|
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. |
a depressing blast from the past, courtesy mark ames:
The first congressman to battle the NSA is dead. No one noticed, no one cares,... Pike was less interested in sensational scandals like Church’s poison darts and foreign assassination plots than he was in getting to the guts of the intelligence apparatus, its power, its funding, its purpose. He asked questions never asked or answered since the start of the Cold War: What was America’s intelligence budget? What was the purpose of the CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies and programs? Were they succeeding by their own standards? Were taxpayers getting their money’s worth? Were they making America safer? ...
might post these as well... gonna take a peep. books sourced in article:
Challenging the Secret Governement
The Puzzle Palace
|
re: Danglars, would it have to be a conservative with a plan to fix the country?
I could make a plan to fix the country, then you could vote for me 
Sadly, actual plans to fix everything, tend to be unpopular, so I don't expect to be able to win.
|
WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday threw cold water on the idea that immigration reform could be revived this year, due to “irresolvable” differences between the House and Senate.
“I think we have sort of an irresolvable conflict here,” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. “The Senate insists on comprehensive [legislation], the House says it won’t go to conference with the Senate on comprehensive and wants to look at it step by step.”
He added, “I don’t see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced a set of principles on immigration reform on Thursday and Democrats mostly expressed cautious optimism about the plan, though it calls for separate bills rather than the comprehensive approach taken in the Senate legislation passed last June. President Barack Obama has said that he is open to the GOP's plan to release separate bills rather than a comprehensive one, so long as they address the key issues of reform: border security, enforcement, legal status for undocumented immigrants and changing the legal immigration system.
The House Republican principles span those topics, but lack details, so it's unclear how much they will align with the bill that passed the Senate. There's one notable difference: the House principles would not allow for a "special path to citizenship," although they would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a legal status and do not mention banning them from ever becoming citizens.
Boehner told reporters earlier Tuesday that members "seemed to be rather supportive of" the principles laid out last week, but emphasized they are still far from decided on what they will do.
Source
|
On February 05 2014 12:54 zlefin wrote:re: Danglars, would it have to be a conservative with a plan to fix the country? I could make a plan to fix the country, then you could vote for me Sadly, actual plans to fix everything, tend to be unpopular, so I don't expect to be able to win. We divide these fixes into topics. I have ideas to fix problems in these areas, and maybe I have enough people agreeing on most of them to elect me as their representative to enact these changes.
- 17 trillion dollars of debt, over 100 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. Is this a problem worth addressing? Can we, in effect, pay of the interest as we go and raise revenues to meet shortfalls? Or, How would you address this problem? Is curtailing of discretionary spending a good idea, and how should that be pursued?
- How should budgets be pursued with an opposing party? How much is open to compromise, how much if any is worth a partial government shutdown to pursue?
- States have legalized marijuana use in contravention of federal law. Is selective enforcement a solution, is repeal of existing federal law a solution, is greater enforcement-assertion of federal authority-a solution?
- The PPACA promised to give hope to those trying to obtain insurance with pre-existing conditions, a plan to lower or subsidize insurance costs for everyone, a plan to combat coverage costs internally through a mandate, increase the minimum standard of insurance, as well as other taxes and regulations. Is it successful, do we amend it, do we repeal it, and if repealed do we pass other legislation? What other legislation should we pass, if so, and what big problems would it solve and how?
- Existing immigration law is being routinely violated, and the size of the illegal aliens is such that deportation is a fantasy. Is existing immigration law a problem in language, a problem in enforcement, and what new laws or new appropriations should occur? Should changes in enforcement and law occur simultaneously for citizenship (or other statuses)? Should no changes be enacted, but legalization or amnesty be pursued?
- Should the US be involved in the conflicts in Syria? How much, if any, assistance should be given to the nations we have previously invaded to repel terrorists or support their governments?
America is routinely behind other OECD countries in various metrics of education. Is it fixable, what is the source, what is the solution?
Several more important topics exist
When you say, zlefin, "a plan to fix the country" it really is multiple plans on a variety of issues. Some positions of a candidate might be unpopular. Sometimes a candidate may take up a position to win an election, but not really believe it. Sometimes a candidate will publicly state his position and never fight for it against those holding other positions. That's the credibility crisis, and that's the problem with saying "a plan."
