Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,
Wrong. See above.
while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
Wrong. see above.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.
That is a completely BS talking point. No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this. The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.
China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.
And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity. But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.
It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.
This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.
They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
No, that's what you're doing.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.
Not sure what your point is here. Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.
This is essentially what you just did: -You said gravity wasn't real -You threw an apple in the air -It hit you on the head. -You then said "See? Gravity is BS."
Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes
Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action. Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.
First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.
Honestly, at this point, since BlueStrat and Mashiki keep consistently posting the same wrong information, I must conclude they are in fact the same person.
Reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Senate Majority: Republican (first time since the 50s) House Majority: Democratic, but with a big caveat: the majority of southern democratic delegates were Boll Weevil democrats who voted with the Republicans (a continuation of the southern democrats, dixiecrats, etc, who simply hadn't gone over to the republican party in the 70s as part of Nixon's successful southern strategy)
So no, Democrats did NOT have control of congress.
And, the previous congress, which WAS Democrat controlled, actually voted to try and fix the deinstitutionalization mess, passing the Mental Health Systems Act, which was then signed into law by Pres. Carter about a month before the 1980 election.
It was this Act that Reagan, along with the GOP controlled Senate, then killed and repealed wholesale (all but the patients' bill of rights) in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
So again: you, like BlueStrat, are wrong on all counts.
Yes it was Reagan. No, it wasnt a democratic congress. No, the democrats in congress at that time could not be considered progressive (much as you like to use the word as an invective).
Deinstitutionalization began in California, just before Reagan became governor. It was a response to a set of legitimate problems, originally as a concept of trying to get patients into more local care, with less federal and state funding. But that didnt happen, patients instead began ending up on the streets or in privately run (for profit) facilities.
And then Reagan as governor continued it, expanded it, oversaw the increasing privatization of it, and got paid by the people who profited off of the privatization.
At the national level, Carter and the Congress (the one you mistakenly say was to blame...) crafted a law, just before Reagan became president, to roll back deinstitutionalization, and provide federal funding to be gin getting a handle on the growing problem.
and Reagan along with a Republican controlled Congress killed the law as soon as he became president.
In November 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly defeated Jimmy Carter, who received less than 42% of the popular vote, for president. Republicans took control of the Senate (53 to 46), the first time they had dominated either chamber since 1954. Although the House remained under Democratic control (243 to 192), their margin was actually much slimmer, because many southern “boll weevil” Democrats voted with the Republicans.
One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program, although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.
President Reagan never understood mental illness. Like Richard Nixon, he was a product of the Southern California culture that associated psychiatry with Communism. Two months after taking office, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, a young man with untreated schizophrenia. Two years later, Reagan called Dr. Roger Peele, then director of St. Elizabeths Hospital, where Hinckley was being treated, and tried to arrange to meet with Hinckley, so that Reagan could forgive him. Peele tactfully told the president that this was not a good idea. Reagan was also exposed to the consequences of untreated mental illness through the two sons of Roy Miller, his personal tax advisor. Both sons developed schizophrenia; one committed suicide in 1981, and the other killed his mother in 1983. Despite such personal exposure, Reagan never exhibited any interest in the need for research or better treatment for serious mental illness.
[..]
California has traditionally been on the cutting edge of American cultural developments, with Anaheim and Modesto experiencing changes before Atlanta and Moline. This was also true in the exodus of patients from state psychiatric hospitals. Beginning in the late 1950s, California became the national leader in aggressively moving patients from state hospitals to nursing homes and board-and-care homes, known in other states by names such as group homes, boarding homes
man with good intentions gets corrupted by money. news at 11.
and that still doesn't stop the core problem, which wasn't that he decided to keep doing it for the $$$, but that the idiots who read it still kept believing it.
oh bull. this is the same cognitive dissonance whereby the same trump supporters will say they support trump because "he tells it like it is", while at the same time telling critics "don't take him so literally".
It was the Congress that didn't want to go to war, passing the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939.
