If we unify Africa into a single nation it has more people too, and will become the biggest polluter on the planet as well, as big as China or the US.
China is a bunch of culturally tied regional provinces that share a common culture, but individually would have pollution levels on par with smaller countries. It's sheer size is the only reason China has a pollution level higher than the US.
China has nearly 1/3, 33%, of the Earth's total population. The US has only 1/20th, 5%, yet our total polution outputs are comparable, and until recently (just a couple years ago) ours was the largest.
That's why Per Capita matters. Because the borders are just lines on a map. The reason why negotiating with China matters is their size, not their pollution. It's much easier to negotiate with one country, than 50.
You needn't worry about the hit the economy will take from the reduction in spending on healthcare costs related to pollution will be offset by the increase in actual Health of those people.
its not a blank check. thats why they have a stated mandate established by congress. they can do whatever within the confines of that mandate.
That is a GOOD THING.
Because otherwise congress would have to hammer out every nitty gritty scientific detail in a regulation without knowing what they are tlaking about. Mind you they do that a lot, but by offloading some work to Independent Agencies, that are TECHNICALLY part of the Executive, really function independently as a extension of CONGRESS'S WILL, the needs are better addressed as these Independent Agencies can hire actual experts, actual scientists, to make informed and factual decisions in the creation of any regulations.
Again: the President does NOT CONTROL Independent Agencies.
So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.
Yeah, all the GOPs voiced opposition to net neutrality, we should just ignore that. And we should ignore all the lies they're telling about it, calling black white, and white black.
The same way you're ignoring the concept of an "Independent Agency".
BTW, there's 3 FCC commissioners, not one. The other two are just as involved, and are GOP appointees. And they're just as supportive of the fast lanes as Wheeler.
You keep saying the same vacuous meaningless statements as if they prove something.
Simply giving up on socialized medicine and accepting a fundamentally conservative plan, conservative and freemarket in its apporach to reform even, not jusdt based on who wrote it, was a pretty big concession itself. Saying "we're never going to get our ideal passed, so here, lets look at your idea, and lets make it happen." Is a pretty big compromise. The GOP of the 90s would have been ecstatic at such a deal. Originally the ACA even included a public option, a public medicaire for all to set a baseline/minimum standard, but even that was dropped from the bill to appease the GOP.
Conservatives ran from their own plan because their entire poltiical strategy for the past 6 years has been blanket opposition to anything Obama says.
It was true of the ACA. It's true about net neutrality. It's true about Common Core. It's true about immigration. It's true about Syria and the Ukriane, where the Prez took opposite positions, but they opposed him both times. It's true about the envirnment and the trade deal just negotiated with China (seriously, they are already running around saying cutting pollution is bad!)
Your head is so far up your nether regions you can see daylight out your own mouth. There's little point in even trying to communicate with you, as your entire premise rests on a denial of reality. So I'm done. I've stated the facts, your refusal to join us in reality is your problem.
There you go again with the "it will cripple the economy" lie again... The green energy industry, that must be a myth to you? Seriously. How do you even function with this level of reality denial?
Last month is was: GOP: Why, we dont even have a surgeon general! This POTUS is irresponsible. Reality: Why don't have a Surgeon General? Oh ya. The Senate GOP keeps filibustering the nominees.
So in a few years it'll be: GOP: He made a deal with China to cut pollution, but then he didn't follow through! Reality: Because we (GOP) voted it down in the Senate!
China's envirnmental record is improving at a rapid pace. They're taking pollution quite seriously. Millions of people being sick in cities where the permanent fog is actually pollution puts a large damper on your economic ambitions.
In fact, they take the environment far more seriously than we do.
Like how theyve found that water quality regulations are important, after a pig farmer dumped a few thousand dead and sick pigs into a river, that sicked thousands of people downstream. We're trying to hamstring our EPA and have people, mostly GOP, in congress talking like Clean Water and Clean Air acts are bad things. Meanwhile their equivalent put that guy in jail for something like 20 years.
So I trust them far more to hold up their end of hte deal.
I'll also add that AT&T was amazingly innovative. Bell Labs was responsible for much of the tech we still advantage of today. I'll also state that AT&T as a monopoly wasnt particularly bad. Run as a granted-monopoly, basically a regulated utility, doesnt automatically make a company bad or stifle innovation. There may be less economic incentive, but that is something that can be created n the regulations (or contract) or by hiring the right people.
Ma Bell at the time has the right people, people with vision and a sense of duty. To hear my grandfather tell it, Verizon, by launching the lawsuit that eventually broke up AT&T, is the devil himself. Course this was still just before the short sightedness and PROFIT NOW NOW NOW mentality of the 80s. Verizon destroyed AT&T, and essentially turned them to the dark side and forced them to join the modern corporate culture.
