Slashdot Mirror
House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary
An anonymous reader writes "For the first time in United States political history, the House Majority Leader has been defeated in his primary election. Long time Republican congressman and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by 10 percentage points in the Virginia primary by Republican Tea Party challenger Dave Brat. This shocking defeat is likely to upset the political balance of power in the United States for years to come."
Open primaries allow this sort of thing to happen. If you think about it, it isn't really fair, but we allow it in a lot of states, so this sort of thing should be expected.
signed up as republicans and voted for Brat so that in the real election they can defeat him by painting him as a loon
What with the insane situation we have at the border right now...
Say what you will about our immigration policy... say what you will about the politics... it looks very bad for people supporting amnesty right now simply because there looks to be a free for all at the border.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This government is ineffective, and seems to be more about getting things for themselves than their constituents. They use the taxes we give them to spy on us and arm our police forces with tanks rather than give us nationalized healthcare. They take bribes from special interest groups. We need new blood in politics.
many more upsets to come
The Tea Party may be taking all the credit for this, but the reality is is far more grim than any political insider is willing to admit: this has been the most unpopular Congress since the Do-Nothing Congress of 1947-49.
And if anyone paid attention to history, what happened then is what will happen this time, too. The incumbents are in the crosshairs.
Reports of the Tea Party's death are greatly exaggerated.
My only qualm is it's been hijacked well beyond its initial namesake cause of shrinking the bloated spending into almost every old Republican grievance.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I don't know the rules in Virginia, but can't he run as a third-party candidate in the general election, just like Lieberman did?
im all for getting rid of establishment republicans and replacing them with libertarians and te party members. Just as im all for getting rid of establishment democrats and replacing them with greenies
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
With the Snowden leaks, the NSA issues still roaming around, with the Supreme Court looking at Aereo, do you think that anything that affects national politics does NOT hit technology?
Virginia has an open primary. It wouldn't be the first time crossover voters affected the outcome.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Anti-incumbent sentiment is running extremely high
I will believe that when I see greater than 50% turnover in congress. The media polls are full of it. If the approval ratings were so low, we wouldn't see a 95% reelection rate. It's that simple.
By the way, switching back and forth between democrat and republican (which includes Tea Party, as they are simply republicans on meth. Their entire gag is to scare people away from alternative parties and to make all the resistance look crazy like the Las Vegas shooter) does not count as voting the incumbents out. You have to vote both factions of the party out of office for it to mean something.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
but... i can honestly say. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. :)
I will believe it when I see it. Money talks, and a good PR campaign can turn a psychopath into someone holier than $DEITY.
In the past, congresscritters had to survive on merit. Now, no matter what they can do, a couple million dollars can right -any- wrong.
-ANY- wrong, period.
Republicans are falling victim to their own success redistricting. The result is safe districts where the nominee has no need for independent voters to win in the general election. The party nomination effectively becomes the election and in these, candidates are much more vulnerable to small groups of highly motivated, very vocal and very involved fringe groups, then they would be in general elections. Democrats engage in this behavior as well but for better of for worst, they are not as good at gerrymandering when they get the chance.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/06/eric-cantor-dave-brat-what-happened
I love it how the free-market economist won a primary and now the Republicans are freaking out. Showing their true colors - not the hype they spout to fool ordinary small-government Americans.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
you're literally advocating dragging our entire system of government to a grinding halt.... forever... well played anarchist, well played.
This Congress actually did less than the do-nothing Congress. Least productive in US history.
Republican voting base has gone full bat shit, the party won't last much longer now.
The current GOP is worthless anyhow. No one on the right likes it: they don't serve a financially conservative agenda at all, the don't serve the socially conservative agenda beyond lip-service, and the anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize.
A new party is needed, as this one is done. If the so-con portion represents a new generation who not racist and rabidly anti-gay (eject the Boomer so-cons) then it has a future again. We'll see.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Not really... They are not going nuts...
What's going on is the Tea Party is apparently dragging the republican party to the right of center (politically). Some folks think that this is a good thing, some don't. But I don't think you can make the case that this is a symbol of the party self destructing or going crazy. What is going on though is the party is being forced to recognize that it's base is not happy with it's leadership and that the Tea Party's conservative message has at least some resonance with the base. From my perspective, it is a good thing when a party's leadership represents it's members.
Now, it remains to be seen if this movement to the right translates into more votes and more success in elections or not. I have my theories on that... But the most telling fact one needs to consider is how the other party and the talking heads reporting are becoming apathetic about this. Remember back in May when they declared the Tea Party dead? Now, when it's obvious they where wrong, they are in a panic for some reason? Right....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Dewey defeats Truman?
Republican voting base has gone full bat shit, the party won't last much longer now.
The Tea Party may be trying to spin this into a "win" (since they've been soundly defeated elsewhere this primary season) but at the end of the day this really comes down to Politics 101. Mr. Cantor was more interested in running the House than he was in providing consistent services. Drill past the national media's obsession with the Tea Party and/or immigration for a moment and look at the local media in his district. Read some of the complaints about him that have nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. Then ask yourself how frequently incumbent Legislators manage to lose primary elections, particularly ones in a leadership role that give them all manner of opportunity to funnel pork (err, I mean "investment") to the folks back home.
All politics are local. The Tea Party didn't win this. Mr. Cantor lost it. The funny/sad (depends on your perspective I guess) thing is he probably didn't see it coming until the first returns started coming in. This is what happens when you've held elective office long enough to treat elections like mere formalities.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Climatologists say no such thing.
In fact, NASA says that 9 of the last 10 years have been the hottest on record
Who has her fingers in her ears now?
It's almost like a significant part of the electorate are pissed off enough to actually get out of their chairs and vote?
(Of course, it didn't hurt that the Republicans are, in fact, the minority party of the US, that the 'angered mobs' are on his side of the aisle splitting their already-smaller vote, and Democrats gleefully helped as much as they could.)
And while I know the mass media likes to characterize the Tea Party as a bunch of right-wing whacko racists (coincidentally parroting the Left's talking points, of course), the FACT of the Tea Party is that its founding impetus came solely and simply from people sick and tired of unconstrained government spending coming out of their own piggy banks.
These aren't (necessarily) the sort of strawmen angry libertarians that they're portrayed to be - they recognize that taxes are a necessary part of civilization and having government to some degree is an intrinsic good. But when that government is unconstrained and irresponsible, eventually people get angry.
Likely, though, this 'revolt' will only empower the Democrats, as they are the party in power and most are willing to rationalize anything to accept/continue that status. They wouldn't jeopardize that just to protest, even if they agreed.
-Styopa
Most incumbents get reelected even when Congress's approval ratings overall are low, however, because people's approval ratings of their own Congresspeople are almost always considerably higher. People generally think Congress sucks, but they usually blame it on everyone else's Representatives.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
federally yes that is what I want and what everyone should want. the federal government should not be doing anything but the bare minimum as intended. Leave the power in the hands of the states and local governments
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You can be positive that K Street and its myriad of lobbying firms will be more than happy to employ him.
I totally agree.
They came over from another country and then rewrote the laws so they could stay. That's just illegal no matter how you think of it.
It's really time the Europeans go back to Europe.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Curry isn't the only one to suggest flaws in established climate models. IPCC vice chair Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at the University of Victoria in Canada, co-wrote a paper published in this month's Nature Climate Change that said climate models had "significantly" overestimated global warming over the last 20 years — and especially for the last 15 years, which coincides with the onset of the hiatus.
good enough for ya???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The voting base were turned off by Cantor's amnesty stance, and were quite comfortable voting for the libertarian minded economics professor instead. The result is a refreshing change to the usual politics in America, where uninformed or uninterested voters continue to vote for the same idiots simply because of the name. If the voters were more engaged and paying attention to what the politicians said and did, instead of just what party banner they run under, you'd never have politicians like Reid, Pelosi, Boehner, McCain, or Sharpton getting reelected.
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for helping a private organization decide who -won't- run in the general election. All it does is reduce the number of options for the voter. They should ALL be running in the general election. Let them debate it out and fight it out.
Primaries don't benefit anybody except the incumbents.
it's probably just being stupid again, but i for one am not going to complain about slashdot throwing up a political story that amuses me.
at least i like this total fail of story selection :)
So a couple equates to the vast majority now? Also overestimate is not the same thing as saying it does not exist.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Congressman Cantor was voted out of office for a candidate that proudly demonstated that his head was rammed further up his ass than Cantor's was; amazing.
We actually do have the idea that representatives are supposed to represent their entire constituency, not just those in their party. Matching the more extreme half of their party because they slightly outnumber the moderate portion means that 3/4 of people get no real choice.
There's a huge poison pill there, and money in politics and partisan districting exacerbates it by helping push for incumbency, once present.
Republicans were able to stand up and beat a Washington insider in a primary in a safe seat. Will Democrats ever be able to do that? Or are Democrat incumbents in safe seats guaranteed lifetime reelection?
Vote gridlock! It's the best we can do.
The real danger is when ether party gets the executive and both houses of congress. That's basically, always a disaster.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
and the anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize.
If you look at polling that sentiment is shared in the center and center-left. Opposition to immigration is one of the few truly bipartisan things in the American electorate. The political establishment doesn't acknowledge it because big business wants cheap labor and Democrats think Hispanics are always going to vote for them. You can see similar trends in any developed country, fly over to one of the better developed EU countries and ask John Q. Public how he really feels about immigration. It's not popular even when it comes from other EU members (migration from Eastern Europe into Western Europe or the Nordic States), and $deity help you if you're one of the poor bastards coming there from Africa or the Middle East.
Another issue with a broad consensus in the electorate that's soundly ignored by the political establishment is non-interventionism. People are sick of interventionism, be they left, right, or center. The establishment ignores the electorate on this issue because of a combination of perceived economic interest, bureaucratic inertia in the national security apparatus, and entangling alliances set up after WW2 specifically to prevent an American retrenchment.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Subject apropos.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
A pure political story, with absolutely no geek angle whatsoever, has no place here. It brings in a lot of page hits, and a lot of comments from politically-frothy Slashdot posters, but long-term it rather undermines the credibility of the site.
Some of us are into politics. I'm more into economics, but I can't implement economic policy without getting into politics. Likewise, there's some blending; but I like to hard-line economics: tearing down Social Security is a social contract issue and thus political, but it also has real economic implications--even if you replace it with something better in the end, since current and near-future collectors are hedged on collecting Social Security as-is and would be severely impacted. The politics and social aspects only weigh in when I have to convince people to let me do something; I've already considered their needs and made plans to address them safely.
Taking it one step higher, your elected officials are the gateway to policy change. If you want a policy implemented, you need the right officials elected. That means I need officials like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in place if I want to make a move--they'll be easier to open a dialogue with, as they'll understand the things I'm saying and will sympathize with many of the goals (better income security, more power in the hands of individuals, more individual responsibility, a stronger economy, and the boundaries placed on implementation). Other candidates will have other goals and biases which conflict--Democrats want to make any tax top-heavy, and Republicans are afraid of all taxes, entitlements, and socialized services.
People who are non-active will simply not like the policies of one candidate, but favor those of another. These align with individual philosophies, understandings of economics, and impact on their job situation. There are many reasons to track politics.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I really think the GOP has a strong future if it can become the "pro-capitalism, anti-big-corp" party. The Left thinks that's impossible, so that ground is unoccupied (ha!) today. Get the focus back to trust-busting and local monopoly breaking and consumer rights, and leave the Left wondering what just happened to them. But the current guys are too entrenched with the current sources of funding, not realizing they're stuck in an ever-diminishing local maximum.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
“One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was (a short book) published in 1931 [which said the Theory of Relativity is wrong]. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
Same applies here.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
According to the climate scientists, there has been no increase in global temperatures during his entire lifetime.
That's most used climate myth #50. Also, you are behind on the denialist canon, which currently pins "the end of climate change" at 2010. Not that I can blame you for that; it's been revised so many times it's easy to lost track.
A CNBC commentator suggested that since the VA primary was an open primary results showed that the Democrats put the Tea Party guy over the top. We'll see in November if the Democratic candidate beats him. The same thing is happening in the Republican Colorado governor primary. The Dems are putting out ads for an ultra right wing republican candidate to insure a November victory for the current moderate Democratic Governor.
Ain't politics fun!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
In the CA system, (which is a great idea) there are not separate, closed party nomination elections.
There is a primary, and the top two candidates run in the general election. Therefore, if, hypothetically Democrats voted for a right-wing-nut in mass, the wing-nut and a Republican will be in the general election, not an outcome a Democrat would prefer.
In practice, when people have their actually favored candidate on the ballot and are able to vote for them, they do.
The primary purpose of the top-two election system is to change the nature of the candidates who decide to run and think they can win.
It's an approximation to ranked preference voting.
I have no problem with this. Even though you would say my politics are on the Left part of the spectrum, I believe there is more of a chance of finding common cause with Tea Party people than with the Republican establishment. I've noticed a marked change in the way the Tea Party types talk about capitalism, crony capitalism, corporate power and the military. If the Tea Party decimates the establishment GOP that have been pushing neo-conservative foreign policy and neo-liberal economic policy (Austrian school), it can only be a good thing.
Citizens that are ready to get out into the street I can deal with. Politicians who are prepared to turn the keys of government over to corporate interests, I cannot. I've heard Tea Party types saying some of the same things about corporatism that you'd hear coming out of the Occupy movement. The cultural stuff doesn't matter, because ultimately, those issues (say, gay marriage) are going to be decided by society as a whole. The Tea Party can holler all they want, but if people start accepting gay marriage, it's going to happen, and by all accounts and polls, it's happening. Same with other issues. Women's rights? Good luck trying to convince women to go back to being subservient to men.
Of course, I have a problem with some of the racism and gun fetishism, but even that is starting to shift. The percentage of families in the US who own guns has gone down steadily since the beginning of the 2nd Amendment movement in the '80s.
But the mainstream GOP, the ones that loved creating the Surveillance State under Bush and (despite what they say) love it under Obama, are just evil. They will continue to promote the upward redistribution of wealth and the aggressive foreign policy that has exploded since the 1980s. They're the ones blew up the economy with deregulation. They're the ones dreamed up the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. They're the ones ready to attack Iran and do Israel's bidding.
Plus, despite the rhetoric, they support the policies of Barack Obama who (and I say this as someone on the Left) has been a wolf in sheep's clothing for corporatism, surveillance, and concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a very few.
I will enjoy watching the collapse of the Party of Reagan. And (again, despite the rhetoric), the Tea Party is anything BUT the Party of Reagan. They have some hagiographic image of Ronald Reagan that does not match reality. That's OK, let them have their mythology.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The simple fact is that Eric Cantor signed on to support immigration reform and that killed his career. Dead. It sent a message to the Republicans that just because their corporate masters want open boarders doesn't mean the voters do.
This looks like a secondary effect coming from an order-of-magnitude increase in interpersonal communication speed. Where in the past you might have to call an in-person meeting or conference call with many people, an individual can now communicate in a richer, distributed, asynchronous way with anyone who's marginally interested in considering your message.
With the communication landscape changed and resource access barrier lower, unless an incumbent uses their greater political and financial resources to improve their leverage in the new communication landscape, that area will be a more level playing field, and if you don't accommodate for that, the odds significantly change.
It seems like established institutions and scenarios that have a large part of their foundation on communication -- e.g., publishers, politicians, market pricing -- are going to see a lot more of these sorts of never-before-in-history kinds of disruptions. Things that don't depend on human-speed communication so much, such as hard sciences, construction, farming, will see changes, but maybe not quite as rug-pulled-out-from-under-you disruptively.
The funny/sad (depends on your perspective I guess) thing is he probably didn't see it coming until the first returns started coming in.
Granted, no one else saw it coming either. A week ago, the polls showed he had a 13 point lead over this guy.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The forced movement to the right is only going to mean less compromise and progress in congress. The tea party doesn't want a functioning government.