FDR opposed and criticized the Neutrality Acts isolationist intent repeatedly, though he did use the prohibitions on sale of war materials sales a few times, such as when he invoked the 1935 one to block the sale of ammunition and weapons to Italy following its invasion of Ethiopia. But then his sentiments were generally against the forming Axis Powers.
the 1937 law carried a compromise with FDR, that allowed him to sell material to England and France to resist Hitler under a provision called "cash and carry", ie, no credit, only direct cash in hand sales, and they have to pick up the stuff themselves and not draw us into the conflict.
the policy of neutrality didn't end until FDR successfully got the Lend Lease Act passed in spring of 1941, at which point we were involved in the war in Europe in all but name, supplying planes, weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and training to England and the Free French. and personnel as well, though they had to join the English military.
So no...you are completely wrong.
until his hand was practically forced
Again: he was the one who WANTED to fight. Again: Pearl Harbor didn't force his hand, it forced the Congress to finally go along with him.
, partially by The New Deal.
No. Just...no.. Pure ignorance on your part.
The New Deal was very much leftist,
Yes it was. Because conservative corporate cronyism had caused the Depression.
tripled taxes mainly affecting the poor
Nope. Wrong again. The Revenue Act of 1935 was a progressive tax, which means it impacted low incomes the least, and grew in impact the more you earned, up to 75% of the highest incomes. This was followed a year later with a bill that taxed the largest corporations (exempted small businesses).
and causing the 1938's depression
Again. Still wrong. The Recession of 1937 was caused by prematurely cutting spending, tightening the money supply at the federal reserve, and trying to balance the budget in the middle of a recovery while said recovery was still fragile. IE, "austerity", like what the GOP tried to do, but thankfully didn't, in more recent history in 2010 and 2011.
AND to that point FDR had been hesitant to run much of a deficit at all, only about 3%
companies at this time also underwent a period of merger mania, reducing competition and increasing prices for goods and services, causing peoples limited purchasing power to decrease.
with unemployment at 19% in 1939
you mean 1938, in the middle of the recession of 1937, which ended by mid-1938. by 1939 the rate was already dropping again, incomes were reaching previous levels, and the economy was recovering again.
, it wasn't until the US spent billions on the "war effort" that the mismanagement of The New Deal was undone
nearly full employment was reached before the War Machine was even really kicking into gear. and the New Deal programs continued into and past the War, indeed, they were the only thing supporting many families who saw incomes drop as a result of the war as people were called up for the draft.
even though FDR doubled the national debt.
again: prior to the war, there was very little deficit spending. that debt didn't come from the new deal, but from building the war machine and fighting WWII.
b) the idea of blocking people, or removing people, who hate the country is ALSO unconstitutional. opinions are also constitutionally protected, including that one, and not just because of existing citizenship.
c) you keep flinging out the Names To Hate Of the Day, without a single clue about them.
d) "Sharia" is as much an ignorant pavlovian phrase among conservatives as "Benghazi!"
so we shouldn't expect PR flunkies to do their job?
its neither ambush nor amateurish journalism.
trump and his surrogates talked about restricting muslim immigration and refugees. they also talked about registration and camps (the camps being not even a week and a half ago, using the Japanese Internment as an excuse and example of how to do it!)
That makes it something the incoming administration has talked about, both on the campaign trail and following the election.
Following up on it is logical.
Such a thing would obviously need some sort of help or input from Big Data, ie, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. You know...the ones that were already pumped for information and handed National Security Letters in the past.
I mean, what are these amateur reporters thinking? Taking something the soon to be President and his flunkies said and following up on it in a logical manner? What kind of journalist does that???
A short and very incomplete list of completely racist things Trump has said or done: -"theres one of my blacks" -"mexico is sending us rapists" -"laziness is a trait in blacks" -"the judge is a Mexican" -"they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.” -supports stop-and-frisk, as practiced by the NYPD (ie, unconstitutional and racially discriminatory), and wants it expanded nationwide, claiming it worked, contrary to all evidence -Obama's birth certificate -condoned the abuse and even beatings of multiple Black Lives Matter protesters and other minorities at his campaign rallies -regularly engages in anti-Semitism -treats his minority supporters as literal tokens -treats minorities and racial groups as monolithic stereotypes -thinks all African americans live in the inner city, are poor, without work, receiving welfare, and uneducated, and that the inner city is a hell hole -saying 88% of white murders are committed by black folks -repeating statements from white supremacists multiple occasions -making blatant dog whistles to the alt-right, white supremacist crowd -not condemning or distancing from white supremacists campaigning for him, including David Duke -encouraged mob justice against the Central Park 5, and continues to insist they are guilty years after its proven otherwise, including spending 85k$ on full page ads in the paper advocating for their execution -being sued by the federal government on multiple occasions for not renting to minorities
Hell, even when he claims to be trying to reach out, he's doing so in white communities and actually only repeating racist myths and stereotypes that are meant to appeal to white voters and make them feel better about voting for such overt racist.