And already I'm seeing idiots on Facebook opposing net neutrality. They say because it will "break the internet as we know it", but really it's because Obama supports it, so therefore they must oppose it.
Already people are saying things like "the internet is fine like it is, why does he was to have the governmetn take control of it and ruin it?"......not realizing that internet "fine as it is" is an internet that for the most part HAS net neutrality as a guiding principle......not realizing that by opposing net neutrality they are advocating for the very thing, the breaking of the internet, they claim to oppose.
We have a word for this, Projection: in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.
If by referencing the Bundy Ranch you mean a bunch of idiots who helped a law breaking rancher take advantage of land that is not his and continue breaking the law...then I really dont care what they think. No one should care what extremists think.
If that's the future they want to bring, using fear to get their way, we have for that. It's "terrorism".
So you deny the president has any authority to act under powers and responsiblities already given him by the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress? You think the President has to come running to Congress for permission to act under pre-existing authority? Now who's perverting the Constitution?
His polcies are those of a monarch? Name one chump. That's just hte same old tired "he's destroying America" line. It holds absolutely no water.
The US was never meant to have a strong fed government? Who says? You do know the purpose of the creation of the Constitution was to create a stronger Federal Government, right? Because the Articles left it too weak to function. It was basically a 2nd, peaceful, revolution and change in government. (There's actually a fair bit of legal debate, still, whether the switch to the Constitution was even legal. It's why there's a foundational principle, a founding belief based on nothing, that simply holds that the Constitution is valid.)
And further, who cares what anyone meant? The Founders were not Gods. They dont live today. They never could predicted the privacy needs of today, the diplomatic needs of a nuclear world, or simply the absence of slavery. If we lived according the USC the founders created, without change, we would be a in a far less free, far less emancipated, far level developed country, where only white male landowners have rights of full citizenship. Society changes and its needs change, and therefore the foundation upon which society rests must also change.
The Founders gave us some principles, pretty good ones, such as "Liberty" and "All men are created equal", that they themselves imperfectly lived up to. So what the Founders "meant" for society doesn't matter and shouldn't be the be-all-end-all guide. It is irrelevent, and we shouldn't be trying to live up to the Founders. We should be trying to live up to the ideals they themselves tried but failed to meet.
Heritage is a conservative group. Heritage Foundation wrote it as an alternative to socialized medicine. It became more popular in the 90s as the Clintons started spitballing about socialized medicine (which didnt go anywhere). It was then finally instituted in Mass. with bipartisan support an dsigned by a GOP governor. It then became the basis for the ACA.
Sorry. Conservatives own it. Period. You dont get to ignore who originally created it. You haven't a leg to stand on.
The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.
Southern Democrats who are the same conservatives that now make up the Tea Party. But lets be honest, those laws were a bipartisan affair; the differentiating line seperating those who supported and those who opposed was geographical, not party. Learn some history nub.
The law specifically prohibits the creation of "death panels" as part of its implementation. Insurance companies and HMOs however have had death panels for years.
Again: the right takes something that is true about themselves and falsely accuses the other side of supporting it, while hoping no one notices their hypocrisy.
Honestly, with this Pres, and this is an area where I'm critical of him, I'm not so sure. He's spoken about Net Neutrality before...but then he appointed Wheeler. I'm not sure this is an issue he actually cares a lot about. and he's caved befoer in areas hes talked about, but not been passionate about, in order to try and reach compromise with this congress.
And of course, much like the President has a wide degree of discretion and powers that dont require congressional approval (gop complaints aside), Congress has some tools as well. I think it's the Energy and Commerce committee with oversight of the FCC?
In fact, they lean so left that they elected a GOP governor who got the credit for their successful health care reform plan, and was instrumental in making it a reality.
Someone tally another No True Scotsman on rockoon's score sheet.
Look at it on an airport basis: Most airports are served by 2 sometimes 3 airlines. Only the biggest airports have more, but even those are typically dominated by a single airline who uses it as a hub. And even between airlines there's not a whole lot of price difference on average.
But even that is insufficient viewpoint. What really matters is the routes served. And on that basis there is even less competition.
1: this is theoretically a tech site, he shouldnt need to provide examples. we should all be fairly well acquainted with the internet of other countries by now, and how muchj better it is than the the US industry.
2: the US isnt special. the same economic rules apply here as elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I really have no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect you don't either.
If we unify Africa into a single nation it has more people too, and will become the biggest polluter on the planet as well, as big as China or the US.
China is a bunch of culturally tied regional provinces that share a common culture, but individually would have pollution levels on par with smaller countries.
It's sheer size is the only reason China has a pollution level higher than the US.
China has nearly 1/3, 33%, of the Earth's total population.