After a grueling 5 seconds of googling...
... Sigmon found a denialist site. Good job! The parlor trick he used to get to this misleading conclusion is explained here.
There is pretty good evidence that democrats voted for the contender against Cantor.
Smart move to force the strong incumbent out of the race.
Might backfire tho... have to wait and see.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Yes, science is never settled and is also always highly political, in spite of most scientists fooling themselves that it is "the search for the Truth". But dude, honestly, just stop it. I really can't believe how nay-sayers with half a brain can keep it up - there is a MASSIVE pro-oil/gas/coal lobby that tries to sow the seeds of doubt. What do the 98% of scientists that maintain AGW is real have to gain? It's not like there is some secret society of super-rich Gaia Illuminati that is trying to brain-wash the world into... spending less by using less. Sure, some are benefiting - some are even financing pro-AGW studies - but it is NOTHING like what is happening in the other direction. And still there are only 2% that hold on to the "it's not happening" or "it's not because of what humans are doing" line.
Politics and self-interest are everywhere and in everything. But if you are going to posit a major global conspiracy then it at least has to be realistic - a government/group-of-super-rich would have great interest in hiding an alien visitation to keep the tech for themselves but "use energy more efficiently, spread generation around the globe using various different technologies that don't upset the current atmospheric balance" is hardly something that qualifies as something of interest for some nefarious group of super-villains...
Or make them like an episode of American Ninja and have them run an obstacle course. Now THAT would be worth funding by the taxpayers.
Get out and Vote......out the incumbents!!! ON BOTH SIDES. It's time for us to reset and get back on track with people who want to actually do their job.
Romney hinted at this in one of the Presidential debates, with a line about too big to fail that was predictably ignored by the mainstream media. George Will picked up on it in one of his op-eds. Will has written extensively on the subject of crony capitalism, with a focus on the unholy alliance of business and regulators. Will speaks for the intellectual wing of the GOP, such as it is, so it's not as though they aren't aware of this problem.
Romney was probably the wrong person to try and make this argument, though it would have been refreshing to see him try. I can't recall him saying anything on the matter other than the throw away line about too big to fail, which is a pity, because it's an issue he could have made headway on.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
States and local governments are significantly more dysfunctional and corrupt in most cases. Federal employees are much smarter than state and local employees, though frustrated by exceptionally vexatious rules.
Simplest solution is to outlaw voting or better yet only allow right thinking people to vote. Maybe they could just have one approved candidate.
Dear God.
I used to know this guy. It took me a little while for it to register, but the goofy grin confirms it: this is the same doofus I went to college with. The college is a haven for Republican Calvinism (i.e. God chooses certain people to be successful), steeped in the worship of capitalism (God's invisible hand rewarding hard work). (The Amway/Blackwater dynasty are major donors.) I didn't know Dave well (sorry, no damaging stories to tell), but he was active in student government, and struck me as a classic empty suit: superficially charming with an upper-middle-class sense of entitlement. Not stupid, but not a deep thinker, the sort who doesn't question the values he was taught as a child... because they've always worked for him. (One of the key ways I differ from him.) I should've known he'd run for Congress someday.
I'm sorry.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
federally yes that is what I want and what everyone should want. the federal government should not be doing anything but the bare minimum as intended. Leave the power in the hands of the states and local governments
State governments are largely redundant at this point. They are also largely inefficient, ineffective, and corrupt (yes, even in comparison to the federal government, cue the jokes). If it was feasible to do, I would strongly advocate complete removal of state governments.
What advantage does a fragmented government have over a centralized national government? It does not, in practice, seem to reduce corruption, efficiency, or tyranny. The primary thing that this structure effectively maintains is cultural homogeneity in particular areas, which, to me, is not a positive thing.
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm glad Cantor lost, just out of spite. He ran the meanist, ugliest, lyingest, dirty campaign I've ever seen. Running attack ads left and right which were outright lying, just because he could because Bratt didn't have the money to run opposing ads. Cantor was known for not appearing at town halls, snubbing the VCDL and other local conservative groups, and generally treating his own constituents and elections as a nuisance - like a ruling class elite. Apparently, on the day of the election, Cantor was in Washington bragging about how he out-spend Bratt 50-1 in order to crush him to prevent future primary contestants.
That would almost assume there was a big campaign of Democrat crossover voting for the candidate they like least, because he'll have a lower chance of winning against their candidate. I'm not discounting the possibility altogether, but it's a little bit far-fetched.
The congressional district Cantor represents (which is drawn differently than the one used for presidential and gubernatorial elections) is heavily gerrymandered. Dave Brat is going to win it hands-down.
That's the previous Congress, the 112th. They were the least productive (in terms of the number of bills passed) in the 60 years that we have been keeping track of that. The 113th Congress has another 7 months or so remaining, but they aren't exactly looking a whole lot better.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
well when you people keep changing the rules of the game the other side is going to have to change their response. Dont forget that.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Assuming "being productive" is passing laws.
Doing nothing might be the best thing.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Look at the number of nuts who have used the word treason to apply to President Obama. At least half of that caused by the president not being snow white in color.
If you really believe that even a sizable minority of the negative feelings about Obama are racially motivated, then you're just mistaken. Sure, the racists are out there, but they are really just background noise.
I live in the south, and I personally know dozens of people who traditionally vote Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 specifically because he is black. My father was one of these people, and he said to me after the election that "it's just time for a black president." If anything, Obama received a huge boost from the fact that he was the first credible black candidate for president, and it helped that his competition was lackluster at best.
No, the people calling Obama treasonous or calling for impeachment are much more likely to be basing this on Obama's actions while in office. By and large, it's not the color of Obama's skin that they're judging, but rather the content of his character.
"Pretty good evidence" means ballots that are legally required to be anonymous? I mean is there some published conspiracy on the part of rabble rousers, or is this like screaming "false flag" on an entire election?
I don't deny the possibility that there is such evidence, but saying there is evidence isn't the same presenting evidence.
Why, because shit gets done?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
entangling alliances set up after WW2 specifically to prevent an American retrenchment.
There's nothing of that sort. The US went to Iraq against the will of a majority the UN (it wasn't just France, who simply got scapegoated for speaking out a bit more loudly than everyone else). And that's a general pattern; whenever there's talk about intervening somewhere, the US are the ones enthusiastically firing up the rhetoric while mostly everyone else is calling for cool. It's so predictable that Russia has started exploiting this to make the Americans look like fools (I'm talking about the Syria chemical weapons debacle here). The "our allies asked our help" argument is just a convenient casus belli if your military-industrial complex begs to show off its shiny new toys. Truth is, if you're the biggest bully on the block, whenever there's conflict, you will be asked for help. Most often by both sides. All the US has to do is pick a "long-time ally" on the spot, then send the cruise missiles on the other guy's ass.
Apart from that, +1 good post!
Well, Romney had the problem of being seen as exactly the wrong sort of crony capitalist. I don't think it was true, but I also don't think he had a chance on that issue. I'd love to see a GOP candidate who was a wealthy small business owner instead of a wealthy corporate head next time around. Someone to deliver a message of "pro-business, pro-capitalism, but the current system is fucked".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
At the risk of Godwinizing the discussion... that's probably what those who voted for the NSDAP party thought too, out with the Old Guard and in with the New Blood.
This guy may be "new blood", but he's still running on the ticket and with the approval of the Tea Party. Read his biography on Wikipedia, and be careful what you wish for.
removing state governments would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to america. I dont want some paper pushers in washington telling me how to live my life. I want the people I live with and me agreeing on how to live our lives. Thats what this country was founded on. Im sorry but if you REALLY feel this way, you are unamerican, and not unamerican in the way politicians use it but unamerican as in you dont believe in the ideals what what make america great
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
yes, good point, my mistake. It's hard to believe how much air time the guy gets in the news cycles considering he never wins.
^^
This.
The two party chain needs to be broken, but if we can get enough upset like this in both parties and actually start getting reps who represent the PEOPLE the need to break the chain is a bit less.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
it appears that classic.slashdot.org isn't working either, it immediately redirects to beta
even if you click the "give me classic you fucktards" link, which takes you to
slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
only gets you out of the beta until you click the first story link
Okay slashdot, enough is enough - your fucking beta sucks blue whale, the largest mammal to ever live within Terra's oceans.
Just kill the beta program and be done with it - you failed - worse than Windows Vista and Windows 8 combined.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Fucking spot on. Have a... uhm... well, I guess a redundant comment is all I've got.
... whatever
Do you honestly believe that? Less than half the country votes in a presidential election, far fewer vote in congressional elections, and fewer still in primaries. Just how many do think would bother to vote in the other parties primary? Sure they will be some radical nut jobs willing to do this but not anywhere near enough to matter.
yes, but its much easier to elect new local goverment to move a few towns over or a state over. if we all lived under federal rule, what options do i have? its not that easy to up and move to another country.
federal employees "smarter" than locals? by what measurement??? because I can tell you the opposite is true in many number of real world scenarios.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The Tea Party is dead. The corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
Thats populism. The libertards of the gop court that demo.
The problem with the gop is they are trying to go big tent, but they want voting in lockstep. The dems have decades of dealing with big tent, more parliamentary/compromise style of govt. They have had to do it within their own party since the 60s. The gop is new to this. They will stumble (as they already have), and possibly fall.
there has been no increase in global temperatures during his entire lifetime.
Please read this Scientific America article, titled "Has Global Warming Paused?": http://www.scientificamerican....
Here is an extract:
'So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.
Rather, the oceans should be the primary barometer of global climate change.
And they are certainly changing. Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said'
No actually, I think fresh members regardless of ideology would serve the country better. You could put brand new socialists and tea party members in office, and they would work together to compromise. The reason we don't have that now is because each member is deeply rooted in an interconnected web of corruption and elite affiliation.
Our congressman need to be changed like underwear. Often!
Life is not for the lazy.
lol right of center?
right of right of right.
Except that saying "global warming is over estimated" is not the same as saying, "there is no global warming"
When you cant win, ad hominem.
...and the anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize.
As an independent voter, it is stronger than most politicians realize. My ancestors (verified family history) fought in the American Revolution and came across via Ellis Island as legal immigrants. Today, you run across the border and hope the border patrol doesn't catch you. Those people wanted to be in this country so much, the first thing they did was to violate its laws. That is crap.
All government benefits should be denied to all persons, until proof of citizenship/legal residency has been established. If you are not a citizen or legal resident alien, you are not entitled to a drivers license, food stamps, etc., and voting is limited to citizens only. In Oregon for example, there is a history of giving illegals food assistance, drivers licenses and granting them in-state resident college tuition rates. Denying those funds to Americans and legal aliens.
All companies that hire illegal aliens should be forced to pay a penalty to the gov't (half to border protection and half to the general fund) of twice the monies paid to the illegal. Pay the illegal $500, the fine is $1,000 for a total of $1,500 to use that person. That person is also transported back to their own country at the employers expense. Now the cost of the illegal alien is $1,500 + transportation for $500 of work.
If benefits stop and employers stop hiring them, most of them will leave the way they came here. On their own...
The first word in "illegal alien" is "ILLEGAL". By being here, they are violating the laws. Treat them that way and most of them will leave.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
Too bad you don't have any facts on your side, then, isn't it?
You people are as bad as the creationists with your science denial. There's overwhelming evidence that the earth is warming, that it's caused by mankind, and that it's going to be really bad for us in another one or two hundred years. It's so overwhelming that 97% of climate scientists agree with that.
And then you like to point out irrelevant local phenomena as "evidence" against this, like the antarctic sea ice extent increasing this year while ignoring the actual volume of it, ignoring arctic sea ice, ignoring greenland ice melt. Or you like to point to 1998 as being a very hot year and saying "look, we've only had a couple of years hotter than that" while ignoring the trend lines, as if one year of temperature means everything.
Which is why you're as bad as the creationists. You think your tiny little facts, like an incorrectly dated fossil, or some scientific misconduct around one hominid fossil, disproves an enormous body of evidence. You've got your head in the sand and you seem to like it there.
What advantage does a fragmented government have over a centralized national government? It does not, in practice, seem to reduce corruption, efficiency, or tyranny. The primary thing that this structure effectively maintains is cultural homogeneity in particular areas, which, to me, is not a positive thing.
but to specifically answer this question. Numerous things. For one, do you NOT see whats going on with the NSA? I for one do not want the government spying on americans. it should not be done. If we didnt have state governemnts to fight the federal government on this issue, they would simply tell us too bad.
Fragmentation in government is good for other reasons as well. Different people believe differently as such there SHOULD be a choice for americans on how they want to live. People who live in washington and never leave washington have no idea what people in the dakotas or texas or NY need or want. I dont want them deciding for me how to live
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What's going on is the Tea Party is apparently dragging the republican party to the right of center (politically).
The Republican party has been well to the right of the center since long before there was ever talk about this Tea Party. The Tea Party is pulling them towards the extreme right abyss, where there be totalitarianism (just like at the extreme left). From an international point of view, even the Democrats are center-right. The US political system is unbalanced, with no credible left. Maybe one will spring up once the Republican party has crashed and burned and the Democrats have been pulled a little bit more to the right by non-extremist Republican refugees. It's even possible the new left will call itself "Republicans", just like in the early years of the two-party system.
I recognize an attempt at sarcasm. But I see this primary upset as a less electable Republican defeating a more electable Republican, making it less of a challenge for the Democratic candidate to win the general.
Even that isn't entirely remote, if he plays his cards right. We had something similar happen in Alaska back in 2010 when the incumbent Lisa Murkowski lost the primary to the Tea Party favorite Joe Miller. She went on to win as a write-in candidate with something like a 40% margin, because it didn't take long for the more crazy extreme side of Joe Miller to show up and public opinion of him quickly flipped.
I'm not an American so just out of curiosity: What is a write-in candidate? ....and: Why is somebody who looses a primary election held by a political party banned by law from running as an independent? What ever ones opinion of sore losers may be, passing laws against them running as independents seems a bit anti-democratic to me. In my country we occasionally get a splinter candidate running as an independent. Usually this is after a disagreement in one of the mainstream parties where somebody is dissatisfied about being bumped down to the bottom of the elction list in local elections or because they were sidelined for a parliamentary seat (i.e. because of party internal backstabbing). Recently, for example, this has been common in right wing parties whose leaders are EU skeptic and have been keen to prevent any EU friendly party members from gaining parliementary seats. Some of these independents have even been known to get elected because they were simply put more competent than the nimrod that the party bosses helped to win the primary. So far nobody has even considered passing laws against such independents.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
.... a review with praise in Common Dreams, a self-identified "Progressive" website, about the surprise winner in Virginia's Republican primary:
http://www.commondreams.org/vi...
"... Republican Dave Brat, a college economics professors who spoke about GOP hypocrisy and railed against Wall Street greed, unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a primary challenge.
âoeAll of the investment banks, up in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail.â ... Thatâ(TM)s a common campaign slogan repeated by Dave Brat, the Virginia college professor ....
The national media is buzzing about Bratâ(TM)s victory, but for all of the wrong reasons...."
-----
The media will talk about anything except the real problem
I've got a son graduating high school next year. According to the climate scientists, there has been no increase in global temperatures during his entire lifetime.
Who's got their fingers in their ears? Maybe the one's saying "The science is settled!!!!". Hint: Science is never settled.
You have that backwards. Any person that has been born after 1978 has never seen the year-over-year global temperature DECREASE during their lifetime: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png -- it has increased every year. The levels of atmospheric CO2 hasn't decreased since we began recording it in 1959 (after the International Geophysical Year, which sparked a concerted effort to make systematic global measurements of a wide range of phenomenon, including atmospheric composition). In 1959, the CO2 concentration inout atmosphere was about 315 ppm, today it's about 400 ppm (just a bit under 30%; see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html).
