actually caring. Take note
|
On August 14 2013 01:11 BioNova wrote:This thread is reserved for pretending to care, not actually caring. Take note
No, this thread generally cares about US political topics not explicitly covered in other topics.
|
On August 14 2013 01:11 BioNova wrote:This thread is reserved for pretending to care, not actually caring. Take note
Isn't it just the worst when not everyone sees things as you do? Damn those pretenders!
|
Errr... I don't think schadenfreude is the word you're looking for.
|
the funny thing is ppl still accuse snowden of being a traitor for not reporting the activities to his chain of command.
its the ppl in charge that's the problem. theres no accountability. they can do whatever the hell they want with no consequences. and get paid!
|
|
|
On August 14 2013 01:53 JimSocks wrote:
the funny thing is ppl still accuse snowden of being a traitor for not reporting the activities to his chain of command.
its the ppl in charge that's the problem. theres no accountability.
Somehow, "it's the people in charge" just doesn't do the topic justice. Yes, there is some sketchy shit going down with the NSA and Justice Dept., but when it comes to something as complicated as balancing national security with individual rights, simply saying "government bad" doesn't really get at the issue.
|
On August 14 2013 01:27 DoubleReed wrote:Errr... I don't think schadenfreude is the word you're looking for.
I think it's appropriate for what I was referencing.
Comapany A pushes for policy X which will benefit company A at the expense of competitor B. Upon enactment of policy X company A will then feel happy that competitor B is now suffering.
|
The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy.
"Hey, you have views that might contradict some of mine, we can't be in the same party!
"It would just be too hilariously hypocritical."
Couldn't the same thing be said about any coalition government ever in a parliamentary democracy? If we wanted to be consistently grossly unfair about the whole business.
In Obamacare news...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1&
To get in the necessary snark, maybe next insurance companies will be allowed to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions again. It seems like that and the mandate are the only key parts of the law that the president has decided he doesn't have the authority to unilaterally delay. But who knows what tomorrow will bring for President I Can Decide Which Parts of My Signature Law To Implement Because.
My favorite paragraph:
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said: “We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person’s out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply.”
I just find it kind of odd that the political party that casts itself as the consumer's friend and the bane of the unprincipled rich man or corporation has so consistently made decision after decision that benefits big corporations at the expense of consumers. The Obama Administration for some odd reason looks more like Democratic fearmonger scenarios about a Republican Administration than any actual Republican Administration ever has...
|
On August 13 2013 15:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 11:43 DoubleReed wrote:On August 13 2013 11:29 sunprince wrote:On August 13 2013 11:12 Roe wrote:On August 13 2013 09:25 KwarK wrote:On August 13 2013 05:25 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2013 04:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."
In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.
"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."
The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens. Source Right on Dana! If politicians want the science, they've gotta learn not to leap at every opportunity to label a natural disaster or hot day on climate change. It just backs up even more that climate change is a vehicle for a political agenda first and foremost. Concern about the long term trend comes in second. On the other hand, liberals are not out to create a global totalitarian government and labelling their genuine concerns about climate change as such is either retarded or insane. Yes, climate and weather are two different things but let's not go full tin foil on it. Doesn't anyone else find it odd or ironic how pro-environment liberals are more conservative than the conservatives themselves? Instead of maintaining the natural order of things, conservatives would rather unleash businesses and the mob of the free market to decide the fate of the environment. (American)Liberals on the other hand have taken a distinctively conservative tone on this issue, often alluding to humans as sinful, polluting and wasteful, calling for restrictions on behaviour, laws to protect nature and essentially what amounts to anti-(classical)liberal measures to stop the further destruction of the planet. I just find it interesting how the two have flipped roles on this issue (among others). Generally speaking: Liberals support high personal freedom and low economic freedom.
Conservatives support low personal freedom and high economic freedom.
Statists support low personal freedom and high economic freedom.
Libertarians support high personal freedom and low economic freedom. Wow, that's a pretty ugly graph. And I think you messed up what you wanted to say. Because apparently conservatives and statists are the same, and libertarians and liberals are the same. Although I'm always pretty skeptical of what people mean by "economic freedom." Because it usually means bullshit. So I would just replace "economic freedom" with "bullshit", and that would sound good to me. Yeah, I made some typos. I've fixed my original post. Here's a better graph: Show nested quote +On August 13 2013 11:43 DoubleReed wrote:
I have also noticed the weird switch of roles as well. You'd think conservatives and the religious would be all about Global Warming. It's the apocalypse that they're constantly begging for. They love to go on about how we're all doomed because of gay people and abortion or whatever. But something that actually is apocalyptic somehow doesn't appeal to them at all. How strange. I guess money talks. Another weird switch is over gun control. You'd expect that liberals would support gun rights since this falls under personal freedoms, and that conservatives would support gun control as a means of maintaining law and order, etc. The takeaway is that American political parties are hilariously hypocritical, and pasted together from various groups on the basis of political expediency rather than any coherent philosophy.
The thing is that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't really political parties, they're coalitions. There are several parties that make up each one of these, and ass-backwards, ridiculous laws concerning money and politics make it suicide to try to separate from these coalitions.
I just find it kind of odd that the political party that casts itself as the consumer's friend and the bane of the unprincipled rich man or corporation has so consistently made decision after decision that benefits big corporations at the expense of consumers. The Obama Administration for some odd reason looks more like Democratic fearmonger scenarios about a Republican Administration than any actual Republican Administration ever has...
You do know that very little of what Obama actually does lines up with what liberals want, right? Obama is an extremely conservative Democratic candidate that, if he was white, would fit in fine as a moderate Republican pre-Tea Party movement era.
|
Yea it's ridiculous and quite frightening to realize that someone as conservative as Obama is labeled a socialist. Oh how right wing our politics are in comparison to the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