The US has only 1/20th, 5%, yet our total polution outputs are comparable, and until recently (just a couple years ago) ours was the largest.
That's why Per Capita matters. Because the borders are just lines on a map.
The reason why negotiating with China matters is their size, not their pollution.
It's much easier to negotiate with one country, than 50.
You needn't worry about the hit the economy will take from the reduction in spending on healthcare costs related to pollution will be offset by the increase in actual Health of those people.
its not a blank check.
thats why they have a stated mandate established by congress.
they can do whatever within the confines of that mandate.
That is a GOOD THING.
Because otherwise congress would have to hammer out every nitty gritty scientific detail in a regulation without knowing what they are tlaking about.
Mind you they do that a lot, but by offloading some work to Independent Agencies, that are TECHNICALLY part of the Executive, really function independently as a extension of CONGRESS'S WILL, the needs are better addressed as these Independent Agencies can hire actual experts, actual scientists, to make informed and factual decisions in the creation of any regulations.
Again: the President does NOT CONTROL Independent Agencies.
So no matter Obama's rhetoric, no matter how many things Ted Cruz idiotically blurts, you can point the finger straight at Obama if you're looking for blame. Not the GOP.
Yeah, all the GOPs voiced opposition to net neutrality, we should just ignore that.
And we should ignore all the lies they're telling about it, calling black white, and white black.
The same way you're ignoring the concept of an "Independent Agency".
BTW, there's 3 FCC commissioners, not one.
The other two are just as involved, and are GOP appointees.
And they're just as supportive of the fast lanes as Wheeler.
and seriously, that statement was self supporting.
your question was answered within that statement.
You keep saying the same vacuous meaningless statements as if they prove something.
Simply giving up on socialized medicine and accepting a fundamentally conservative plan, conservative and freemarket in its apporach to reform even, not jusdt based on who wrote it, was a pretty big concession itself. Saying "we're never going to get our ideal passed, so here, lets look at your idea, and lets make it happen." Is a pretty big compromise. The GOP of the 90s would have been ecstatic at such a deal. Originally the ACA even included a public option, a public medicaire for all to set a baseline/minimum standard, but even that was dropped from the bill to appease the GOP.
Conservatives ran from their own plan because their entire poltiical strategy for the past 6 years has been blanket opposition to anything Obama says.
It was true of the ACA.
It's true about net neutrality.
It's true about Common Core.
It's true about immigration.
It's true about Syria and the Ukriane, where the Prez took opposite positions, but they opposed him both times.
It's true about the envirnment and the trade deal just negotiated with China (seriously, they are already running around saying cutting pollution is bad!)
Your head is so far up your nether regions you can see daylight out your own mouth.
There's little point in even trying to communicate with you, as your entire premise rests on a denial of reality.
So I'm done. I've stated the facts, your refusal to join us in reality is your problem.
There you go again with the "it will cripple the economy" lie again...
The green energy industry, that must be a myth to you?
Seriously. How do you even function with this level of reality denial?
So this'll be just like the ebola scare.
Last month is was:
GOP: Why, we dont even have a surgeon general! This POTUS is irresponsible.
Reality: Why don't have a Surgeon General? Oh ya. The Senate GOP keeps filibustering the nominees.
So in a few years it'll be:
GOP: He made a deal with China to cut pollution, but then he didn't follow through!
Reality: Because we (GOP) voted it down in the Senate!
You heard it here folks: cutting emissions and reducing pollution is a BAD THING.
Why? Because Obama supports it! So it must be bad!
China's envirnmental record is improving at a rapid pace. They're taking pollution quite seriously.
Millions of people being sick in cities where the permanent fog is actually pollution puts a large damper on your economic ambitions.
In fact, they take the environment far more seriously than we do.
Like how theyve found that water quality regulations are important, after a pig farmer dumped a few thousand dead and sick pigs into a river, that sicked thousands of people downstream. We're trying to hamstring our EPA and have people, mostly GOP, in congress talking like Clean Water and Clean Air acts are bad things. Meanwhile their equivalent put that guy in jail for something like 20 years.
So I trust them far more to hold up their end of hte deal.
I'll also add that AT&T was amazingly innovative.
Bell Labs was responsible for much of the tech we still advantage of today.
I'll also state that AT&T as a monopoly wasnt particularly bad. Run as a granted-monopoly, basically a regulated utility, doesnt automatically make a company bad or stifle innovation. There may be less economic incentive, but that is something that can be created n the regulations (or contract) or by hiring the right people.
Ma Bell at the time has the right people, people with vision and a sense of duty.
To hear my grandfather tell it, Verizon, by launching the lawsuit that eventually broke up AT&T, is the devil himself.
Course this was still just before the short sightedness and PROFIT NOW NOW NOW mentality of the 80s.