The science on the subject is "settled" in that both CO2 levels and global temperatures are rising - it's an objective and verifiable measurement of a physical phenomenon; as are related measurements of ice sheet thickness, sea-level rise, marine salinity, and marine pH. Those are all very simple data points that are not contended even by those paid to deny climate change for political reasons. It is also settled in that there are no publications in scientific journals that refute the conclusion that there's a rapid warming of global climate and the connection to CO2 (check your local university library) - all of that has unanimous consensus.
There were a few articles early on (late 80's and early 90's) that questioned anthropogenic (man-made) causes for the increases, but the authors of all of those papers have since identified issues in their work and joined the consensus that the causes are largely anthropogenic and compounded by other physical phenomenon.
The only areas of disagreement today, scientifically, are on the models used to predict the effects. We've seen that many models have under-estimated the rate of change by not properly accounting for albedo changes, methane releases from warming tundra, and glacial shifts. We also know that the rate of change in sea level rises is somewhat under-estimated. However, the most difficult things to predict with any accuracy are the effects on food and water availability.
I think that policy makers are slowly adjusting their rhetoric as well. Policy makers no longer deny global warming outright and rarely make claims based on science on the record. Rhetoric has shifted to the perceived economic cost of remediation and the possibility that remediation efforts might be unsuccessful versus a sense that we to respond quickly and decisively to avoid the risk of a catastrophic outcome, whatever the cost may be.
Sure it is. It's just not one they can take credit for. This guy says it better than I did. FWIW I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Tea Party, except for a few minor gripes:
1) They keep blowing perfectly winnable elections, thus ensuring that we have a Democrat who votes with us 0% the time rather than a RINO who votes with us "only" 80% of the time.
2) They rally around idiots like Cliven Bundy, and seemingly have no problem with Americans aiming guns at other Americans over something as stupid as cattle grazing rights. Really, everything that's wrong with our country, and this is the issue they rally around? 200+ years of history as a Republic and there's only been one issue (slavery) that we couldn't resolve without reaching for the guns.... now they think we should reach for them over fucking cattle grazing?!?
3) They haven't produced a single Statesman, someone who is willing to compromise in order to tackle the big problems of the day. If the Tea Party had been at the Constitutional Convention we'd still be arguing over who was going to take the minutes of the first meeting. You think these clowns could have solved issues as divisive as how to fairly allocate representation, how to elect the POTUS, or (god help us) slavery?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Because the Democrats never see the need to compromise. They will plow ahead with their agenda (as always) and the media will spin it in their favor."
that sounds like ALL political parties
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
This. I don't care what party you believe in or how you were raised, the simple fact is that anyone involved in NSA spying needs to go. They've sold the internet, the greatest communication device ever created, down the tubes. (No pun intended.) Anyone that is looking out for a corporation instead of you needs to go. Anyone playing dirty politics instead of solving problems needs to go.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
This feels like a significant setback for moderation. The GOP has been losing national elections already and talk of re-evaluating their pitch as a party had already begun, now the sitting members of the party just got jolted by this event and can be expected to pull hard right to tighten their base at home, rather than moderate to try to build rapport with the moderate independent voters as a national party.
The way things are going, the GOP will trend even farther right-wing, and may lose even more ground as a party. And where does that leave us? An unchallenged Democrat party against the remains of an ultra-conservative GOP?
1) It leaves pretty much everyone right of the middle marginalized and unable to find representation.
2) It leaves 1 party unchecked, that's just plain bad for American voters.
3) It completely stops legislation for the next several years.
Many people expected that the GOP's right-wing pull would need to get worse before it got better, and I had hoped that it already happened. Now it'll have to get a lot worse before the shock to the GOP can be absorbed and the party can build the will to give up the support of the far right to try to vie for the middle.
great link with great commentary
No matter what changes, the Democratic propaganda organ (the mainstream media) will pitch it as "a hard swerve to the right - it's all racism homophobia and deniers now". Heck even the WSJ is already twisting Brat's comments that Christians need to stand against the likes of Hitler into a pro-Hitler quote - way to Godwin the guy on day 1!
But I don't think that's what's happening. The notion that the government needs to live within its means is mainstream (we can argue over spend less vs tax more, but both parties right now choose "neither"). The notion that "a strict moral code is valuable" is always cyclic in a culture over time, and we swung pretty far in the "everything is OK" direction. The notion that you can't have both expensive social programs and open borders at the same time is pretty mainstream (again, people will argue about which one).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
ron paul, his son I believe may support parts of some of those but your point stands
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say"
I'm gonna let you chew on that statement for a while...
Can we get rid of more establishment, statist douchebags? (R), (D), or anywhere in between...these career politicians are poison.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
The reason you see a 95% retention rate, even when anti-Congress sentiment is high is because:
"*MY* Congresscritter is doing good. It's all those other assholes that are the problem."
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize."
Oh, they realize it, and did before Cantor got his walking papers. The beltway is infuriated that we. The people, dare intervene in their management of this issue. And they are managing it. To their advantage, not ours.
The Republican Party leadership is Republican in name only, to a man.
The outsiders are poised to overthrow them.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It would have been very tough for him to pull off, especially after he let Team Obama spend months defining him as an out of touch rich asshole. I think it would have been a better way to lose though, at least he would have laid some useful groundwork for the GOP in 2016.
I don't know enough about the current crop of Tier 1 and Tier 2 candidates to say if there are any that meet the bill. I will concur with something Will said in an interview: No more United States Senators. We need someone who has actually run something next time.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your statement may make a good soundbite, but it's a non-sequitur. If you disagree, please explain how it's the climate scientists' doing that the denialists had to move their "end of climate change" date forward repeatedly. Because I could use a good laugh.
Then our political perspectives differ.
Those who loudly proclaim that this one primary is proof of anything (the Republican's going crazy or even its resurgence) are making a mountain out of a molehill. The party isn't dead, the Tea Party is still active and we all wait for November to find out if this is a good thing for Republicans or not.... However, it does seem that Obama's policies are going to be a huge drag on the Democrats this round, but the mid-terms in a lame duck presidency usually are bad news for the party that holds the white house, so I suppose even when the Republicans win all this will still be the subject of many debate.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
IMHO they went bat shit *decades ago*
now there is just litterally too many victims of oligarchy for WASP's to be used as a serfdom
it's a "critical mass" or "tipping point" kind of deal where it's a certainty b/c the GOP's policies are not sustainable
my question is: what next?
eventually Republicans will evolve beyond being the psychotic slaves of the aristocracy...
I think oligarchs will move away from the US to maintain their revenue streams...the US is full of money but there are much easier populations to manipulate at macro-levels
I believe the Democrats and Republicans will re-polarize around economic issues re-framed to cut out all the GOP's bullshit since post-WWII
Things in the USA will get better, but we'll see ***whole countries*** being "gentrified" like neighborhoods in SF
Thank you Dave Raggett
I cannot vote for the guys that run the House Committee on this or the Senate Leader on that unless they came from my State.
So if we centralize all the power in the Federal government, we are basically ceding all of our ability to vote for our interests.
What you suggest is insane.
Romney was just right of center, just like Obama was left of center at least for the campaigns.
So, you may define the Tea Party as radical right, and in some ways it is, but the Republican party is not even close to being far right. Why? Everybody tries to capture the center, who are the people who really decide many of the elections anyway...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What do you mean? Greens and Libertarians have a lot in common, especially their support of Federalism in the sense of giving control back to state and local jurisdictions and strong support for civil liberties. A Green/Libertarian coalition (where they agreed to disagree on taxes) could be a valuable and strong counter to the authoritarian Democrat/Republican coalition.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'd suggest the penalty be based on the savings, not the cost.
If the illegal is simply indentured, unpaid servant, the penalty goes to zero? Instead, I'd suggest asking a local union (just for kicks, mind you) what the going rate is for that work, subtracting the actual pay, and using that as your basis for penalty. If the illegal was paid full union rates, I could live with "no penalty" - they've been penalised enough, I suppose.
The dems have decades of dealing with big tent
Too bad they're busy pouring gasoline on the big tent and lighting it on fire. Try being a pro-gun or pro-life Democrat these days....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I guess that 50/50 chance of immigration reform coming up for a vote has greatly diminished then.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Exactly, SHIT gets done. Not in the crapper ether.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Except that 70% of Republicans in that district are in favor of immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship, so essentially what Cantor was proposing. If that's among the Republicans, I would expect people to the left of that to me more in favor of it. Where are those polls you talk about?
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-...
What he said.... All this talk about the Democrats trying to rig this is just talk that is trying to explain how the "radical right" could ever impact an election when it was supposed to be DEAD just a month ago. Wishful thinking and speculation... But this is also NOT proof that the Tea Party is taking over anything. This is JUST A PRIMARY folks, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much to either side.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I agree that man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet by a small amount. HOWEVER, other factors can affect the climate MORE than man made CO2 -- for example the Sun .. solar dynamics .. we can't make good predictive models of the Sun's output yet .. is it going to fluctuate? What if a new ice age starts tomorrow? We know each sunspot cycle isn't the same .. who knows if the sun will reduce or increase its output by some percent? Second our geophysical models are not good enough to tell us whether we may enter a phase of volcanic activity that may cause at least short term climate impacts. This has happened in the past by the way. I mean as recently as the 1800s.
We need to frame our argument better on this. CO2 emission is bad because it's pollution, and MIGHT cause global warming IF there are no changes in solar output or geophysically.
Okay. Let's parse the facts in your post:
1. Man made CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet.
One fact. I'd go farther and say "Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of source, increases the temperature of the planet.
An additional point, which is ignored is that the sun's luminosity is increasing ~10% every billion years. From a human standpoint, that's a long time, but shouldn't be ignored WRT the habitability of Earth.
In any case, there are few things that affect our climate which we can control. One of those is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Since our models are incomplete, it's not clear what effect (although the models and data we do have overwhelmingly suggest a negative effect) those could have on our climate. Putting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can (and likely will) have an effect, and based on the *facts* we have, that effect will be to increase global temperatures.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Based on the incomplete information we have, it appears that could be quite bad. If it turns out (based on better models and more data), that it's a good thing, we can certainly pump lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, until such time as we have better models/data, I say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix (or break it, as the case may be) it. Folks with open minds and without financial incentives to the contrary will, if presented with the available facts and data, agree IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Ah, now THAT was clever enough to be interesting.... LOL
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Please remove the "News for Nerds" tag line from your name
They took that off long ago. Now the logo in the corner just says "Slashdot".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The immigration argument is based on ignorance and hypocrisy. On the one hand, libertarians are for free trade. But when someone wants to trade his labor without reuglations, they're all for creating barriers.
Oh yeah, this is just shocking.
Obviously, the patriot act, banker looting and lawlessness of executive authority and lawlessness in general is now going to be fixed.
What a steaming pile of BS.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
CO2 is not pollution, it is a naturally occurring gas which is a key component in photosynthesis, which contributes to the greening of the planet. As well as the vegetation which I rely on for food.
Have a Day!
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
It doesn't help your case that there were incidents of people subscribing to the tea party mentality physically throwing teabags on to people or into crowds, and that many self-identified with the word "teabag" until Maddow pointed out its previous slang meaning...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot.
And I find it hilarious that they originally called THEMSELVES that. Until folks hit them with a cluebat.
No, this was a different poll than Cantor's funded one.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
So you can listen to the one outlier instead
This sounds vaguely similar to a stance that would be adopted by the Roman-Catholic Church in regards to geocentrism.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
...courtesy of xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1127/ .
First off, there never was a scientific consensus that there was going to be global cooling. There was a Newsweek article on it in 1975, but you'd have to really stretch to claim that a scientific consensus was warning of global cooling. At the time the two major competing mechanisms going on was cooling due to atmospheric aerosols, and warming due to greenhouse gases. You also have to keep in mind that in the 1970s the aerosol issue was dramatically addressed by banning CFC aerosols, which dramatically reduced the aerosols in the atmosphere (and thus, dramatically reducing their cooling potential), so we're left with greenhouse gases dominating. It isn't "they keep changing their story," it is that one of the issues was successfully addressed. Now, it would be nice if the other issue could be addressed.
You can see what the guy who wrote that Newsweek article has to say about it in retrospect.
Passing laws, repealing laws, tweaking laws, engaging in long term strategy discussion, forming committees to get thing done beyond the terms of the respective backers...
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.
I'm always quite amused when someone calls the US Democratic party "leftist" (no offense meant bobbied, your post just caught my eye) or the US Republican party as "right-wing." From a practical perspective, both parties are (and have been, for a long time) center-right.
That's not to say that there aren't real ideological/policy differences between the two major US political parties, but on the whole, they are quite close together ideologically when viewed through the lens of the broad spectrum of political thought.
Full disclosure: I am an American who has lived his whole life in the US.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
For one, do you NOT see whats going on with the NSA? I for one do not want the government spying on americans. it should not be done. If we didnt have state governemnts to fight the federal government on this issue, they would simply tell us too bad.
I assume that is a rhetorical question, so I will answer it with one of my own: what has yours, mine, or ANY state government done to "fight the federal government" on the NSA surveillance issue? The answer is absolutely nothing.
I understand why states were originally somewhat autonomous, and I certainly understand the ideals behind limiting centralized government, but I am not an idealist, I am a realist and a pragmatist. At this point in our civilization the idea of the states limiting the centralization of our government is a sham. The state governments provide, in most cases, very little value at astronomical cost.
Different people believe differently as such there SHOULD be a choice for americans on how they want to live. People who live in washington and never leave washington have no idea what people in the dakotas or texas or NY need or want. I dont want them deciding for me how to live
But you are okay with the politicians that make up your state legislature and executive branch deciding for you how to live? If you think the people who work in your state government have your best interest at heart, you are being rather shockingly naïve.
All Americans should have the same freedom to choose how they live their lives, regardless of which state they happen to live in. The dramatic variance in state law on a plethora of topics is burdensome to say the least, and in many cases abusive. Eradicating state governments would merely cause all of the philosophical groups who currently maintain a regional majority to live under laws that are decided (in theory, because democracy) by the national majority. This is how all philosophical (usually cultural) minority groups live right now.
Hey... Citation was requested... I provided. No idea to whom the website belongs. It very well may be a 'denialist' site... but the author of the article seems to clearly and honestly outline the important details and scope of the data presented. Indeed, one of the longer time-scale graphs shows a warming trend... The author doesn't appear to DENY this. He simply exhibits the data from this particular source and indeed the data shows no warming trend for the last ~17 years. He also observes that the longer-scale actual OBSERVED warming trend is significantly less than the IPCC 1990 PREDICTED trend... even significantly less than the low-end of their predictions. Right this moment - the global warming appears to have leveled-off. These are simply facts... no parlor tricks here. In fact the author states that the warming could crank right back up next year.
Hint: Science is never settled.
When I ask my gf about what she's doing at work (she's in research), she often tells me of studies that aim to prove something that is already known. If you give a rat X, it will result in Y. Literally, a majority of what she does sounds like the same things she did a year ago. We gave a rat X, and it resulted in Y.
So if you know what is going to happen already, and you've done this study before, why are you still studying the same thing? Is it because, "science is never settled?"
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
which is why i specifically gave the scientists a pass and pointed out that its the media that I find to be causing most of the misplaced fear. I doubt any scientists even the ones who believe in AGW want to cut off all oil now
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
...Sharpton has never held an elected public office; ergo, he has never been reelected, let alone elected.
And never will, if I have anything to say about it. Al Sharpton is a liar and an opportunist, like most politicians. However, he isn't very good at it. cf. Tawana Brawley and the Crown Heights Riot.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
Though this is a bit opinion based (as only any talk of where center is can be)... the Republican Party is already right of "center". It's all relative of course - the US Democratic party would most likely be Centre-Right in most other places.
This is kind of like the joke about morals. "Im perfectly moral, anyone looser is a slut, anyone tighter is a prude, i just happen to be perfect". Both parties like to claim the Center, to be "real America". Forget center, lets worry about relative - Republicans are (almost always) Right of Democrats, and Tea Party Republicans father Right still.