His sons kept appearing on white supremacist radio programs..."accidentally". Once may be an accident. Twice, you need to fire your booking agent. four times and counting? its no longer accidental or someone else's fault. Donald Trump IS racist, regardless of the efforts of the ignorant to ignore it or explain it away.
1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Repeated ignorance in the face of facts deserves ridicule.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Not in human history. And the level sat at ~280pp for several million years without a die off in sight.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Completely wrong. The current rate is over 333,000x faster than anything that has come before.
4. Measuring temperatures from millions of years ago to tenths of a degree with any certainty is not realistic. Yet, that's what we're doing.
Wrong.
5. The measuring devices we use, known as Stevenson Screens, have approximately 70% of them improperly cited in such a way as to produce more than 2 degrees of error making it appear hotter (see http://www.surfacestations.org...).
Still wrong.
6. We know some, perhaps a lot, of data has been fabricated (e.g. Yamal tree ring data) or manipulated in such a way as to produce the desired results (e.g. the so called hockey stick graph) and how it conveniently always gets colder in the past as data is adjusted.
Yep, wrong again.
7. We know from the ClimateGate email leaks that coordinated efforts to suppress any conflicting information/studies occurred and were successful.
Manufactured scandal. IE, lies.
8. Many times the data and methodology of studies supporting AGW is not shared and that even occurs illegally in the refusal of FOIA requests.
Total fabrication
9. So many of the predicted side effects of AGW have not come to pass. For example, we were supposed to be seeing Katrina like hurricanes as the norm but instead the exact opposite happened and we have the longest stretch of reduced cyclonic activity since we began keeping records or the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be created by now - the UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. They now say it'll be by 2020 - only a little over 3 years from now. It's not happening. [More here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/).
Actually 2012 was a record year for tropical storm damage, especially in areas that don't typically see much of them. Cherry picking for only hurricanes, a geographically restricted term, leaves out rather a lot of the globe.
10. Experiments allegedly proving AGW are sometimes blatantly faked ([see here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/)).
Link to nonscientists who lie about science, and get paid to do so.
11. The breakdown of the scientific method as it becomes science by consensus with massive reliance on appeals to authority and popularity as well as theories that are not falsifiable.
Myth.
12. Computer models are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, computer models are not necessarily "proof" of the future. For example, the "pause" of the last 15 years that is causing all the confusion now.
the only thing you proved is that the media has been sensationalizing and misreporting science for a very long time. and you get modded down because the things you say are discredited BS, the same tired BS that gets trotted out by "skeptics" every time.
only thing is, a skeptic only gets to question until his question actually gets answered. it is then, when begin ignoring science and still post the same BS that you are no longer a skeptic.
you are not a skeptic. you are a troll, posting BS.
context matters: the bush number was in a slowing but steady economy not recovering from a recession and already near maximum employment (which is not 0% unemployment btw).
besides calling out one month's number alone isn't useful. the average is better metric to use.
and to that end, I give average annual job growth, by presidential term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms):
Jimmy Carter: +3.06% Ronald Reagan (1): +1.43% Ronald Reagan (2): +2.69% George H. W. Bush: +0.62% Bill Clinton (1): +2.64% Bill Clinton (2): +2.33% George W. Bush(1): +0.01% George W. Bush(2): +0.23% Barack Obama (1): +0.25% Barack Obama (2): +1.98%
So again I say: Context matters. And yes, Bush's job growth was anemic.