Verizon destroyed AT&T, and essentially turned them to the dark side and forced them to join the modern corporate culture.
And already I'm seeing idiots on Facebook opposing net neutrality.
They say because it will "break the internet as we know it",
but really it's because Obama supports it, so therefore they must oppose it.
Already people are saying things like "the internet is fine like it is, why does he was to have the governmetn take control of it and ruin it?"... ...not realizing that internet "fine as it is" is an internet that for the most part HAS net neutrality as a guiding principle... ...not realizing that by opposing net neutrality they are advocating for the very thing, the breaking of the internet, they claim to oppose.
We have a word for this, Projection: in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.
If by referencing the Bundy Ranch you mean a bunch of idiots who helped a law breaking rancher take advantage of land that is not his and continue breaking the law...then I really dont care what they think. No one should care what extremists think.
If that's the future they want to bring, using fear to get their way, we have for that. It's "terrorism".
So you deny the president has any authority to act under powers and responsiblities already given him by the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress?
You think the President has to come running to Congress for permission to act under pre-existing authority?
Now who's perverting the Constitution?
His polcies are those of a monarch?
Name one chump. That's just hte same old tired "he's destroying America" line. It holds absolutely no water.
The US was never meant to have a strong fed government?
Who says? You do know the purpose of the creation of the Constitution was to create a stronger Federal Government, right?
Because the Articles left it too weak to function. It was basically a 2nd, peaceful, revolution and change in government.
(There's actually a fair bit of legal debate, still, whether the switch to the Constitution was even legal. It's why there's a foundational principle, a founding belief based on nothing, that simply holds that the Constitution is valid.)
And further, who cares what anyone meant? The Founders were not Gods. They dont live today. They never could predicted the privacy needs of today, the diplomatic needs of a nuclear world, or simply the absence of slavery. If we lived according the USC the founders created, without change, we would be a in a far less free, far less emancipated, far level developed country, where only white male landowners have rights of full citizenship. Society changes and its needs change, and therefore the foundation upon which society rests must also change.
The Founders gave us some principles, pretty good ones, such as "Liberty" and "All men are created equal", that they themselves imperfectly lived up to.
So what the Founders "meant" for society doesn't matter and shouldn't be the be-all-end-all guide.
It is irrelevent, and we shouldn't be trying to live up to the Founders.
We should be trying to live up to the ideals they themselves tried but failed to meet.
No, sorry. That's simply not true.
Heritage is a conservative group.
Heritage Foundation wrote it as an alternative to socialized medicine.
It became more popular in the 90s as the Clintons started spitballing about socialized medicine (which didnt go anywhere).
It was then finally instituted in Mass. with bipartisan support an dsigned by a GOP governor.
It then became the basis for the ACA.
Sorry. Conservatives own it. Period. You dont get to ignore who originally created it. You haven't a leg to stand on.
The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.
Southern Democrats who are the same conservatives that now make up the Tea Party. But lets be honest, those laws were a bipartisan affair; the differentiating line seperating those who supported and those who opposed was geographical, not party. Learn some history nub.
The law specifically prohibits the creation of "death panels" as part of its implementation.
Insurance companies and HMOs however have had death panels for years.
Again: the right takes something that is true about themselves and falsely accuses the other side of supporting it, while hoping no one notices their hypocrisy.
Honestly, with this Pres, and this is an area where I'm critical of him, I'm not so sure. He's spoken about Net Neutrality before...but then he appointed Wheeler. I'm not sure this is an issue he actually cares a lot about. and he's caved befoer in areas hes talked about, but not been passionate about, in order to try and reach compromise with this congress.
And of course, much like the President has a wide degree of discretion and powers that dont require congressional approval (gop complaints aside), Congress has some tools as well. I think it's the Energy and Commerce committee with oversight of the FCC?
In fact, they lean so left that they elected a GOP governor who got the credit for their successful health care reform plan, and was instrumental in making it a reality.
Someone tally another No True Scotsman on rockoon's score sheet.
Does its tribal identity even matter if its working?
I wasnt aware the Heritage Foundation was a group of liberals.
OH WAIT! I get it: You dont know what youre talking about.
nothing you just stated is true.
How much airline competition is there really?
Look at it on an airport basis: Most airports are served by 2 sometimes 3 airlines. Only the biggest airports have more, but even those are typically dominated by a single airline who uses it as a hub. And even between airlines there's not a whole lot of price difference on average.
But even that is insufficient viewpoint. What really matters is the routes served. And on that basis there is even less competition.
1: this is theoretically a tech site, he shouldnt need to provide examples. we should all be fairly well acquainted with the internet of other countries by now, and how muchj better it is than the the US industry.
2: the US isnt special. the same economic rules apply here as elsewhere.
3: the list is only short if youre ignorant.