The Tea-Party wing isn't, by political science terms, "conservative". The proper term is Reactionary. They are moving from Right to much Farther Right. Conservative says "lets stay where we are". The Tea-Party is more "Lets go back to where we were before."
The Gold Standard? Generally accepted as unworkable during The Great Depression. It's cool in good times, causes horrible horrible spirals in bad times. Most countries moved off of it in the 1930's. We started then, and moved completely off in the 70's, Tea Partiers want to go back to that. The fact that the locked exchange rates of the Euro countries, which act as a mini-gold-standard, exacerbated and deepened a crisis there notwithstanding.
The New Deal? Trying to rollback a lot of it (though Republicans in general want to also).
Voting Rights? Attempted rollbacks. Though the rollbacks tend to hit minorities and poor people (who don't tend to vote Republican) more.
They claim to want to go back to the Constitution. Where women couldn't vote? Where a black man was defined as 3/5 of a white man? Very Reactionary. I'm in Chicago, which wasn't in the Union in 1783. Maybe as a Tea Party person, I'd really need to talk to the Algonquin Indian tribe for leadership. I'll make sure to find some nice French Canadians to trade furs with.
We live in a complex world. A lot of people want to pretend the complexity is just a screen, that it's a cloud inflicted by (assumed to be evil) men and that they can see the Truth, the Simplicity. These are the people who are voting Tea Party. Are they batshit? Dunno. But the world is complex. And if your model of the world is to ignore the complexity and pretend it's simple, you're going to want to pull the wrong levers, and you'll most likely cause some damage.
This, but only because of rampant gerrymandering.
"Just find me enough people that like me, and call that my district. I don't care if they're spread out all over creation. Just draw a line around everyone who voted for me last time, and call it done."
Politicians have been, for years, systematically altering their districts so that their particular flavor of nutjob are all in the same district. Be it birthers, gun nuts, 9/11 conspiracy folks, or whatever. Pick your favorite flavor, wrangle up enough people, wherever they may be, and reelections will take care of themselves. We can sprinkle the sane/moderate people around so that their votes are barely heard. Certainly not enough to cause a ruckus
The real problem, however, is just now starting to surface. If you wrangle up enough staunch believers of any one type in a particular area, a crazier candidate will surface and take advantage of that. We no longer get anyone with a hint of "moderate" in a general election, because they get destroyed in the Primaries by someone even crazier than they are.
This signature is false.
removing state governments would be the WORST thing in the world to happen to america.
Hyperbole.
I dont want some paper pushers in washington telling me how to live my life. I want the people I live with and me agreeing on how to live our lives.
Why do you make the distinction between "paper pushers" in washing or in your own states capital? Perhaps you are under the illusion that they are more interested in your personal needs and desires - only naïveté will lead down that path. California contains 38 million people. How responsive do you think the California state government is and/or can be to the individual needs of their residents? I would prefer nobody tell me how to live my life, but that's not the way the world works.
When the US was founded, the population is estimated to have been 2.5 million people total. This is less than the current population of Chicago. We are now over 300 million. There is no longer any personal representation anywhere, except perhaps in small municipal or county government situations.
Thats what this country was founded on. Im sorry but if you REALLY feel this way, you are unamerican, and not unamerican in the way politicians use it but unamerican as in you dont believe in the ideals what what make america great
I do not believe in separatism, xenophobia, nepotism, bureaucracy or corruption. If you REALLY feel that these are the ideals that make America great, I'd prefer that you move somewhere else, and leave America to myself and others who love it.
Really, citing wikipedia = troll mod? If your opinion on global warming is so fragile that you need to mod anyone who disagrees with you, maybe it's time to revisit that opionion ...
state governments are because we're not all one people or one regions. for example, contiguous US vs alaska and hawaii. smaller entities can be more nimble and responsive than larger entities.
Yes because state governments, in reality, are so much more nimble and responsive...
But thank you for the informative bit about US geography.
All companies that hire illegal aliens should be forced to pay a penalty to the gov't (half to border protection and half to the general fund) of twice the monies paid to the illegal. Pay the illegal $500, the fine is $1,000 for a total of $1,500 to use that person. That person is also transported back to their own country at the employers expense. Now the cost of the illegal alien is $1,500 + transportation for $500 of work.
But, how will you eat? Are you okay with tripling the cost of food? Or would you be happier paying triple for your food if that meant your 16 year old nephew could get a summer job pulling weeds for $6/hour?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
$deity help you if you're one of the poor bastards coming there from Africa or the Middle East.
Still about a million times better than Africa or the Middle East, though. That's the root of the problem.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
As a Virginian (and now as a Marylander), I don't consider it any of my business who represents people in say, California.
This is asinine. The 100 US Senators and 435 members of the US House each have an equal vote in their respective chambers on all federal legislation. So long as you as a Virginian (and now as a Marylander) are subject to federal law, then each and every of those Congressmen have a direct vote on the laws that you are obligated to follow. Just because only 2 of the 100 US Senators will return your call doesn't mean that the other 98 aren't your business. They are United States senators, not California state senators. They write your laws; they're your business.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Yes, the way I see it, it will be impossible to convince AGW deniers to accept the science observations, not because they are stupid, but because they don't want to be held accountable for any wrongdoing. It's like taking the 5th, or "don't talk to the police"... anything you say can and will be used against you. No one wants to admit to being stupid or making mistakes. Viewed through this lens, their policies on other things like abortions and gun control make more sense... "Well abortion is wrong, if you got pregnant you made a mistake, and we don't make mistakes"... "Well guns only shoot bad guys. Why would I accidentally shoot a good guy? I don't make mistakes".
We need to find more effective ways to communicate with these people so they can live responsibly. But trying to shove their faces in the facts just makes them belligerent and more likely to rebel and go the other way, like buying the biggest SUV they can afford, because F*(K society and their maths.
If we have too many laws then repealing the outdated ones, or revising them, or consolidating them into some kind of code that the average person can interpret, these things would be useful and the right thing to do for a congress which has nothing else on its plate. This congress is not in that situation. Going to work and not just doing nothing productive but actually preventing others from doing anything useful, that is inexcusable.
If the Tea Party were "center", there would have to be a drastic change of their agenda.
Personally, I believe a married gay couple should be able to grow marijuana on their property and defend it with guns. Which party is that again?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
Up to you.... However, in my defense, I was attempting to be clever and illustrate my point using a touch of sarcasm, illustrating stupidity by being stupid and all that.
On the other thing, it is certainly NOT the intention of liberals to identify the Tea Party with anything that approaches a discussion of their founding principles or guiding ideals and throwing tea bags into the crowd might lead folks to investigate that. Liberals cannot have that happen because most folks would generally agree with the Tea Party in principle, if not practice. Liberals know this, which is why almost everybody now knows what the vulgar meaning of the term is, which is generally why liberals choose to use the term. The thinking ones know why they use the term. The parrots don't care. No need to deal with either.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's so overwhelming that 97% of climate scientists agree with that.
I wonder what percentage of contemporary scientists thought Galileo and Copernicus were all wet.
We don't repeal laws. Every year there are more laws than the previous year.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I would be interested in what the voter/incumbent ratio is in those other democracies. I would be interested in their taxation model, and their services model. I would be interested if their leaders are directly elected or elector-elected. Obviously your two Senators cannot do everything that needs to get done, so are they going to appoint people to handle the local details? We would end up with massive cronyism with 6 years to wait to get rid of them...if we could.
I think the local governments are incompetent and poor because the lions share of the tax money is going to the Federal government. We could afford and feel entitled to the best people in our local governments if they were the ones controlling the dispersment of tax revenues. Last I heard, the pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars. Thats a lot of schools, hospitals, roads, and jobs that were lost.
Free markets are the opposite of totalitarianism. Tea Party supports free markets vs. Republican allegiance to big corporate donors.
The surprising bit here is that it is on a smaller scale than some we have seen before. Remember the 2000 election? Look at the states where Nader had more votes than Bush's margin of victory. Now look at the political advertising in that state, particularly the ads for Nader. Most likely you will find those ads were paid for by the GOP, aiming to draw democratic voters away from Gore.
Ahh, how we miss those simple times...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You do realize that the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party does NOT support some of the things you think.
You are projecting onto them things you FEAR they might support or are TOLD they would support. I've never heard anybody at the Tea Party rallies I've been to discussing voter ID laws much less keeping women from voting. In fact, they would oppose changing women suffrage because it is a valid part of our constitution.
What the Tea Party WOULD support is the reading of the constitution as originally intended when it was written, including all the amendments which have been adopted by the states when they where written, which includes the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. They are for less government, Smaller government, and lower taxes.... Which does NOT include much of what you fear they are for.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Right of center as compared to what? If you compared the positions of the Tea Party to conservatives of the mid 90's or even to the conservatism of the 80's, then they fell off the deep end shortly after the term Tea Party was coined. As I see it the Tea Party is far to the right, they should create their own party and let the Republican Party represent the more moderate(sane) members of the party.
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot.
And I find it hilarious that they originally called THEMSELVES that. Until folks hit them with a cluebat.
Funny as you find it, liberals have seen to educating the masses about the vulgar meaning of that term, then glory in their use of the term when referring to the group. Which turns out to be a sad commentary on the people who foster the vulgar use of the term to denigrate their political opponents.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What's the crisis? Stock market at record highs? Banks and corporations sitting on trillions? Investors lining up to buy US govt debt?
The only "crisis" is in your mind. There's plenty of money to pursue the fiscal policy we should be doing instead of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about debt.
The Fed's QE proves that stimulus works. Now do it for individuals instead of for corporations.
Neat, but we have been watching the sun's output for decades.
He's also a FBI snitch.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If 'the anti-illegal-immigration feeling on the right is far stronger than the GOP seems to realize", why did Graham win easily in South Carolina, despite authoring the immigration reform bill?
One of the fundamentally dishonest things that conservatives do when this topics comes up is mention George Soros. But nothing compares to the Koch brothers, and conservative money in general:
http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/...
It's not 2 sides of the same coin when you compare the amount of money, although neither side is likely to offer reform on this matter.
US government has never lived within its means, since the first administration when Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of assumption allowed the federal government to assume the states' war debts.
The facts of history are plain: deficits don't matter. Debt is a distraction. Reagan proved it.
Where I see you point, I disagree. If the Tea Party really went third party, it would just empower the Democrats who would pretty much be running unchecked as the two waring parties split the Republican base. Of course, if you just want the Democrats in power, the third party would be your dream...
So, if you are thinking about this, what you do as the Tea Party is you pull the Republican party your direction by winning primaries and elections. But that takes getting votes, which means that this is really in the hands of the people. If the Tea Party candidates start winning elections, the Republican party gets pulled in their direction. If the Tea Party doesn't win elections, it ends up in the dust bin of history...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
With any luck, your State Congressman will be there long enough to control a powerful committee like Ways and Means.
Think Robert Byrd.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
So if you get cheaper prices, violating the law is okay? What laws are okay to break? Immigration, shoplifting, burglary, insider trading, bribery? Do you get to decide which ones? Perhaps any, if it benefits you.
My wife and I own a (mostly livestock) farm. Everybody here (all legal) earns above minimum wage (currently $9.10) after one month. They earn up to $14.00 per hour. We give them a 30 day evaluation period and then they get a raise. Raises are based solely on performance. To workers that are worth it, they receive up to three raises in their first year. We sell our products locally and donate milk and meat to a local wild animal rescue group. We raise selected organic produce and organic chickens and turkeys (and sell their eggs), along with naturally raised beef, goat, lamb and pork. We also sell handmade goat milk cheeses, soaps and lotions.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
Opposition to immigration tends to spike every time there is a recession. The reality is that without immigrants, the older generations of both the EU and north America will not have enough of a population left to maintain the economy once they start to retire.
There isn't a viable Left that can be voted for in the Untied States any more. In any other country the Democratic Party would be considered Center-Right, they've managed to stamp out almost all remnants of anti-corporate liberalism in their party.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
There's nothing of that sort.
The purpose of NATO is "To keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out." Those were the words used by NATO's first Secretary General, so there you go. The rest of your post is an anti-American rant that only got a +5 because of the Iraq reference and use of the words "military-industrial complex". It was the EU that dragged the United States into Libya, and it was pressure from the EU that nearly dragged us into Syria. Our feckless President wanted nothing to do with either of those adventures. For once he was actually able to read the American electorate and knew exactly what they wanted. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Nobody has claimed there isn't global warming. There's been global warming since the end of the last ice age. We had global cooling before that. I believe most models show that we're due for several millenia more of global warming.
The question is about anthropomorphic global warming - or, how much of the warming is due to human's affects on the earth. CO2 is the big panic button, though the alarmists also have a fixation on cow flatulence.
All of the AGW models have fallen flat on their face, especially given the last 17 years or so of either warming pause or a huge slowdown in warming. On the one hand the AGW proponents says that 48 years of a trend from 1951 to 1998 provides settled science - and on the other they say that 17 years of totally contradictory trends is insignificant and not worth discussing.
Honest discussion and debate has been shut down, and false reports of things like "98% of climate scientists say it's settled science" and manipulated data (hockey stick graph, anybody?) and money ruling it all.
Then throw into the fact that America has reduced CO2 production to levels from the early 90's, and we're dropping every year. Another thing they don't talk about. But our reduction in CO2 production (and all possible future reductions from the US) are wiped out by the increase in production of CO2 from China, India, etc. Remove America from the globe, and in 10 years the increase in CO2 production from China will have very likely brought CO2 production right back up to where they are.
Honest debate is needed. Honest facts that can be peer reviewed and reproduced are needed.
In other words, science is needed.
That one shouldn't have been AC.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
So if you get cheaper prices, violating the law is okay? What laws are okay to break? Immigration, shoplifting, burglary, insider trading, bribery? Do you get to decide which ones? Perhaps any, if it benefits you.
What's with all the questions, bro? You said you wanted to triple the cost of illegal workers which will result in much higher food prices. I never said anything about breaking the law. You simply mentioned that you wanted the labor cost to triple.
My wife and I own a (mostly livestock) farm. Everybody here (all legal) earns above minimum wage (currently $9.10) after one month ...
That's good. My family also owns a farm, though we are retail facing and only deal with plants. It's been in business for over 35 years and has always paid a fair wage for legal labor. Heck, we even (until just a few years ago during the '08 debacle) paid double time on Sundays. Yeah, that's right. We'd be open for six hours on Sunday and workers would be paid for 12. I'm curious how many employees you have. We have fluctuated between 20 in the winter to over 50 in the summer. Even with that many employees, it has always been manageable paying them a fair wage. Of course, it doesn't hurt that many of them are former illegals and that they are willing to perform the exhausting labor we require. In fact, the only white kids that have ever worked in the fields are myself and my brother (while at the same time being paid less than half what other workers were making). Nobody (outside of FFA circles) is going to send their kid to perform backbreaking labor in 100 degree sunshine all summer for minimum wage (or, in our case, less than minimum wage).
Of course, your small organic farm and my family's small retail nursery have very little to do with large food production farms that employ hundreds, if not thousands, with the goal of putting food on everyone's plate at a reasonable price. You ask me if violating the law is okay if the end result is cheaper prices. I'll humor you in that I'd believe that yes, it is okay if the circumstances warrant it. If the alternative is food that costs thrice what it does currently and the laborers that process that food can't even afford to buy it, then I'm all for violating the law. Not everyone is able to afford the luxury food items you're producing and I'm guessing there aren't too many people in the same wage bracket as your employees that are able to afford your products.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
That he was the first house majority leader defeated in a PRIMARY, he isn't the first sitting speaker to be defeated from that position. Democrat Tom Foley lost his house majority seat in 1994 Democrat Tom Daschle lost his senate majority seat in 2004 Personally, I don't care the party, but anyone that is over 70 years old, and has spent "a lifetime" in politics needs to removed. They quit becoming politicians of their respective states, and simply become politicians of lobbyist & special interest groups. Another reason the 17th amendment needs to be repealed! The states should be put back in charge of electing the members of the senate to return equal branches of government & allowing the states to have a say in what goes on in DC. The president is the chief executive officer, the house is the house of the people, giving the people a say in DC, and the senate, in accordance to the constitution, was suppose to have appointed senators from the legislators in the states, to give the states a bit of say so, in DC.