It takes an especially articulate candidate to win support to an unpopular position, something that has been lacking in a Republican candidate for over 30 years. If its to the tune of, "sorry guys, we can't afford all the cake and candy, we must stop robbing the next generation," it just might awaken some dormant paternal/maternal instinct. Do not pick the lavish vacation today, sacrifice now to give that kid a brighter future. If it even makes more sense, persuading someone through dialogue that supply depot on 10 is better than supply depot on 6 to get an army fast.
|
Asking for too much sacrifice tends not to work, but that's what it will take. No matter how articulate I am, I won't be able to get support, because I'm just not good at convincing people of things. And of course, the hard part isn't fixing the problems anyways, it's getting people to agree to fix the problems; plenty of actual fixes are known for most of those issues. It always annoys me that they make these commissions that look at an issue, and come up with a set of solutions that mixes a variety of sources and is passably balanced, and then they just ignore it.
PS did you actually want the fixes for each of those?
PPS what are your fixes for them? (if yes on the prior question)
|
On February 05 2014 13:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday threw cold water on the idea that immigration reform could be revived this year, due to “irresolvable” differences between the House and Senate.
“I think we have sort of an irresolvable conflict here,” McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. “The Senate insists on comprehensive [legislation], the House says it won’t go to conference with the Senate on comprehensive and wants to look at it step by step.”
He added, “I don’t see how you get to an outcome this year with the two bodies in such a different place.”
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced a set of principles on immigration reform on Thursday and Democrats mostly expressed cautious optimism about the plan, though it calls for separate bills rather than the comprehensive approach taken in the Senate legislation passed last June. President Barack Obama has said that he is open to the GOP's plan to release separate bills rather than a comprehensive one, so long as they address the key issues of reform: border security, enforcement, legal status for undocumented immigrants and changing the legal immigration system.
The House Republican principles span those topics, but lack details, so it's unclear how much they will align with the bill that passed the Senate. There's one notable difference: the House principles would not allow for a "special path to citizenship," although they would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a legal status and do not mention banning them from ever becoming citizens.
Boehner told reporters earlier Tuesday that members "seemed to be rather supportive of" the principles laid out last week, but emphasized they are still far from decided on what they will do. Source
"Irresolvable" conflicts don't exist. It's like a computer repair guy saying "this computer is literally cursed. Can not fix.". Your entire fucking job is resolving conflicts, so do it already!! arg!!!
|
I wonder what kind of social process is needed to create a young man who think the solution is to ask sacrifice from the poor. Having debt is robbing the next generation now lol and global warming is a hoax designed to rob the next generation from a beautifully polluted earth.
|
It is the same system that asks freedom to be sacrificed for the few that would use it to damage themselves. The health plan you liked did not contain the right essential benefits and 50% AV, you've got to lay that down. The experts in Washington D.C. know better than you. They know the problem and know the solutions. The opportunity for the poor must be sacrificed at the altar of government, who is the true savior of the poor.
You can live in this fantasy for quite a while. Fund every new fix with borrowed money. Pat yourself on the back for every new catastrophe, that would've been worse save for benign government. Let's clap for Obama's State of the Union Address, pat ourselves on the back for how great everything is! We're fixing health insurance, Obamacare is doing better tyvm, the jobless recovery is in full swing, and I'm ready to use my executive power to fix even more! What a twisted world.
|
US Senator from Virginia, Mark Warner : Deport Justin Bieber (Washington Post)
The move to kick troubled popster Justin Beiber out of the country got a powerful backer Tuesday: Sen. Mark Warner, who was a guest on a Virginia radio station’s morning show, offered to sign the online petition to the White House looking to deport the Canadian-born singer. The Virginia Democrat indicated that he thought the Biebs might not be the best influence on the young folk — including his own kids. “As a dad with three daughters, is there someplace I can sign?” he asked with a laugh, when prodded by the hosts of Chesapeake-based FM99′s “Rumble in the Morning.”
|
On February 05 2014 12:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. I think we're a two party system because that's how the politics works out. R's and D's are prepackaged coalitions that occasionally change and keep the other in check. If one were to divide the other could dominate, and so they don't.
No, you are in a two party system because it is basically impossible for a third party to exist because of the way your system works with FPTP. For a third party to be relevant in any way, they would have to WIN something (a state for example). If you got a third party that has a nationwide 10%, they don't win anything, they actually hurt the cause they stand for because they are stealing votes from the next best thing that could actually be relevant. So the only way a third party can be strong is if they are locally important. So you could have an equivalent to our CSU, but you could never have something like the greens. In a viable multiparty system, your tea party would actually be their own party, instead of leading to chaos by being a part of the republicans with whom they actually don't share that much.
|
On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer.
Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming?
Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia.
|
On February 05 2014 22:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer. Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming? Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia.
First of all, it is not global warming, but climate change. Second of all, while he is wrong, using weather as an argument is no good. Climate is not the same as weather and constantly conflating these concepts is ruining the discussion.
There is however a small caveat and that is "extreme weather" statistics where the x year event is happening every y years. When y is less than x it can be a sign of global warming. But again, a single event does not proof make in climate science.
|
On February 05 2014 22:55 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 22:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer. Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming? Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia. First of all, it is not global warming, but climate change. Second of all, while he is wrong, using weather as an argument is no good. Climate is not the same as weather and constantly conflating these concepts is ruining the discussion. There is however a small caveat and that is "extreme weather" statistics where the x year event is happening every y years. When y is less than x it can be a sign of global warming. But again, a single event does not proof make in climate science.
It is global warming, leading to climate change. If you plot the global mean temperature, it is steadily increasing. Temperature isn't weather.nor is it climate. It could be seen as a part of both, but the way I mean is that when you average it out it is a statistic. A statistic that can be used to predict things about local climate (see, we got climate back), global weather patterns (see, we got weather too) and their effects on other environmental issues like sea level, ecosystems, etc.
|
On February 05 2014 22:22 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 12:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2014 06:28 Simberto wrote:On February 05 2014 06:17 zlefin wrote:
Sounds more like a fundamentally untenable position; they can't get enough moderate votes without losing too many hyperconservative votes. The positions of the people they're trying to get votes from are just too far apart, but if they aim for a narrower band of people it's just plain not enough votes. That is one of the problems you run into if you insist on having a two party system. I must say that i find it quite weird that americans who otherwise always talk about democracy insist on having such a system instead of a more sensible one that allows multiple parties to be relevant and form coalitions, thus allowing people to actually vote for what they want instead of the lesser of two evils. I think we're a two party system because that's how the politics works out. R's and D's are prepackaged coalitions that occasionally change and keep the other in check. If one were to divide the other could dominate, and so they don't. No, you are in a two party system because it is basically impossible for a third party to exist because of the way your system works with FPTP. For a third party to be relevant in any way, they would have to WIN something (a state for example). If you got a third party that has a nationwide 10%, they don't win anything, they actually hurt the cause they stand for because they are stealing votes from the next best thing that could actually be relevant. So the only way a third party can be strong is if they are locally important. So you could have an equivalent to our CSU, but you could never have something like the greens. In a viable multiparty system, your tea party would actually be their own party, instead of leading to chaos by being a part of the republicans with whom they actually don't share that much.
I disagree. Sure it's FPTP but you only need to win at a very local level.
And if the Tea Party was its own party, would that really make a big difference? They'd still be trying to cajole the remaining Reps to work with them because that's where the common ground lies.
|
On February 05 2014 19:20 Danglars wrote:
It is the same system that asks freedom to be sacrificed for the few that would use it to damage themselves. The health plan you liked did not contain the right essential benefits and 50% AV, you've got to lay that down. The experts in Washington D.C. know better than you. They know the problem and know the solutions. The opportunity for the poor must be sacrificed at the altar of government, who is the true savior of the poor.
You can live in this fantasy for quite a while. Fund every new fix with borrowed money. Pat yourself on the back for every new catastrophe, that would've been worse save for benign government. Let's clap for Obama's State of the Union Address, pat ourselves on the back for how great everything is! We're fixing health insurance, Obamacare is doing better tyvm, the jobless recovery is in full swing, and I'm ready to use my executive power to fix even more! What a twisted world.
On February 05 2014 17:28 WhiteDog wrote:
I wonder what kind of social process is needed to create a young man who think the solution is to ask sacrifice from the poor. Having debt is robbing the next generation now lol and global warming is a hoax designed to rob the next generation from a beautifully polluted earth.
Do you guys not realize that much of the US debt is at interest rates less than inflation and is thus almost free money? Of course it's not sustainable to borrow without limit, but if I were offered a 10 trillion dollar loan at less than 2% interest I would take it in a heartbeat. It's hardly borrowing from the future at these interest rates. I know it is a very populist stance to say "Look at the debt! That's a big number!" but debt is just a bit more complicated than that. We should be more worried about consumer debt, if anything, because consumers have much higher interest rates, and I'd wager that in most cases this debt is growing the disparity between social classes.
