Hmm...I seem to remember it was the Democrats that filibustered the Civil Rights legislation. Republicans stepped up and provided the votes to pass it, even though they were in the minority.
And the Democrat party of today seems to be at the forefront of restricting our liberties through over reaching federal legislation seeking to control everything from what we eat to where we live.
Democrats of today are about control as a means to achieve what they believe to be a greater good.
That was long ago. Now, Science advocates. Science berates and impugns. Because "Science" is no longer Science, it is a tool of people looking to control others.
Reagan - Democratic Congress Bush 1 - Democratic Congress W - Most if the debt racked up after getting a Democrat Congress.
BTW...Clinton - Most of his decrease came after getting a Republican Congress. And he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into fiscal conservatism.
Guess who taxes and spend? Don't know? Ask your mamma.
About that time (mid seventies) "science" or people purporting to be science started telling us that everything caused cancer. Then they said, "oops never mind". Then they said "wait...yes it does". Look at the saccharine scare, the whole thing about silicon breasts implants (where lawyers hijacked science), etc. etc. etc.
Prior to this science is what brought new and useful products to the market, it took us to the moon, it revealed exciting new information about nature and the universe. Then things turned. Science became the enabler of vast bureaucracies and programs that restricted what people could do and told us we were evil. Some of it was for the good, a lot of it was bullshit.
Either way, it was inevitable that when someone came to you to take your money or tell you you couldn't do this or that or that you MUST do this or that, things that pretty much everyone hates to hear, they wore the cloak of science to justify their actions.
So yes, when science became the bitch of the control freaks, that's when people started to distrust it.
Some enterprising young politician could build a career on this:
1. WTF are we buying our products from a country with a political system that, at its very core, seeks the destruction of our political system? 2. We should be building all the parts we use in our military right here and I'm passing a law that requires it. 3. U.S. manufacturers bring product back from China. 4. Something about profit is supposed to go here I think.
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation. China is undercutting all of the domestic manufacturers by doing the same thing. It's kind of ironic that we subsidized our solar industry but now they want tariffs because China does the same thing, only much more.
In the end, the tariffs are a last ditch effort to salvage the whole green jobs thing.
Actually, for all you physicists out there and just for goggles, what kind of power and size of device would you need to give a spacecraft a magnetic field strong to protect that craft from radiation in the same manner the earth's magnetic field protects us?
Just so I understand you... 1. Oil is a commodity in a world market. 2. Greater demand means high prices. Greater supply means lower prices. 3. U.S. oil production goes to the world market 4. But someone increasing U.S. production and thereby increasing supply to the world market does not affect price?
And before you even write it, U.S. production is low now and may be a small part of the world market. But that's where the "increase" part comes in.
And what I DID tell you is that the oil futures market is driven by expectations of future availability. Open up a vast area to exploration that has promise of greatly increasing supply means the price will be driven down. Econ 201.
Your assertion that the U.S. cannot significantly affect the price of gas is fucking ridiculous. So you are essentially using the old argument that we shouldn't do something because it won't have any benefit until many years down the road. Wish we had decided to do something 4 years ago eh?
You may have missed the little news item that the U.S. is now estimated to have more reserves of accessible oil than does Saudi Arabia?
As for "show your work", to meet your level of proof would require interviewing all those who purchased oil futures during that time period and ascertain their state of mind. You could just use what common sense you may have and look at the situation. We still had two wars going on, Iran was still being an ass and consumption was still way up.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...I seem to remember it was the Democrats that filibustered the Civil Rights legislation. Republicans stepped up and provided the votes to pass it, even though they were in the minority.
And the Democrat party of today seems to be at the forefront of restricting our liberties through over reaching federal legislation seeking to control everything from what we eat to where we live.
Democrats of today are about control as a means to achieve what they believe to be a greater good.
"Science merely reports"
That was long ago. Now, Science advocates. Science berates and impugns. Because "Science" is no longer Science, it is a tool of people looking to control others.
It will be the case that people can be socially liberal and fiscally liberal. Just as there can be intelligent people in military intelligence.
But in the big picture, socially liberal people as a group can't help but want to throw money at a social problems, as empirical evidence shows us.
The cost of those wars is dwarfed by the cost of the Dems giveaways over the past 60 years.
Or there the uncomfortable truth that the Democrats didn't consider slavery to be a dirty word.
Reagan - Democratic Congress
Bush 1 - Democratic Congress
W - Most if the debt racked up after getting a Democrat Congress.