I do fully agree on that. As a scientist, I bury my face firmly in my palm 80% of the time I see a science story being reported in the mainstream media. They almost always get key points wrong - often to the extent that it completely twists the meaning of the original discovery. Even university press releases are not a whole lot better. In this light, I do indeed understand the general pubic gets confused and frustrated. But that's not a reason to dismiss science altogether or to resort to secondary sources who have an agenda and/or understand the science even less that the above.
That opinion is not mainstream, is the thing. Most people don't care about anything the government does until it directly affects them, of course, but the idea of limiting how much you borrow to something reasonable fits most peoples ideas about budgeting.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Note that no competent scientist would claim that there's been no increase in global temperature, especially since all the data shows that the glabal temperature has increased over that time. So you had to lie to make your statement. Why is it that lying is the only option the deniers and fake skeptics reach for?
A libertarian may be a theist, but he cannot promote religion in government, or enforcing religious values through laws, and remain libertarian. A libertarian cannot be against same sex marriage, except unless he's against government-officiated marriage in general.
A libertarian who is against open borders is a hypocrite who believes that free market (for labor only - not for goods) stops at those borders.
And I hear this puts the former republican stronghold district in play for the democrats now. Plus a tremendous loss of seniority and political power for the republicans will be gone so spending in Virginia is likely to drop significantly.
This district is strongly Republican, nothing's "in play". Your list missed one very important "wedge" issue, amnesty for illegal aliens. Cantor's support for that was deeply unpopular, just as amnesty generally is across the country.
I'm an independent with increasingly strong liberal tendencies since 2004. But I'm not sure if I'm really growing more liberal or if the republicans are simply moving rightward away from the middle.
You should work on converting your "liberal" tendencies to "libertarian" tendencies. The liberal/progressive direction in this country is clearly towards huge government, oppression, socialism, and a grim future. What we need is a strong dose of freedom and capitalism, the things that made America great in the first place.
I'm pretty optimistic things will take a turn for the better in 2016. At least we won't have to keep enduring the endless abuses of power from 0bama. Perhaps he'll even finally be impeached in the meantime!
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
You ask me if violating the law is okay if the end result is cheaper prices. I'll humor you in that I'd believe that yes, it is okay if the circumstances warrant it. If the alternative is food that costs thrice what it does currently and the laborers that process that food can't even afford to buy it, then I'm all for violating the law.
And I am for following the law. If they law says that it is okay to hire people that are violating the law by being here, then that is a different story. Right now it is illegal for them to be here - regardless of the effect on our prices. Laws can be changed if needed, I don't think that one needs to be.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
I doubt any scientists even the ones who believe in AGW want to cut off all oil now
Even among environmentalist, only a tiny (but verbal) minority thinks that would be a good idea. For the rest of us, CO2 emissions can be reduced significantly with minimal (or even positive) economic impact through a number of measures, but "cutting off all oil now" obviously is not one of them. There currently is no realistic replacement for oil on the horizon for the purpose of aviation, intercontinental ship transport and polymer synthesis. What can be done is to put gradual innovation pressure on the market (through carrots and sticks, i.e. tax breaks and taxes) as to slowly phase out coal for electricity generation and oil for most ground transportation. There are enough alternatives available to make that happen, and more local jobs would be created than lost. One could also think about a small global tax on bunker fuel. This would be a boon for employment in western economies, where it would help locally manufactured goods compete with ones that were shipped halfway around the globe.
At the time, the people making the pronouncements against Galileo were the Church. It only took 500 years for them to apologize for that...
| I wonder what percentage of contemporary scientists thought Galileo and Copernicus were all wet.
Galileo? Virtually none, if you could describe people at that time as "scientists". They looked through the telescopes and saw the same Jovian moons as Galileo.
Copernicus didn't have convincing experimental evidence, but Galileo did.
And the Catholic church struck back at Galileo as he was also a harsh political critic.
If you give them amnesty, they become legal then. Legal is what the law defines to be legal, no more and no less. Yet he has problems with that - in fact, a decidedly non-libertarian objection:
"Adding millions of workers to the labor market will force wages to fall and jobs to be lost."
(hey, what happened to free market? or does that not apply to labor somehow?)
You make the common mistake of thinking that making the conditions worse enough will repell the immigrants. This mainly proves two things: 1) You have no idea how the conditions were that caused the people to come to the U.S. in the first place, because you seem to believe that "no drivers licence for you!" will scare anyone. 2) You think that denying legal means to people cause people to leave. Indeed they will go -- into illegality. If you deny them legal means to care for themselves, they will use illegal ones. Congratulations. You just found a way to make crime worse.
My ancestors (verified family history) fought in the American Revolution and came across via Ellis Island as legal immigrants. Today, you run across the border and hope the border patrol doesn't catch you. Those people wanted to be in this country so much, the first thing they did was to violate its laws. That is crap.
When your ancestors came, it was much easier to be granted permission to entry. Heck, even after the Civil War, it was basically just free for all, no visas, and citizenship granted to anyone who applied and could show that they resided in the country and paid taxes for a year or two (depending on the state).
If Tea Party wins the elections nation-wide, and there is a Tea Party president backed by a Tea Party congress, it'll be Tea Party success... and America's doom.
Sure.
Sen John Tester (MT), Rep Heath Shuler (NC), Rep Dan Boren, Rep Mike Thompson.
And by the way, the supposed "anti-gun" democrats, like Barack Obama, have advocated modest regulations.
Compare to the parallel in Republicans.
| Progressive Christians. Socially conservative but poor and beaten people that have started to realize the filthy-rich republicans they used to vote for aren't looking out for anyone but the very very rich.
This will work when they realize the truth was: Republicans they used to vote for **weren't** looking out for anyone but the very very rich, and they should have stuck with Jimmy Carter instead of the fraud of Ronald Reagan.
When will that happen?
The law said it was okay to steal people's labor if they had a certain skin color, once. Was the law right then? No, it violated unalienable rights, no matter what the Supreme Court of the time said. The law was morally wrong.
The law now as you interpret it says that the recent surge in children crossing the border should be met with indifference. Is it ethical to turn your back on a 6-year-old caring for a 4-year-old, send them back into violence and disease?
No. We have a humanitarian obligation to provide for the children. It comes from the General Welfare clause. How is it in the General Welfare to turn away hundreds or thousands of minors who need help?
The economic argument is simply wrong. The US is not "out of money". The Fed has proved that stimulus works for the stock market and the banks and corporations sitting on trillions. Fiscal policy can expand dramatically because, as Reagan proved, deficits don't matter. Saying that figures in a ledger book are more important than peoples' lives is to worship a golden calf. Money is a tool we invented to serve us, not the other way around.
Probably the best thing to do to mitigate this humanitarian crisis is to legalize drugs. Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.
The reason Americans have such incredible reelection rates, given the least popular congress in history, is gerrymandering. That is the practice of elected politicians deciding exactly who is going to be allowed to vote for them next time around. A change of the guard is going to be nie impossible in many districts because they are always going to vote Republican or Democrat. At the primary level you've got Republicans trying to out crazy each other to keep their jobs and Democrats clumping in the center. Even if you do get a 'change of the guard' through primaries your newly elected officials are likely to be even worse than the old ones.
I'm afraid revolution is your only chance at an effective, responsible government. But don't feel bad, I'm pretty sure most western democracies are in the same boat.
| Personally, I believe a married gay couple should be able to grow marijuana on their property and defend it with guns. Which party is that again?
The Democratic party, of course.
Where are the the major Democratic politicians (let's say a Senator or a few Representatives) trying seriously to ban legal home-defense firearms in total?
I can't think of one.
I have heard this.
Is there actual evidence for this? Which Tea Party members of Congress have introduced legislation or policy which significantly reduces financial profits of corporate supporters of Republican leadership?
As explained in the link in my previous post (did you even read it?), if you take a set of data that fluctuates noisily but has an long-term upwards trend, you truncate it carefully so that the beginning of your truncated subset falls near a high point in the random fluctuations, and you use that to deny the upwards trend, then you are using a trick called "cherry-picking". You can argue you're presenting "simply facts", but it's dishonest. Watt's also dishonest is failing to declare a rather blatant conflict of interest.
Also, your own post contains contradictions. You're saying "...OBSERVED warming trend is significantly less than the IPCC 1990 PREDICTED..." (implying there is still a warming trend), and then you're saying "it has leveled off". Only one of them can be true, and it's the first one. There is still a warming trend, and yes, it's lower than the low-end 1990 predictions. Scientists have been debating over why that is for a while now. Heat getting trapped in the depths of the pacific ocean seems to be gaining traction as the most prevalent hypothesis, which is worrisome because once this finite heat reservoir is saturated, the heating will pick up with a vengeance. More info here, here, here and here (the 3 first links are all discussing the study in the 4th; I'll let you pick which source you like best).
The Tea Party is the movement of prejudices, egoisms and phobia. "Not in my backyard" is the battle cry.
Why was the above moderated as "flamebait"?! It's a fair question. Seriously, this story is not "news for nerds."
Actually, research suggests that once you have enough basic funds to get yourself on the radar, more doesn't make much difference at all. The biggest factor in swaying elections is the candidate's personal attractiveness. Mostly visual.
What I really want is for both parties to split and maybe even get some kind of runoff voting scheme in place. Looks like the tea party has a non-zero chance on the republican side. Now we just need a credible progressive group to come forward and do it on the democratic side.
The positions matter less than ending the corruption.
So, you may define the Tea Party as radical right, and in some ways it is, but the Republican party is not even close to being far right. Why? Everybody tries to capture the center, who are the people who really decide many of the elections anyway...
All depends on the origin of the spectrum you're viewing it through. From a Canadian perspective, the Democrats are radically to the right, and the
Tea Party is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun or Mussolini.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Actually it seems that homosexual rights is the only area in which Republicans are more to the left than in 1980, much less 1956.
Exceprts from the 1956 Republican platform.
On Antitrust:
We also propose: Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;
Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement;
On labor & wages & benefits:
The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.
In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.
Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.
The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;
Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;
Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;
Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;
Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;
Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;
Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;
Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;
Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;
Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.0--
Health & education:
Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.
We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases.
We will vigorously promote, as we have in the past, a non-political career service under the merit system which will attract and retain able servants of the people. Many gains in this field, notably pay increases and a host of new benefits, have been achieved in their behalf in l
Love the user name...
You mean like how we had that for 2 years with the Democrats and all we got was Obamacare? I'm not so sure single party rule spells doom. Even at the extreme views, folks generally mean well, even if they are misguided in principle so neither side is going to do really go off the deep end, although, there is a strong case for the leftist in the White House to the contrary. Where I don't agree with the Democrats and their policy and see their principles as foolish, I don't ascribe malice to their motives.
But, back onto your point... Being that the Tea Party doesn't run candidates, your fears will never be realized. However, there seems to be a strong possibility that the Republicans will regain control of both houses in the next election, which will set up the 2016 presidential election that will be *very* interesting. Until we know who the candidates turn out to be in the middle of 2016 it's anybody's guess who wins, but w/o an incumbent and the "historical" Obama hype, one can easily see how the White House will change party hands. So, get prepared to deal with January 2017 and having zero say.. It could happen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It started out as "Freedom Works", a group against crony capitalism and scot-free bailouts for bankers without responsibility or prosecution.
I was on the list. The messages then started getting weirder and more aggressively right wing and hysterical in ways distinct from its original purpose. I dug around and found it was Dick Armey who was responsible for the hijacking. It was intentional and by a powerful insider. I removed my name from their list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey
The positions matter less than ending the corruption.
How about we do that with "Term Limits" ? Make it so you can server no more than 12 years in total between both houses, which is 2 senate terms or 6 house terms. After that, you go home.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Drug violence, caused by its illegality, is the primary cause of the children trying to get across the border. Legalize drugs and take the violence out of them.
Not only that, but consider that criminals in Colorado (and I'm sure Washington as well, but I can't speak for that) still consider marijuana an illicit substance worthy of criminal acts to attain and sell. We used to have the street folk in Denver hustling pot. That was their income. Now, nobody buys pot from the thugs on Colfax, because they can just go into a store and buy it. As a result, that guy on the corner of Colfax and Logan that always relied on drugs to put some food in his mouth now has to resort to other means.
What is he experienced with and what does he know? Drugs. Instead of hustling on the corner, though, now he is looking at maybe robbing a dispensary ... because hey! All that pot is worth a lot of money!
We're coming full circle here soon. I enjoy having pot be legal. What I don't enjoy is the nonsense of "legalization will reduce crime." That's just not so, since those criminals still view drugs as their choice of income and will commit the same (or potentially worse) crimes in the name of drugs. However, with enough time, the "Invisible Hand" will make its way to illicit pot dealers and they will find their market is dried up.
Now, had it never been illegal in the first place, I'm guessing we wouldn't be seeing this problem to the extent we have. It's just that the goal of reducing crime by legalizing drugs is going to take long enough to have an effect that it shouldn't be what we consider the main point of drug legalization. Our children's children will see the benefit of reduced crime from legalization, but we certainly won't. Criminals have relied on illegal drugs for so long that they are not willing to accept legalization at face value. To them, it's still the profitable item they have always dealt and they will continue the same criminal acts to attain it as they have in the past.
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Single-party rule is generally bad, but doesn't spell doom - Bush didn't run the country into the ground, and neither did Obama.
What I was referring to is specifically Tea Party, or rather the extreme socially conservative thing that it turned into. Those people, I want nowhere near the government.
From a Canadian perspective, the Democrats are radically to the right, and the Tea Party is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun or Mussolini.
Attila the Hun was right wing? How so?
Mussolini was anything but a conservative right winger...
Finally, what on earth do they teach you people up north about history these days..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Actually demographics in that district have been shifting towards democrats for quite a while and Cantor's winning edge in the general election against the democrats has been dropping.
58%, 59%, 63%, 76%, 69%(the first year he won office).
Extending the trend - it looks like Cantor "would" have won by about 55/45 against a hypothetical democrat. Brak seems more likely to get votes over 50% but under 52%. That's a really close race. Which means after thinking about it more, I'm more sure that the district is in play now.
And the state as a whole elected a democratic senator for the first time in decades in 2008 by a 60% margin and then relected him in 2012. So the state is apparently drifting left.
I think Brak has a reasonable chance. But I also think the Tea Party may have just won the primary but lost the election.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You on the other hand are not clever.... Too bad you use AC to post so I don't know who to ignore from now on...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you think so, I'll change it to socialist when addressing you then... Unless you prefer communist?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So we reward the criminals for coming across the border? No. We make is harder for them to live here. Use our resources for our citizens and those who are here as legal residents. Illegals cost my state over a billion dollars in what we receive in revenue from them compared to what we spend on them. That is a billion dollars that is not used for our schools, police/fire, roads, inspections, certifications, wildlife preservation/regulation, etc., and even to govern... Those who are here legally deserve the assistance, those who are here illegally do not.
Make crime worse? Criminals (the illegal immigrants) come across the border and then suddenly start following the law? They broke laws to be here, so there is already an established contempt of the law. Yes, illegal alien criminals may ~continue~ to violate the laws and increase the crime rate. If we lower the number of illegal alien criminals in the country, we could lower the crime rate. Let them legally care for themelves in THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
If they want to live here, there are proper processes to follow for visitation, residency, or citizenship.
Procrastination; I'll think of a sig tomorrow.
So you are OK with the Social liberal agenda where we are regulated on things as stupid as how big of a soft drink we can buy at 7-11?