It's completely possible, if you're not ignorant and understand what's happening, and a few definitions: (Hint: you're ignorant)
without getting into the different U-x metrics, Unemployment Rate is generally: "the % of people not employed compared to the labor force".
Labor force then logically consists of both people currently employed, and those seeking employment. if you're not seeking employment, you're not unemployed, even if you aren't working.
Labor Force Participation Rate is then the size of the Labor Force in relation to the overall population, 16 and older (so young children not included).
(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#definitions for more reading)
So this is a really simple concept. its possible because: the two things are not mutually exlcusive, they are not zero-sum.
there was a population boom. this caused an employment boom. an explosion in the LFPR.
now we're facing a retirement boom. and these retirees are living far longer than their predecessors, and so they are inflating that P value, by being a member of the population for far longer, at the same time that they deflate the LF by retiring. this even while the two components of LF, U and E, are respectively at record low and high percentages. give them time to die off, and the P side of that formula will drop, and we'll see a flattening of the current downward trend of the LFPR plot vs time.
and Carter's time is just completely by coincidence about the time the baby boomers began entering the workforce in large numbers...right? and now, 40-50 years later, they're all retiring.
but its all Obama's fault! right? you're an idiot.
labor force participation isn't going to "recover". it has nothing to recover to.
yes some people leave the labor pool by going to school or retiring, until the economy is better. but as the economy improves, they then get tempted to rejoin the workforce, which causes LFPR to increase, and the unemployment rate to increase temporarily (as they join the labor market but aren't hired yet). or maybe they don't come back. why would they if they have no incentive to?
retirees are usually done working, and don't come back if they don't have to. they aren't "unemployed". students who don't work are likewise not "unemployed".
and hell, people have to remember the PRIMARY cause of LFPR drops right now is the retiring of baby boomers. the LFPR spiked for two reasons: -first is that women began entering the workforce (double income homes, etc). -the second is the baby boomers. the explosion in the us population.
the first cause isn't likely to go away anytime soon. but the second is. and has been for some years now. and there's nothing to be done about Boomers leaving the workforce.
that is the chief problem with liberalism: the success of liberalism, which is basically every good thing about the 20th century, breeds complacency.
people forget just how good they had it, and begin to, misguidedly, see liberalism as the source of their woes rather than the source of their peaceful and comfortable lives, lives largely free of want, war, and conflict.
the rich have always had it good. and the poor have always had it bad. whether they toiled all in day in the fields, or in the factories.
but what I (or we) are talking about is the middle class. the life we take for granted didn't really come about or exist until we created the middle class. the middle class doesn't exist on its own, not as we know it. the middle class today is a given for the majority of people (though that is decreasing, courtesy of continued voodoo economics from conservatives). it didn't used to be; the middle class existed, but was much smaller than the one we know, and for most people was only slightly less unattainable than the upper classes. and this middle class as we know it, and take for granted, owes this existence to liberalism, to progressivism. to ideas like worker safety, decent pay, decent leisure time, decent rights and protections, availability of credit and financing, and regulations and controls on financial institutions.
(there's a corollary to how living without diseases for so long has allowed people, ignorant people, to begin questioning why we even need vaccines....forgetting in their ignorance that vaccines are the very basis for that complacency)
Slashdot Mirror
again you post completely wrong information.
They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Also, BS on the copyright claim.
They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data...
which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.
Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
https://www.wunderground.com/c...
Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,
Wrong.
See above.
while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
Wrong.
see above.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.
That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.
China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.
And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.
It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.
This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.
They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
No, that's what you're doing.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.
Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.
This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."
Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes
Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.
Honestly, at this point, since BlueStrat and Mashiki keep consistently posting the same wrong information, I must conclude they are in fact the same person.
Reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Senate Majority: Republican (first time since the 50s)
House Majority: Democratic, but with a big caveat: the majority of southern democratic delegates were Boll Weevil democrats who voted with the Republicans (a continuation of the southern democrats, dixiecrats, etc, who simply hadn't gone over to the republican party in the 70s as part of Nixon's successful southern strategy)
So no, Democrats did NOT have control of congress.
And, the previous congress, which WAS Democrat controlled, actually voted to try and fix the deinstitutionalization mess, passing the Mental Health Systems Act, which was then signed into law by Pres. Carter about a month before the 1980 election.