On February 05 2014 23:47 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 22:55 radiatoren wrote:On February 05 2014 22:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer. Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming? Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia. First of all, it is not global warming, but climate change. Second of all, while he is wrong, using weather as an argument is no good. Climate is not the same as weather and constantly conflating these concepts is ruining the discussion. There is however a small caveat and that is "extreme weather" statistics where the x year event is happening every y years. When y is less than x it can be a sign of global warming. But again, a single event does not proof make in climate science. It is global warming, leading to climate change. If you plot the global mean temperature, it is steadily increasing. Temperature isn't weather.nor is it climate. It could be seen as a part of both, but the way I mean is that when you average it out it is a statistic. A statistic that can be used to predict things about local climate (see, we got climate back), global weather patterns (see, we got weather too) and their effects on other environmental issues like sea level, ecosystems, etc.
Right, but that is just one data point. Even if one data point supports your hypothesis that doesn't mean that it makes for convincing evidence, lol. Right now I am living through one of the coldest winters in a decade, global cooling mirite.
|
On February 06 2014 02:04 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 19:20 Danglars wrote:
It is the same system that asks freedom to be sacrificed for the few that would use it to damage themselves. The health plan you liked did not contain the right essential benefits and 50% AV, you've got to lay that down. The experts in Washington D.C. know better than you. They know the problem and know the solutions. The opportunity for the poor must be sacrificed at the altar of government, who is the true savior of the poor.
You can live in this fantasy for quite a while. Fund every new fix with borrowed money. Pat yourself on the back for every new catastrophe, that would've been worse save for benign government. Let's clap for Obama's State of the Union Address, pat ourselves on the back for how great everything is! We're fixing health insurance, Obamacare is doing better tyvm, the jobless recovery is in full swing, and I'm ready to use my executive power to fix even more! What a twisted world. Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 17:28 WhiteDog wrote:
I wonder what kind of social process is needed to create a young man who think the solution is to ask sacrifice from the poor. Having debt is robbing the next generation now lol and global warming is a hoax designed to rob the next generation from a beautifully polluted earth. Do you guys not realize that much of the US debt is at interest rates less than inflation and is thus almost free money? Of course it's not sustainable to borrow without limit, but if I were offered a 10 trillion dollar loan at less than 2% interest I would take it in a heartbeat. It's hardly borrowing from the future at these interest rates. I know it is a very populist stance to say "Look at the debt! That's a big number!" but debt is just a bit more complicated than that. We should be more worried about consumer debt, if anything, because consumers have much higher interest rates, and I'd wager that in most cases this debt is growing the disparity between social classes. Show nested quote +On February 05 2014 23:47 Acrofales wrote:On February 05 2014 22:55 radiatoren wrote:On February 05 2014 22:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer. Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming? Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia. First of all, it is not global warming, but climate change. Second of all, while he is wrong, using weather as an argument is no good. Climate is not the same as weather and constantly conflating these concepts is ruining the discussion. There is however a small caveat and that is "extreme weather" statistics where the x year event is happening every y years. When y is less than x it can be a sign of global warming. But again, a single event does not proof make in climate science. It is global warming, leading to climate change. If you plot the global mean temperature, it is steadily increasing. Temperature isn't weather.nor is it climate. It could be seen as a part of both, but the way I mean is that when you average it out it is a statistic. A statistic that can be used to predict things about local climate (see, we got climate back), global weather patterns (see, we got weather too) and their effects on other environmental issues like sea level, ecosystems, etc. Right, but that is just one data point. Even if one data point supports your hypothesis that doesn't mean that it makes for convincing evidence, lol. Right now I am living through one of the coldest winters in a decade, global cooling mirite.
Well, duh. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: the US is NOT the globe. Nor is Brazil, or Europe, or Australia. But when taking the global mean, there is a steady upwards trend, and this winter being unusually cold in the US has done absolutely NOTHING to change that.
|
The extreme winter and unpredictable pressure systems in the US are a direct result of an altered climate, so they actually help indicate that global warming and the resulting climate shifts that come with that are real
|
On February 06 2014 02:19 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2014 02:04 Chocolate wrote:On February 05 2014 19:20 Danglars wrote:
It is the same system that asks freedom to be sacrificed for the few that would use it to damage themselves. The health plan you liked did not contain the right essential benefits and 50% AV, you've got to lay that down. The experts in Washington D.C. know better than you. They know the problem and know the solutions. The opportunity for the poor must be sacrificed at the altar of government, who is the true savior of the poor.