I think you are confused. The Tea Party is about LESS intrusion of government in your life, both in taxes and regulation. So personally, I don't think your personal freedoms are at risk with them in control. You would find yourself with more freedom, with a smaller government which taxed you less.
Now if you are talking about social programs SPENDING then, yea, they would reduce this kind of spending, but I don't see them out to starve people or deny people who cannot work a living. But you have to admit that the government cannot be the supporter of those who could work, but choose not too, which is a huge portion of what we are spending on social programs.
I think liberals actually fear having to take personal responsibility for themselves when they say things like you say. People have an amazing ability to make it work when they are motivated. Well, I say we make it clear THEY are responsible for their own life, and stand back and see what they can accomplish. Liberals seem to fear that everybody will make the wrong choices or something. Now if you LET people be lazy, they will be, but if you expect them to provide for themselves, people will generally make out better than what welfare does for them now.
Finally, everybody would be better off if we didn't have to pay such high tax rates. There would be more economic activity each time a dollar cycled though when there was less scraped off the top by taxes. Plus, all the business that went overseas to chase lower tax rates might actually return if you cut taxes, not right away, but eventually. How bad is that?
No, I think you fear the wrong party here..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Have you been to DC? Chicago? Oh.. Sorry, Obviously not.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
CO2 is not pollution, it is a naturally occurring gas ...
Which is why I'm sure the passengers on board MH730 are just fine and dandy. It crashed in to the ocean folks! The ocean is made up of WATER!!! WATER IS NOT A POISON ... It's a naturally occurring liquid which is a key component in life and contributes to the greening of the planet. And it's in almost everything we drink.
DO THE RESEARCH GUYS!!!
So you are OK with the Social liberal agenda where we are regulated on things as stupid as how big of a soft drink we can buy at 7-11?
No, not really. I'm libertarian on social issues (including gun control), but far left on economic policies (basically, I support negative income tax or universal basic income guarantee).
However, the things that social conservatives want to regulate are more intrusive than the things that liberals want to regulate, in general. I'll take a guy who wants to ban large soda drinks over the guy who wants to ban abortions any day. Both are malicious control freaks, but one will do more evil than the other.
I think you are confused. The Tea Party is about LESS intrusion of government in your life, both in taxes and regulat
Well, reading this particular guy's platform on his website, it sounds like he wants to ban abortions and same-sex marriages. That's quite a lot of government intrusion.
I continue to believe the madness of the Tea Party is due to the lack of party discipline. Can you imagine the Republican Party running on a unified Tea Party platform?
What's the solution to health care? Vote against Obamacare hundreds of times and then shutdown the government.
What's the solution to illegal immigration? Build a fence then maybe deport everyone?
What to do about global warming? All the scientists are wrong so dig more coal.
The problem with the system is they don't have to deal with reality. Their Obamacare shenanigans are a perfect example. An obvious question to their current approach is "ok, you somehow accomplish a repeal, then what?". But because the party couldn't lock into an alternative plan even if they wanted to, there's no alternative approach to evaluate. As a result they never have to answer the question and can just claim the alternative will fix everything. The AGW denialism is a side effect of this. They're so used to bad populist arguments that an elite opinion from scientists is hard to swallow.
Without party discipline only hyper-partisans bother with the individual arguments and they're the ones who choose the candidates. If you want the parties to reflect voters then you need to enforce strong discipline. When that happens the Democrats and Republicans will need to choose one cohesive platform to market to the country as a whole. Do that and you'll have a platform that's reasonable and well thought out. Keep the current system and they still vote as a block, the block just ends up being run by nuts like the Tea Party and Fox News.
I stole this Sig
Welcome to Slashdot.
Where people with very fragile opinions revel in the ability to silence others
Sorry, but there were plenty of scientists who denounced Gally as wrong as well. This is because he was a giant fucking asshole to everyone, including his contemporaries, and completely fucking wrong on quite a few subjects, meteors being but one. Had Gally not been such a giant asshole and also decided that snidely insulting the pope was a bad career move, the church never would have put him on trial in the first place, let alone successfully.
Term limits are bad. So are age limits; agism is just simply bigotry!
I used to like the idea but I've grown up since that time. The reality is that an entrenched corrupt crook is not alone; they have a large network of corruption supporting them. If you give them the boot, the network puts up a replacement; there never is a shortage of corrupt selfish lawyers! Then you have gerrymandering of house seats which has kept that from being democratic (as in democracy) for quite some time; you can't fix that with limits - any nutcase or idiot can get in for life until they break a law and then leave "to spend time with family. Michele Bachmann being a recent example.
On the other hand, you have great politicians who are reasonable honest or at least good at supporting their voters and those people are RARE especially in today's broken system. They shouldn't be lost when you are lucky enough to find one - despite that; some powerful people won't take it and these types end up in "accidents" or are just assassinated. So even without a term limit, if they are extremely effective and popular (assuming the voting system works, they'll be populist) they have a good chance of getting killed by the corrupt before retirement. Bad luck does them in as well-- you could be perfect but if you have a rare disaster and you didn't stock up on gear you shouldn't ever need to buy...
As far as all the other issues... those should be addressed in other areas. Trying to fix everything with 1 policy is a foolish move - you can't make term limit policy solve all the other problems.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Again, it's my observation that the bulk of the inflammatory or doublespeak speech comes from the right, rather than from the left. "Obamacare", "Class warfare", "Job creators", "tax-and-spend Democrats", "job-killing", "Death panels", etc.
I'd like to know what the positions of the Republicans are. They're so loaded with these words that I really don't know what their positions are.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That would be the definition of best-ever Congress, then.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Hey... Citation was requested... I provided.
A citation was requested, but you did not provide any citation worthy of consideration.
No idea to whom the website belongs.
It doesn't matter to whom the website belongs. What matters is whether the citation is either to a recognised (eg ISI listed) peer reviewed journal appropriate to the subject matter, or to some similar source of data carrying due authority and credibility. I mean a citation to someone's slashdot comment, for instance, would hardly be admissible would it?
Right this moment - the global warming appears to have leveled-off. These are simply facts... no parlor tricks here.
Just for a quick check throw the yearly anomalies (here's the GISSTEMP data) into R and see if the slope is flat. Here ... I'll make it easy for you to get stared (but do improve on this and double check my numbers for the likely transcription error %-) ) :
year <- c(1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
anom <- c(33, 46, 62, 41, 41, 53, 62, 61, 52, 67, 60, 63, 50, 60, 67, 55, 58, 61)
Then plot it and draw a line of fit. (For interest you can check the correlation using cor(year, anom).)
plot(year, anom)
fit <- lm(anom ~ year)
abline(fit)
Does that even look flat to you?!
Now given that this is part of a curve which is showing an unequivocal rise over the last 50 years, let alone the entire record, please devise a test to demonstrate that these 18 years show any significant "levelling off" of the long-term trend. And then get back to me with the code. Hell no, get back to the scientific community, with your code ... fame awaits you!
The real question you ought to ask however, is what relevance so short a period (15, 16, 17 or even 18 years) has to data which is not only extremely noisy, but is known to be subject to multi-decadal cycles? If someone asks you to look at climate data over a period of less than at least half a century ... grab your wallet tightly!
Facts? No parlor tricks? Having examined the data for yourself, do you still believe that?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Shit is not pollution, it is a naturally occurring substance which is a key component for healthy plants and key to photosynthesis, which contributes to the greening of the planet. As well as the vegetation which I rely on for food. So obviously the more shit the better, perhaps in your drinking water.
It's interesting reading up on the history of the germ theory of disease and the amount of denial there was over the idea that shitting i your drinking water led to some horrible outbreaks of disease. Much of the denial was economic, expensive to have sewers, and laziness, its hard to wash after wiping your bum. Then of course the whole idea of little invisible things that kill just doesn't pass the common sense test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I suspect there is more interest in this than in you whining about how you don't care.
We don't care that you don't care.
I didn't whine about how I didn't care, nor did I ever say that I didn't care.
I asked how it was "news for nerds." Because unless I'm missing something, it isn't.
Now STFU.
Yeah. Thanks for that intelligent commentary.
Give out work permits to Mexicans, Ecuadorians and who ever else wants to work in the fields. The employers pay for them to come into the country, pay them at least minimum wage, look after their housing etc, and when the work is finished, pay their trip home. Prices will rise somewhat but its a rich country and can afford to pay workers a realistic wage to work. It's what we've been doing in Canada for a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Science ALWAYS remains unsettled. If you run across someone who says that some particular scientific theory is unchallengably correct, you know they aren't a scientist of any quality, but merely a true believer.
OTOH, the vast perponderence of the evidence says that global warming is happening, and that humans are a major contributing factor.
Experiments and be validated. Measurements can be taken and validated. Theories are merely consistent with the known evidence or not. (Generally not, even when we're talking about things like the standard model, much less climate science.)
But people want certainty. It's a wrong thing to expect, but if you can't offer it to them, they'll listen to some self-interested demagogue. And this is especially true if the most likely projection suggests that they take actions that will be expensive or inconvenient.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, the primary evidence is that Cantor was a very powerful, well-established (13 years in congress) lockstep republican, someone in an excellent position to get things done for Virginia citizens (presuming they are republican things, of course), someone one step (one that was seen as inevitable) from Speaker of the House, which is 2nd in line for succession to the presidency, and Virginia just replaced him with a fringe candidate who has no power to do anything for Virginia citizens, seems to be roundly clueless (humorously, in answer to the question "whether there should be a minimum wage", Brat responded "I don’t have a well-crafted response on that one"), will be a junior member in anything he manages to get attached to, and further, is likely to be marginalized to the committee for painting parking spots.
So... either the Virginia electorate is batshit crazy, bottom-feeder stupid, or... the replacement was intended to disenfranchise the republican side of Virginia politics.
I don't think they're crazy. I don't think they're stupid. That leaves an intentional, well thought out move. But from the republican POV, that cannot be. Hence,the move is being made by some other force. There is only one other force: the democrats. And is there an advantage for them? Are you kidding? Unseating the speaker of the house?
I'd say the evidence is pretty compelling.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The reason Americans have such incredible reelection rates, given the least popular congress in history, is gerrymandering. That is the practice of elected politicians deciding exactly who is going to be allowed to vote for them next time around.
Oh, please. There are laws against that, which is why in my state we never resort to those tricks.
1. You're obviously not a Christian. Extremism does not define the movement.
2. The "he'd totally be OK with using the power and tax money of the government to snuff out anything it feels is un-religious" claim is an old canard. The religion of Socialism is every bit as dangerous, in fact more so, as it is not assumed to be unconstitutional.
3. But back to the beginning.
"The Republican Party leadership is Republican all the way through."
Oh my. The current Republican Party leadership acts indistiguishiably from the Democratic Party leadership. I cannot think of an example to the contrary. Offer one, please. Oh, wait, they tried to fight the debt ceiling increase, if that counts as a fight. So forgive me, in that instance they were inept.
"Your problem is that you have awoken to the realization that Republicans aren't truly Conservative"
Hmmm. I'm awakened to the reality that the Republican leadership isn't truly Conservative. The membership I'm not so sure of, but the Party is indeed a big tent.
"and that it's impossible to be both an authoritarian theocrat social "conservative" and Conservative at the same time."
Which is why I am only one - as many, no most Republicans are. You both overestimate the theocratic minority, and focus on them as if they are actually in power. From here, it seems you have quite a fear of them. You'll get over that, I fear.
Point #3 stands out. The complaints of much of the rank-and-file Republicans I have a chance to talk with focuses on the apparent cooperation the Republican leadership seems bent on achieving with the Democratic leadership in policies that would focus Conservatives in opposition to the current republican leadership.
You are, sadly, deluded. Go back to MSNBC and keep studying. It works to my benefit.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Sen John Tester (MT), Rep Heath Shuler (NC), Rep Dan Boren, Rep Mike Thompson.
Read Daily Kos sometime and try to advocate either position there. See how receptive the audience is. Oh, don't like the blogosphere? Fair enough. Explain to me why one of my United States Senators did a complete role reversal on gun rights after she got the seat, going from an A+ NRA rating to an F, voting against legislation as harmless as allowing firearms in checked baggage on trains. That would be Senator Gillibrand if you can't figure it out.
have advocated modest regulations.
Banning an entire class of firearms is not "modest regulation".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wrong. We are simply attempting to find a new equilibrium point.
Immigration is interfering with that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"The forced movement to the right is only going to mean less compromise..."
Exactly. Because the Democrats never see the need to compromise. They will plow ahead with their agenda (as always) and the media will spin it in their favor.
I was very disappointed that the Democrats did try to compromise on health care reform back when they had the votes to push through whatever they wanted. The removal of the public payer option (ie let people pay into the medicare system if they wanted) was an error. Instead they compromised and passed a marginal reform that still has "the other side" out of their minds with woe. If the other side is going to piss and moan about socialized medicine no matter what, why didn't they actually pass a socialized medicine bill?
Anyhow, from my viewpoint, the Dems have done a lot of compromising, to little effect. Probably however, I am viewing the world through a biased filter. I do feel that pretty much everyone is being pretty ineffective in actually working towards reasonable solutions to problems rather than spending all their efforts demonizing the "other side".
I think what you want is a pro-market, anti-capitalism party. Capitalism doesn't just mean free markets; it means those with more capital can exploit those with less. If you want a competitive, non-monopolistic or -oligopolistic, genuinely free market, you need to get rid of capitalism; that is to say, you need to protect the smallest players in the market from being held down and exploited by the bigger players. You need to make sure that all gains are made and all advantaged held through the continued production of genuine value, not just by rent-seeking and choice-limiting behaviors.
I agree that the left thinks that's impossible to do without forced wealth redistribution, but most of the right does too; and having some party backing that angle, and investigating and addressing the myriad ways that capitalists make the market less free, would be great.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Some dealers I knew said things like: if they leagalize drugs I'd have to find something else illegal to do. They were simply criminal-minded.
But the advantage of legalization is for the user who just wants to get his medicine without having to deal with criminals. Trying to buy pot or harder drugs led to violent incidences in my life in a way that going to a store to buy alcohol never did.
Sure you may still have some bootleggers. But the violent drug cartels will disappear because their market will be gone. The might become corporate crooks, but they won't be kidnapping and killing over territory.
I'd like to quote the great philosopher Nelson Muntz, who so eloquently said:
HA HA!!
Republican Party hacks are hereby on notice that the conservatives you depend on to get elected can and will remove you from office if you displease us.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Don't forget about the massive amount of drugs. Birth control, antidepressants and other crap passes through the system untouched and fully active.
Why would they want to? Even after the purge of the so-called "Blue Dogs" in recent years, Democrats haven't drunken the Kool-Aid in anywhere near the same way that the Tea Party folks have.
Most of the die-hard "radicals" of the left find Obama to be milquetoast at best and are more impassioned by the likes of Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren. But they still voted for Obama in '12 because the Tea Party was the alternative.
It's gotten to the point that the only real definition of a Democrat is "not a Teabagger." So why go after "Washington insiders" for its own sake when said insiders are doing things like keeping the Civil Rights Act on the books and not defaulting on federal debts?
What that tells me is that the voters are the assholes. Naturally the politician will follow suit to win an election. We know that people like Feinstein, Boxer, Hatch, McCain, Cruz, etc, etc. are assholes. But what kind of asshole does a person have to be to vote for them and give them a lifetime career in this business? They are people who are only looking for a piece of the pie. I do not sympathize with them in any way. In fact they illustrate all that is wrong with majority rule.
I'm glad to see this guy thrown out, but it won't amount to a hill of beans with the replacement being the same thing on steroids. Game changer? Only if both democrats and republicans are tossed out en masse.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... the Tea Party is apparently dragging the republican party to the right of center ...