BTW...Clinton - Most of his decrease came after getting a Republican Congress. And he had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into fiscal conservatism.
Guess who taxes and spend? Don't know? Ask your mamma.
You may think you are being outrageous, but I've had pollsters call with questions that are even more ridiculous.
"fiscally conservative social liberals" is an oxymoron.
If I had a nickle for every moron who didn't understand that Democrat controlled congresses have run up most of the debt, I'd be fucking rich.
What was that Republican President's name again? Hmm...it's on the tip of my tongue.
A more accurate way to put it that reasonable people started to distrust science when it became the bitch of the control freaks.
About that time (mid seventies) "science" or people purporting to be science started telling us that everything caused cancer. Then they said, "oops never mind". Then they said "wait...yes it does". Look at the saccharine scare, the whole thing about silicon breasts implants (where lawyers hijacked science), etc. etc. etc.
Prior to this science is what brought new and useful products to the market, it took us to the moon, it revealed exciting new information about nature and the universe. Then things turned. Science became the enabler of vast bureaucracies and programs that restricted what people could do and told us we were evil. Some of it was for the good, a lot of it was bullshit.
Either way, it was inevitable that when someone came to you to take your money or tell you you couldn't do this or that or that you MUST do this or that, things that pretty much everyone hates to hear, they wore the cloak of science to justify their actions.
So yes, when science became the bitch of the control freaks, that's when people started to distrust it.
Some enterprising young politician could build a career on this:
1. WTF are we buying our products from a country with a political system that, at its very core, seeks the destruction of our political system?
2. We should be building all the parts we use in our military right here and I'm passing a law that requires it.
3. U.S. manufacturers bring product back from China.
4. Something about profit is supposed to go here I think.
Whatever. No one is reading this anyway.
To expand a little bit.
Obama's "Green" initiatives are about more than implementing a renewable technology such as solar. Just as important in that imitative is "Green Jobs". It is seen as a twofer, ween us off the eeeevil oil and bring manufacturing jobs back.
The reality is that most of that 21 billion was heavily subsidized by the tax payers, the purchase, the manufacturing and the installation. China is undercutting all of the domestic manufacturers by doing the same thing. It's kind of ironic that we subsidized our solar industry but now they want tariffs because China does the same thing, only much more.
In the end, the tariffs are a last ditch effort to salvage the whole green jobs thing.
I'm wondering what destruction you see behind the Glenn Canyon (Hoover) dam?
Or maybe you are talking about the lack of destruction from the Colorado river not flooding downstream communities.
...some recruiter has called be wanting to know if I have at least three years "in depth" experience with HTML 5
Gots to go where the jobs are I guess, especially if you don't have one.
And what funky laws do you speak of?
Actually, for all you physicists out there and just for goggles, what kind of power and size of device would you need to give a spacecraft a magnetic field strong to protect that craft from radiation in the same manner the earth's magnetic field protects us?
Funny, things suck as much now as they did then.
In fact, exploration and production on federal lands has been stifled by Obama and his minions.
Hmmm...private productivity up, government productivity down. Who'd a thunk?
"We sell a pittance, and thus have no impact on price."
And if we opened up areas to drill, and increased production, then we wouldn't be selling a pittance and we would have an impact o price.
Do you not see this?
Yes, I can. And I did.
Just so I understand you...
1. Oil is a commodity in a world market.
2. Greater demand means high prices. Greater supply means lower prices.
3. U.S. oil production goes to the world market
4. But someone increasing U.S. production and thereby increasing supply to the world market does not affect price?
And before you even write it, U.S. production is low now and may be a small part of the world market. But that's where the "increase" part comes in.
Get the picture?
Economy sucked then and it sucks now. Your point?
And what I DID tell you is that the oil futures market is driven by expectations of future availability. Open up a vast area to exploration that has promise of greatly increasing supply means the price will be driven down. Econ 201.
Your assertion that the U.S. cannot significantly affect the price of gas is fucking ridiculous. So you are essentially using the old argument that we shouldn't do something because it won't have any benefit until many years down the road. Wish we had decided to do something 4 years ago eh?
You may have missed the little news item that the U.S. is now estimated to have more reserves of accessible oil than does Saudi Arabia?
As for "show your work", to meet your level of proof would require interviewing all those who purchased oil futures during that time period and ascertain their state of mind. You could just use what common sense you may have and look at the situation. We still had two wars going on, Iran was still being an ass and consumption was still way up.
Clearly, you should be suing someone.
You did hear the part that the new estimates for the U.S. proven reserves exceeds those of Saudi Arabia?