You can live in this fantasy for quite a while. Fund every new fix with borrowed money. Pat yourself on the back for every new catastrophe, that would've been worse save for benign government. Let's clap for Obama's State of the Union Address, pat ourselves on the back for how great everything is! We're fixing health insurance, Obamacare is doing better tyvm, the jobless recovery is in full swing, and I'm ready to use my executive power to fix even more! What a twisted world. On February 05 2014 17:28 WhiteDog wrote:
I wonder what kind of social process is needed to create a young man who think the solution is to ask sacrifice from the poor. Having debt is robbing the next generation now lol and global warming is a hoax designed to rob the next generation from a beautifully polluted earth. Do you guys not realize that much of the US debt is at interest rates less than inflation and is thus almost free money? Of course it's not sustainable to borrow without limit, but if I were offered a 10 trillion dollar loan at less than 2% interest I would take it in a heartbeat. It's hardly borrowing from the future at these interest rates. I know it is a very populist stance to say "Look at the debt! That's a big number!" but debt is just a bit more complicated than that. We should be more worried about consumer debt, if anything, because consumers have much higher interest rates, and I'd wager that in most cases this debt is growing the disparity between social classes. On February 05 2014 23:47 Acrofales wrote:On February 05 2014 22:55 radiatoren wrote:On February 05 2014 22:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 04 2014 22:00 Danglars wrote:
Save me from the global-warming-denier nonsense. We heard every heatwave, hurricane, and freak weather accident attributed to that boogeyman for years. We get a cold spell and all of a sudden the shivering pack screams from their caves, "It's Climate Change, you neanderthals." Can't have it both ways.
Dare I say America is right when it polls climate change at the bottom of future worries for the US alongside things like race relations and inequality? With the economy, debt, employment and others ranking in the top? I'll put everybody on that list alongside Obama and see them profit by comparison. Are you still hearing Hope and Change and Yes, We Can when you think of Obama? The first thought of my mind is something along the lines of, "My government did a terrible job of this, and I'm responsible, and I couldn't be madder which means you know it'll get fixed, and I had no idea the problem was that bad, and no staffer told me that was the case."
He might be my last pick in a primary (birther eww), but the republic does not deserve another radical transformer. Err, you do realize that GLOBAL warming is GLOBAL, not NORTH AMERICAN warming? Most of Europe is having one of the warmest winters in history, and I know that I am stuck in the middle of one of the hottest summers in recent history in Brazil, while a heatwave is still ongoing in Australia. First of all, it is not global warming, but climate change. Second of all, while he is wrong, using weather as an argument is no good. Climate is not the same as weather and constantly conflating these concepts is ruining the discussion. There is however a small caveat and that is "extreme weather" statistics where the x year event is happening every y years. When y is less than x it can be a sign of global warming. But again, a single event does not proof make in climate science. It is global warming, leading to climate change. If you plot the global mean temperature, it is steadily increasing. Temperature isn't weather.nor is it climate. It could be seen as a part of both, but the way I mean is that when you average it out it is a statistic. A statistic that can be used to predict things about local climate (see, we got climate back), global weather patterns (see, we got weather too) and their effects on other environmental issues like sea level, ecosystems, etc. Right, but that is just one data point. Even if one data point supports your hypothesis that doesn't mean that it makes for convincing evidence, lol. Right now I am living through one of the coldest winters in a decade, global cooling mirite. Well, duh. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: the US is NOT the globe. Nor is Brazil, or Europe, or Australia. But when taking the global mean, there is a steady upwards trend, and this winter being unusually cold in the US has done absolutely NOTHING to change that.
Oh sorry I misunderstood. I do not deny climate change but it is just annoying when people look to weather over a small time period as proof of it.
|
What about the reports that current climate change isn't that out of line looking at it from a geological time frame?
|
I think that discussion is a bit more interesting than the discussion about whether or not Ted Cruz is a megalomanic idiot, but it has a separate thread already: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=61
Post your evidence, though, and I'll take a look at it. Vast majority of scientific research, however, shows that not only is global warming real, but the only really likely explanation for it is human-caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