As a European, I find it is constant struggle to keep in mind just how extreme American politics are; to me "left" means "socialism", which isn't generally seen as a swear word either, just a description of one side of the political spectrum. And "right" means - well, not exactly "capitalism", probably more like "libertarianism", if you will. Marx, for example, was not really against capitalism as such, only against the particularly nasty, unbridled form of capitalism that was prevalent at the time.
So, from what I can see here on /. it looks like the consensus is that political parties really are just like some sort of business. What the party stands for is more like its 'core business', and you can change it, if it is more profitable - if "the market requires it". At them moment it is fashionable to be against immigrants, so lets try to market that brand...
It's quite sad, really. When I grew up, we thought it was all about having principles, things you really believed in as true, which you had to fight for and try to convince others about. It seems what used to be moral leadership is now more about "strategic branding".
Yes, that is what we want. It produces sane, popular (or at least noncontroversial) legislation and functional government that can respond to changing conditions effectively.
We've already seen that all it produces is a bunch of scumbags who want to violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.
Also, wishing for an elite ruling class doesn't seem very principled to me.
Electing a bunch of strongly principled politicians with differing views leads to gridlock and disaster.
Good. As we've seen, all the government wants to do is infringe upon our rights (TSA, NSA, free speech zones, protest permits, constitution-free zones, stop-and-frisk, etc.). That would not be a disaster.
What we have right now is a system that encourages the violation of our individual liberties, or 'compromises' them away; I'd rather have gridlock.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think can sum up your position as "Things the left-wingers and left wing propaganda" tell you you want passed.
See how I can marginalize your position like you did mine?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
The 97% claim has been refuted and it is not hard disprove either.
It is not 97% of scientists, it is 97% of PAPERS written on CLIMATE CHANGE. How many scientists that represents is unclear.
The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat...). It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position.
They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.
So only 1.6% actually support AGW with actual numbers and not opinion.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
It's so ridiculous when climate change deniers point out the Antarctic sea ice thing. That is happening despite record temperatures in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere. There is no doubt that Antarctica is warming at tremendous rates, and if that trend continues the increase in continental ice will obviously be a short-term phenomenon.
Congressman Cantor was voted out of office for a candidate that proudly demonstated that his head was rammed further up his ass than Cantor's was; amazing.
And for a party that's so homophobic, they sure like penetrating their own asses a lot.
Virginia has an open primary. It wouldn't be the first time crossover voters affected the outcome.
Maybe. But you can barely get Dems to vote in non-prez years, let alone primaries in non-prez years.
Dude. Chill. Sounds like you've done considerable research on the subject and I salute you for that. I wouldn't consider myself a 'climate scientist'... or even a statistician, but we have a saying where I'm from: "Figures don't lie but liars will figure." Yes, indeed, no doubt, I do not argue against that there has been a warming trend. But I've seen these long-term plots now in quite a few places here or there...from different sources... they all seem to be in basic agreement. One doesn't have to be a genius or perform all kinds of complicated mathematical analysis plotting trends to see that YES, the global temperature rise has indeed leveled off for the past 15-17ish years. This should not even be arguable... but it means just that and only that. Anybody with any kind of sense knows that we're only talking about 15ish years out of a much longer time scale. You can plot long-term trends all you want and you'd be correct, mathematically! It still doesn't negate the FACT that there hasn't been any observed warming recently. The only thing that continues to show a warming trend at this point is your imaginary plot... which doesn't match up with reality. This 'statistical noise', if it continues, will be knocking on the door of 'trend' in the not too distant future... so I guess we'll see.
So, a principled approach that protects the defenseless is a problem for you? You *do* understand that those who are pro-life out of principle are not a threat to *your* life or liberty? They are pro-life because they believe they are trying to protect life, not squash liberty. Again, I think your fearing them is inappropriate, unless you can come up with a logical argument that addresses how unrestricted abortions are a good thing.
On the Gay Marriage thing, personally I don't care about the issue, in as much as it is not my business. The problem is that the LGBT community has forced it to be my business by demanding their "natural right" to marry who or what they want and get it legally recognized by the state. The *real* goal has little to do with marriage, but has more to do with forcing those with private moral objections into having to accept the life style or face legal troubles. Their point is not about being "married" but about legally forcing acceptance. That is why we get court rulings that force some baker to make wedding cakes for weddings he morally objects to being involved with. So, in reality, this issue is about the reduction in liberty, and is being forced upon me. Where I didn't care about the two dudes living two doors up before (what they did on their property was there business) now they want me to be legally forced to acknowledge (and thus approve) in behavior I find morally wrong so on that basis I object. My freedoms are being infringed. Now if they want to call this "civil unions" or some such, and drop the pushing of making their life style choice my business, I have no issues. But that's not how this is going right now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I fully understand the argument of the article to which you linked... and i'll let it stand on its own merits. I'll only address your assertion that my own commentary contained contradictions: Bull-crap. It would appear so if you are conflating the 2 different data sets as representing the same thing... (short-term vs. long-term)... they don't. The short-term data indeed shows zero warming trend for the past 15-17ish years. FACT. Not arguable. The long-term data does... even though the recent observed data points don't match up with what the trend says they should be... there is still an upward trend. The point is... We've got quite a few more years of actual data from when the IPCC first published its report (and model predictions)... The data shows their models weren't just wrong... they were HORRIBLY wrong - way, way overestimated. That doesn't mean there won't be any more warming in the future... it just means that the long-term trend plot (at present) is nowhere near where they said it would be at this point in time. In other words - the models considered where we are right now to be way outside of the realm of possibility... therefore one should carefully consider how much faith one invests in these models' ability to predict the future.
One of my best friends is a flaming liberal leftist (my description). He runs about Texas with Obama bumper stickers from both elections, and although we politically disagree on just about everything, there is one thing we both recognize is that both sides have their rhetoric, pet sayings and a lot of it is demeaning. Where he does NOT object to being called a liberal, progressive and such (because that's what he is) I don't go around bashing his head in with "Well you are a commie pinko!" because he's not, even if his ideas logically are the same. He generally refrains from calling me a "teabagger" and other such nonsense because we both enjoy intelligent discussion and thoughtful debate on the issues.
So you your comment, I see the other side engaged in similar behavior and you don't seem to see it. I ask you why? I don't discount the rhetoric issue, because if you *think* about it, the 10 second sound bite is what you get in today's media so if the nightly news is all you get, the over the top rhetoric is all you will hear.
I'll give you a few of the sound bites from your side "War on Women", "Dirty air and water", "Want Children to Starve", "the party of NO", "Homophobic", "Raciest" etc. None of these are remotely true, They don't represent the principles or position taken by the party or anybody in it, yet they get bantered about in liberal circles like the weather forecast.
So.. Grow up a bit and actually think about what's really being said on both sides. Yea it takes a bit of effort to get past the sound bites, but it's worth the effort to be informed. I don't expect you to see things my way, but at least we can talk about the issues without breaking down into the verbal equivalent of bashing each others' heads in.
BTW, your choice of objectionable terms are perhaps a bit over the top, but in general are true descriptions of the Democrats positions, or more to fact the RESULT of their actions. "Class Warfare" is an accurate description of tactics being used to paint Republicans as just an exclusive party of "rich white men" which it is obviously not. Obamacare is what the Democrats called the ACA when it was popular, now they want to back away from it because it's not popular. "Tax and Spend" describes the mentality of Democrats and their propensity to spend money on social programs and raise taxes, which they really do. "Job Killing" is a description of a side effect of various Democratic policies (Obamacare, raising taxes on the rich, minimum wage hike all do that). "Death Panels" are a necessary feature of ANY government run healthcare program that you intend to run on a budget and just because you don't like the term, doesn't mean the charge is untrue.
So which side is using the most double speak? Who's pot is the dirtiest? I don't think it's the right....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Another issue with a broad consensus in the electorate that's soundly ignored by the political establishment is non-interventionism. People are sick of interventionism, be they left, right, or center. The establishment ignores the electorate on this issue because of a combination of perceived economic interest, bureaucratic inertia in the national security apparatus, and entangling alliances set up after WW2 specifically to prevent an American retrenchment.
You forgot the very large campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex. I believe that either Martin Marietta or Northrup Grumman is the #1 contributor to political campaign funds.
So, a principled approach that protects the defenseless is a problem for you? You *do* understand that those who are pro-life out of principle are not a threat to *your* life or liberty? They are pro-life because they believe they are trying to protect life, not squash liberty. Again, I think your fearing them is inappropriate, unless you can come up with a logical argument that addresses how unrestricted abortions are a good thing.
The logical argument is really simple. Fetuses aren't persons. As such, they do not possess human rights. Restricting abortion means restricting what people can do to their bodies (and since fetus is not a person, there's no other body involved - it's just the mother). Therefore, it is against my liberty.
On the Gay Marriage thing, personally I don't care about the issue, in as much as it is not my business. The problem is that the LGBT community has forced it to be my business by demanding their "natural right" to marry who or what they want and get it legally recognized by the state. The *real* goal has little to do with marriage, but has more to do with forcing those with private moral objections into having to accept the life style or face legal troubles. Their point is not about being "married" but about legally forcing acceptance.
You come up with a lot of "real goals", completely ignoring the fact that state-recognized marriage has legal benefits. Ultimately, that is what the goal of that fight is - to secure for married homosexuals the same rights that married heterosexuals enjoy already, in terms of taxation, inheritance, visitation rights and many other things.
they want me to be legally forced to acknowledge (and thus approve)
Logic fail. Acknowledge doesn't imply approval, only acknowledgement.
Now if they want to call this "civil unions" or some such, and drop the pushing of making their life style choice my business, I have no issues.
For one thing, it's called "separate but equal", and we tried that before. Didn't work so well.
For another, it sounds like you're basically taking a lot of offense over a word. But I don't see why it's the government's business to ensure that the word is only used in such a way that you find morally appropriate. You don't hold a monopoly on it - no-one does. If it irks you to call something "marriage" that you personally disapprove of, then don't call it that (similarly, if you have a problem with treating blacks as people, you can go right ahead calling them "nigger monkey" - we have free speech, so legally you can, and some people do - just don't be surprised at the reactions that you get). Your favorite One True Church is not forced to conduct same-sex marriages, either. The state is, but the state is meant to be separate from the church, so your complaint is not even relevant.
In any case, thanks for making my point about what Tea Party is today. It's funny that you guys call themselves libertarians and think that you're about "less government intrusion" and "more freedom", when you're basically on a hardcore social conservative platform with a government small enough to fit into people's bedrooms.
This race it means a lot, this is the House majority leader, with a lot of seniority.
If nothing else, it impacts his home state, better or worse.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
That's right. And neither will the Democratic Party last once the ignoramuses on the LEFT realize that *they* are *not* stuck with the usual "Tweedle Dee vs Tweedle Dum" conundrum---the same scenario that led most frigtards (such as the above commenter) to believe we had to choose between Mitt and, uh, Dimwit. Btw, how's *that* working out for you?
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
Actually, the "evidence" is that for the past 15 years, the earth has *not* been warming. But, hey, enjoy your fantasy.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
"About a hundred years of progress" would be back to Jim Crow laws, and before women suffrage.
You can hope?
That's the problem, isn't it? Both parties are now worthless. E.g., we need the government to live within its means. Do we tax more or spend less (spoiler: both)? In a functional democracy we'd have 2 parties that both governed in the nation's interest and fought to achieve the goal, arguing only over which of those 2 to do (the adversarial process would yield a reasonable compromise, one hopes). Instead we have 2 parties that want to hand as much cash to their supporters as they possibly can before the whole thing collapses, and only argue about which supporters get the loot!
There are many more issues where the need for action is clear, the best path is some compromise between absolutist positions, any compromise would be better than nothing, but instead we just accelerate the problem. Both parties are broken, but change to a party only comes when it's losing. The GOP has a chance for a little progress before it takes power in the 2014 elections, at which point any change will stop until they lose again. Maybe in 2015 the Dems can start listening a bit more until the next switch.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I really think the GOP has a strong future if it can become the "pro-capitalism, anti-big-corp" party.
And who is going to donate the billions dollars necessary for a successful campaign for a party dedicated to letting you fail if you don't measure up?
Sure, there are the odd individuals who are willing to simply take their chances. But once one has "made it", the next thing is to protect your gains. In other words, why on earth would moneyed individuals or successful companies donate money to promote a system that makes them *less* secure?
Such idiologies only had a chance before it took so much money to win an election. Now, you *must* court the wealthy to have a chance. Your only choice is which moneyed demographic you choose to promote.
Leadership is a thing. That means doing what's right for the people you represent, even when it's somewhat unpopular with them at first - without being aloof and refusing to explain why you're right! That was the huge problem we had with the healthcare non-debate. Politicians fled from town halls, wouldn't explain the bill, wouldn't explain the particulars of why it was better for everyone, it was just "we must to something, and this is some thing, so we're doing it". If a politician has a sensible explanation that goes into details, even if don't agree with it, at least it shows he's thinking about something other than contributors. And if his logic leads to abject failure, we'll have reason to reject the same argument in the future, rather than everything being "red team vs blue team, what do issues have to do with it?"
The press of course has a real role to play there, one they're utterly failing at, to remind people that the issues are substantive and demand logical explanation from both sides (but of course screaming talking-point soundbites at each other gets more viewers, so that's what we get).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The difference was that 150 years ago, we were largely argrarian and if you didn't work you starved to death. Now we have food stamps, welfare, section 8 housing, Medicaid and every other form of welfare available. If you want to advocate removing all forms of welfare and totally opening the borders, we have something to discuss. Until then, it's a different environment.
I'm not necessarily arguing for completely open borders, but there are other ways to tackle the welfare issue. For example, make it so that only citizens are entitled to the entire scope of welfare programs (this is already true to some extent). It takes five years to go from green card to citizenship. Heck, it could even be a gradual process whereby the person starts with a work visa that entitles them to no benefits whatsoever (already true today - ironically, H1Bs actually pay the corresponding taxes, despite not being entitled to any of the associated benefits), and then progress to various stages of naturalization, at first getting only the unconditional right to reside in the country, and only then, over time, various other benefits, until full citizenship is acquired.
The problem is that right now, even getting a work visa is very hard. And that has nothing to do with welfare, and everything with labor market protectionism.
Also, so long as the flow of labor across borders is severely restricted, you need to compensate with tariffs or some other similar mechanisms on the flow of goods that this labor produces. When you don't, you get the current situation with cheap outsourcing, because there are few hurdles to bringing goods from China to USA, but a lot of hurdles to bringing labor. Do you think that an average worker on a Chinese plant wouldn't love to work in US and getting paid the US wage? Heck, he'd move in an instant if he could. But because he cannot, corporations can exploit that situation to their profit by using his cheap labor, but selling its product in a first-world market for first-world prices (where such cheap labor is outright illegal) - and pocketing the difference.
Libertarian
You're joking right? The timid discussion of decriminalization of drugs by Democrats is barely noticeable over shrill cry to ban black military style rifles every time someone is killed with a handgun.
A libertarian who is against open borders is a hypocrite who believes that free market (for labor only - not for goods) stops at those borders.
False. A libertarian can be against open borders when the welfare state will provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education for anybody who comes to this country whether they work for it or not.
Dismantle the welfare state, and most libertarian would support open borders. Having both is unsustainable.
And Democrats are for importing cheap unskilled labor because we need to provide opportunity to those poor impoverished Mexicans and South Americans, but are against offshoring to China and India because they TOOK OUR JOBS!
Both sides are wrong on that one.
A libertarian should be against welfare state and for open borders, then.
I never said that Democrats are right on this one. For that matter, they don't even have a coherent stance on it at all.
A libertarian perspective is borders open in both directions, with free flow of goods and labor. If you have one but not the other (as we do now), your economy is skewed, and large corporations will cash in on that disparity. It's not a free market.
Actually I'm quite proud of my MN state government who recently went through and culled a lot of old laws. We need more of that. Programmers go back and optimize all the time, the law is just as complex, and the whole thing needs to be reviewed from time to time to ensure it works as expected.
http://www.twincities.com/loca...
Putting aside your historical ignorance, and blinders that are letting you mistake the fruits of the past decade for those of another three, you're a fool if you think replacing your Congressmen with people like this guy is going to improve the situation.
I don't, and nor am I historically ignorant. This guy is an idiot; I never said I liked him.
I didn't say anything about a ruling class, unless you think that legislative experience and ruling class amount to the same thing.
When you only let in select people based on arbitrary standards, then you're going to end up with career politicians without principles; that's the status quo.
You are a fool if you think that's all the government has been up to or all that it does. We're the strongest country in the world economically, politically, and militarily in large part because of the excellent work done by the U.S. federal government.
The economy and power matter far less to me than freedom. I have to commend them on their excellent ability to start pointless wars, though.
You are the problem.
You have no idea who I vote for, fool. I don't vote for either Republicans or Democrats, because they're worthless scumbags. I vote on principle. I vote for third party candidates who don't want to violate the constitution or our fundamental liberties.
Despite all the paranaoia and hyperbole, we are freer now than we have ever been in this country. Grow up and get some perspective.
No, you get some perspective. I can name of dozens of serious constitutional and rights violations occurring at this very minute. If what you care about is the economy and bullying other countries with military might, then you are shallow.
"The land of the free and the home of the brave" values freedom above all else. The fact that we're supposedly 'freer' than before is irrelevant, because the logic of "X is better than Y, so X is good!" is nonsensical; better != good, and our situation is still far from good.
If "freedom" means dysfunctional and ineffective government to you, save the rest of us the trouble and move to a third world country.
The government is very effective at infringing upon our individual liberties. Instead of oppressing select groups, they're now mainly trying to oppress everyone. Freedom, to me, means that the government isn't violating our fundamental liberties and the constitution. The political elite are doing just that right now. I think displacing them would be helpful, but not with people like this guy.
The reason we have things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, the NSA's spying, etc. is because we don't have enough people who stick to their principles. If having such people means gridlock, then I'm willing to make that 'sacrifice', and since freedom is what is important, you'd be a fool not to do the same.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The Tea Party may be taking all the credit for this, but the reality is is far more grim than any political insider is willing to admit: this has been the most unpopular Congress since the Do-Nothing Congress of 1947-49.
And if anyone paid attention to history, what happened then is what will happen this time, too. The incumbents are in the crosshairs.
Of course replacing Idjits unwilling to compromise with bigger idjits even less willing to compromise is a good thing for democracy.
I hope Tony Abbot is in his not able to comprehend the written word mode right now as he'd take comfort from the nutters apparently winning.
Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
I can't see it not happening eventually. The Republicans want it and the Democrats want it. Republicans because the people that donate to their party want cheap labor and the Democrats because everyone that migrates here from South of the border is eventually going to be a Democratic voter. The only thing holding the Republicans back is the people that actually vote in the elections will vote them out. They'll find a way though.
Dude. Chill. Sounds like you've done considerable research on the subject and I salute you for that.
It is not I who needs to chill. It is you who needs to put aside your emotion (and perhaps tribal affiliation) and examine at the data dispassionately.
Nothing in that post required "considerable research" (though trying proving that there has been any significant levelling off may well). The data is there, I gave you the link, the tools are there, I gave you the link for that as well, you are a geek (I presume): Where's the problem? Have a look. (And I would suggest, should you not want to mislead yourself, to pick as a starting point a year which is neither particularly hotter nor cooler than the trend).
One doesn't have to be a genius or perform all kinds of complicated mathematical analysis plotting trends to see that YES, the global temperature rise has indeed levelled off for the past 15-17ish years.
The temperatures have continued to rise. Yes the rate over the last decade and a half looks lower than the long term rate, however that is a meaningless observation. You would need to perform all kinds of complicated mathematical analysis to prove that the decrease in the rate of warming was in any way significant (giving even the weak statistical meaning to that term).
It still doesn't negate the FACT that there hasn't been any observed warming recently. The only thing that continues to show a warming trend at this point is your imaginary plot... which doesn't match up with reality.
It is a LIE that there hasn't been any observed warming recently. You have simply been misled. As you can clearly see, should you plot the actual data as I suggested, that period gives you a regression line with a positive slope.
However, it is tautological, that selecting from any data set, a number of data points which, given the set's variance, are too small to enable any significant effect to be demonstrated, will result in an inability to demonstrate any significant effect. So it is true that there has been no significant warming over the last decade and a half. But that observation is, as you so aptly put it, a "parlor trick."
Given that there are also various factors which should work against warming operative over that period (solar variation, the El Nino/La Nina cycle) one might even wonder, but for the fact that the period is also too short to show any significant cooling, why temperatures are apparently still increasing.
I have no idea what you are referring to as my "imaginary plot." Do you not understand that the plot I am helping you to draw is the very data you suggest shows a levelling off?
Have a look for yourself. It's not difficult. You only need to download R and run the code you have been given; checking for yourself, that the given anomalies match the actual data; improving on if by reference to the resources which exist for R programming; and thereby become informed.
Put not your faith in disinformation sites!
This 'statistical noise', if it continues, will be knocking on the door of 'trend' in the not too distant future... so I guess we'll see.
There's another question you can ask yourself with R: How many decades of continuous cooling or even just flat-lining temperatures would be required to negate the significance of the long term trend? My guess is, depending on the rate, that 5 to 8 decades should suffice. But that also requires real analysis.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
... to the vast majority now?
I think we need a citation for your assertion. And, no, you can't use the debunked "97% of climate scientist agree" piece.
You're a freedom-hating scumbag; you've made that clear. Move to North Korea, scum, as you clearly don't want to live in "the land of the free."
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
As I said, you are the problem.
And you?
The fact remains we are freer now than we have ever been. Anyone who thinks otherwise is totally ignorant of history. The fact is your list of rights violations, while some of them need to be dealt with, in comparison to the past 200 years largely consist of petty bullshit that has nothing to do with liberty, freedom, or the constitution except as crazed Randroids conceive it.
Yes, because blatant violations of the constitution and people's individual liberties are "petty." You've revealed yourself as the freedom hater that you are.
And again, your bullshit logic of "The past was worse, so stop complaining about the present!" is just that: bullshit. If a problem exists (which it does), it needs to be dealt with.
If you honestly believe one single Congressman is trying to oppress you, you are a moron.
The mass violation of the constitution and our individual liberties prove you wrong, you worthless scumbag.
TSA: whining that has nothing to do with freedom or the constitution; merely a modern inconvenience that spoiled travelers cry about.
Patriot Act: Not good, worth opposing, but not something to cry about.
Free speech zones: Better than we've ever had it. This is just new terminology for the same shit we've been doing since 1776. The difference is the government no longer feels justified, nor do we cheer them on, when they mow protestors down with bullets. We also don't have a Sedition Act anymore that lets us imprison our political enemies as your precious Founding Fathers did.
NSA spying: Does not actually infringe on any of your rights and has been going on since 1776 in different forms.
TSA: A violation of the fourth amendment.
Patriot Act: Again, mostly the fourth amendment.
Free speech zones: Blatant violation of the first.
NSA: Again, the fourth.
If you honestly believe that the TSA is merely an "inconvenience," then, again, you are a freedom-hating scumbag. It's a blatant violation of the fourth amendment and people's privacy. There's nothing you can do or link to that will justify having the government in airports searching everyone and forcing them through scanners. Not a single thing. Give up, you worthless authoritarian fuck.
Saying "They did similar things in the past!" doesn't change what these things are: Blatant violations of people's constitutional liberties; violations of the spirit of the constitution. No violation of the highest law of the land is petty; it should always be a huge concern to anyone who wants to live in a free country.
And the fact of the matter is, the type of spying (mass spying on people's communications without valid warrants or anything) the NSA is doing would have been explicitly prohibited had it been used against the founding fathers, like many other things were. So, it's a blatant of the constitution because it so obviously violates its spirit. But even if it didn't (Which it certainly does.), it wouldn't be anything that a truly free country would let happen, as it's an egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties.
Anyway, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want to live in a free country, and you'll tolerate the government having massive, exploitable powers even though governments throughout history have murdered hundreds of millions of people - including some at the hands of the US government. To call any of these issues petty or to say they're not rights violations is to misunderstand freedom and ignorantly admit that you believe the government is full of perfect little angels who could never abuse anyone or make mistakes, which is something history has disproved many millions of times over. Or maybe you just want a police state to make yourself free safe. Either way, have you thought of moving to North Korea?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sure, but that's orthogonal to democracy
Democracy is no virtue in and of itself. It's rather dependent on leadership to be more than looting the public treasury. That's the premise of a republic, after all: an attempt to get a better government than we deserve.
The decadent state of the press today is a reflection of the people's choices.
True enough, though arguably we're just going through the death throes of broadcast news and the birth pangs of blogging-based news.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, color me impressed. Well done Minnesota.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Perhaps you are right, but remember we've done this amnesty thing before, it didn't work out so well. So, where I'm not 100% opposed to this idea, I think there are prerequisites we need to get done first to make sure we don't have to do this ever again. If they come up with a plan that provides for viable border protection (a fence, wall or something that is effective) to be in place, where we have strict employment laws, systems and enforcement that make it extremely hard to employ workers who are not properly documented, and where we have PROOF positive that the measures have been implemented and are being enforced and maintained effectively. At that point, discussing the fate of those who are already here is something we can do. Until then? No sale, no amnesty.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Opposition to immigration is one of the few truly bipartisan things in the American electorate.
Got some numbers for that? Cantor's own district was for immigration reform...
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-poll-immigration-lose-107704.html
About 72 percent of registered voters in Cantor’s district polled on Tuesday said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” support immigration reform that would....allow undocumented residents without criminal backgrounds to gain legal status
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-poll-immigration-lose-107704.html
Many are. I personally wouldn't care who came to the US if it was a dog eat dog economy. Let everyone come. But that's not where we are, so immigration control it is.
I fully understand the argument of the article to which you linked...
FACT. Not arguable.
WRONG. You did not understand the argument of the article.
The data shows their models weren't just wrong... they were HORRIBLY wrong - way, way overestimated.
Hyperbole much?
therefore one should carefully consider how much faith one invests in these models' ability to predict the future.
That's plain FUD. You could just as well say one cannot invest faith in anything science produces, because our knowledge of science has been proven wrong and refined in the past. Repeatedly.
It is not the intent of the Tea Baggers to identify with the founding principles. Remember their appearance before the American people, shouting and screaming in order to SILENCE the discussions of Obamacare in the TownHall Rush? The really bad joke was their choice of name for themselves..until they learned the meaning of their self-identification.
"Skepticalscience.com" a Koch paid front? (www.sourcewatch.org use the search) No, I'm afraid I'll trust NOAA before Koch.
Ahh.. You are just inventing history now..
Look, the Tea Party was "invented" to protest HARP and things like the stimulus plan that didn't work. Obamacare was AFTER the Tea Party got started. Not to mention, they generally don't stand on the streets and yell about anything. I know, I've been to their events, pretty calm affairs if you ask me..
Next you will call them racist..... Que liberal rhetoric in three... Two... One...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ahh, you are just inventing history now...no, I'm not. History of Richard Armey, Freedomworks and the origin of the tea baggers
Secrets of the tea party
The tea party is an AstroTurf campaign front for Koch and Sciafe, with some money from DeVos (of Amway)
Ahh, you are just inventing history now...no, I'm not. History of Richard Armey, Freedomworks and the origin of the tea baggers Secrets of the tea party The tea party is an AstroTurf campaign front for Koch and Sciafe, with some money from DeVos (of Amway)
WHO CARES if the Koch Brothers want to fund a political organization. It's a free country, at least for now, and the First amendment still applies. If you think the left doesn't have rich people who give to political causes (i.e. that your side has the moral high ground on this issue) you are gravely mistaken. It's hypocritical of the left to act all shocked and bothered about how politics and money work and start yelling about how awful the Koch brothers are because they donate a small portion of their vast fortune to causes you don't approve of. Your side does it too, so stop acting like you don't.
Back to the Tea Party, I think your side is just scared of a grass roots organization that leans right and seems to have some traction. In an effort to discredit it, you have adopted scorched earth level rhetoric which is not becoming. Face it, you guys are scared to death, and you should be given the 2014 polling I've seen. Your side is facing a huge backlash caused by 6 years of Obama both in domestic and foreign policy and I got a feeling the problem you face is going to last well past the 2014 election as more of Obama's chickens come home to roost. Get ready, you are going to have to live with the Tea Party for another decade at the very least and likely they will have significant influence in this country.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Freedom of speech only exists under conditions of EQUALITY OF SPEECH, that is, when Koch buys the airtime, there is ONLY ONE VOICE and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Scalia is wrong and money is NOT speech.
As I pointed out, the teagaggers are not a grass roots, they are astroturf, organ, bought and paid for.
the polling at Gallup, NORC, WSJ all agree, republicans are in VERY bad shape for 2014, with Democrats approved by 23% to Republicans 12%, nearly a 2:1 advantage. See the actual polls by actual polisters on www.pollingreport.com
Get ready for the real, your party's Obstructionism and Government Shutdowns are coming home to eat your chickens.
Then, I think you are arguing with the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the constitution and not me at this point.... Good luck, you are going to need it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Actually, I am arguing with Antonin Scalia who ALONE has made the claim that money is speech. I agree. Until he dies or resigns, he stands as a barrier to the righ of free speech, which is of course the same thing as the right to be heard (already established in 1836). With any good luck Obama will be able to appoint a replacement with a shred of integrity (Scalia refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore while his wife and sons took 138,000 in pay from Bush while Thomas immediate family took a cool million) who will respect the right of EQUAL speech and ban all money from politics entirely.
But don't hold your breath that the VRWC will allow the confirmation of any 'radical' jurist who dares question "Money is speech" Scalia.
But don't hold your breath that the VRWC will allow the confirmation of any 'radical' jurist who dares question "Money is speech" Scalia.
For your cause, the problem you face is the advise and consent role of the Senate. Very soon, the Senate will change hands so confirmation of any new members of the Supreme Court will be hotly contested. (They already are, except that the party in power now dumped cloture to 50% vote so they can force what they want right now.) It will be interesting to watch how that would play out between the nominator and the Senate.
But this "money is speech" thing is a pretty thin argument from your side. Yea, money can talk, but the problem at the federal level is not really money being used in campaigns, but the use of the office held by the incumbent to line their pockets and campaign coffers.. It's obvious that money makes elections easier to win, but out spending your opponent does not win you an election. (Look at the Cantor loss to Brat where Canter out spent Brat by many times yet lost badly.) What we really need is term limits, so being a politician is not a career choice for the wealthy, but what it was supposed to be, something done to serve one's neighbors and country though public service.
What you cannot do is infringe on the first amendment of individuals. For example, if the Koch brothers want to spend billions, they get to spend billions. Just like if I want to put up a sign in my yard, or buy a billboard to put up my message, it has to be tolerated
.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Read the polls. Republicans are polling 1/2 what Democrats are polling. It looks much more likely that the Senate will remain in Democratic hands. The house MAY increase Republican representation, but it is not very likely says 531 and Gallup and NORC and Quinnepac.
Meanwhile, "Money is speech" is Scalia's line. No other Justice would sign that concurrence.
As for Cantor, he ran to the right, but his base ran to the outhouse
Term limits worked so well for Republicans in California...not.
I can indeed infringe on your 'right' to silence 99% with the 1% owning all the airwaves. Old law long established.
Sorry, but the Koch brothers cannot "speak" with money so as to silence meaningful opposition.
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that the right to speak MUST include the right to be heard.
The Koch Brother's right to swing their billion dollar fist ends at my nose...and all the rest of the American people.
If the Kochs want to stand on a soapbox and shout, it is their right.
If they want to buy the media so ONLY their shout is heard, that is not protected.