It was this Act that Reagan, along with the GOP controlled Senate, then killed and repealed wholesale (all but the patients' bill of rights) in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
So again: you, like BlueStrat, are wrong on all counts.
So I'll take my $200, thank you very much.
If anyone is trying to revise history, it's you.
Yes it was Reagan.
No, it wasnt a democratic congress.
No, the democrats in congress at that time could not be considered progressive (much as you like to use the word as an invective).
Deinstitutionalization began in California, just before Reagan became governor. It was a response to a set of legitimate problems, originally as a concept of trying to get patients into more local care, with less federal and state funding. But that didnt happen, patients instead began ending up on the streets or in privately run (for profit) facilities.
And then Reagan as governor continued it, expanded it, oversaw the increasing privatization of it, and got paid by the people who profited off of the privatization.
At the national level, Carter and the Congress (the one you mistakenly say was to blame...) crafted a law, just before Reagan became president, to roll back deinstitutionalization, and provide federal funding to be gin getting a handle on the growing problem.
and Reagan along with a Republican controlled Congress killed the law as soon as he became president.
From American Psychosis:
In November 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan overwhelmingly defeated Jimmy Carter, who received less than 42% of the popular vote, for president. Republicans took control of the Senate (53 to 46), the first time they had dominated either chamber since 1954. Although the House remained under Democratic control (243 to 192), their margin was actually much slimmer, because many southern “boll weevil” Democrats voted with the Republicans.
One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program , although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.
President Reagan never understood mental illness. Like Richard Nixon, he was a product of the Southern California culture that associated psychiatry with Communism. Two months after taking office, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, a young man with untreated schizophrenia. Two years later, Reagan called Dr. Roger Peele, then director of St. Elizabeths Hospital, where Hinckley was being treated, and tried to arrange to meet with Hinckley, so that Reagan could forgive him. Peele tactfully told the president that this was not a good idea. Reagan was also exposed to the consequences of untreated mental illness through the two sons of Roy Miller, his personal tax advisor. Both sons developed schizophrenia; one committed suicide in 1981, and the other killed his mother in 1983. Despite such personal exposure, Reagan never exhibited any interest in the need for research or better treatment for serious mental illness.
[..]
California has traditionally been on the cutting edge of American cultural developments, with Anaheim and Modesto experiencing changes before Atlanta and Moline. This was also true in the exodus of patients from state psychiatric hospitals. Beginning in the late 1950s, California became the national leader in aggressively moving patients from state hospitals to nursing homes and board-and-care homes, known in other states by names such as group homes, boarding homes
man with good intentions gets corrupted by money.
news at 11.
and that still doesn't stop the core problem, which wasn't that he decided to keep doing it for the $$$, but that the idiots who read it still kept believing it.
oh bull.
this is the same cognitive dissonance whereby the same trump supporters will say they support trump because "he tells it like it is", while at the same time telling critics "don't take him so literally".
you cant have it both ways.
JFC.
Learn some f'ing history.
FDR was a leftist and didn't want to go to war
It was the Congress that didn't want to go to war, passing the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939.
FDR opposed and criticized the Neutrality Acts isolationist intent repeatedly, though he did use the prohibitions on sale of war materials sales a few times, such as when he invoked the 1935 one to block the sale of ammunition and weapons to Italy following its invasion of Ethiopia. But then his sentiments were generally against the forming Axis Powers.
the 1937 law carried a compromise with FDR, that allowed him to sell material to England and France to resist Hitler under a provision called "cash and carry", ie, no credit, only direct cash in hand sales, and they have to pick up the stuff themselves and not draw us into the conflict.
the policy of neutrality didn't end until FDR successfully got the Lend Lease Act passed in spring of 1941, at which point we were involved in the war in Europe in all but name, supplying planes, weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and training to England and the Free French. and personnel as well, though they had to join the English military.
So no...you are completely wrong.
until his hand was practically forced
Again: he was the one who WANTED to fight.
Again: Pearl Harbor didn't force his hand, it forced the Congress to finally go along with him.
, partially by The New Deal.
No.
Just...no..
Pure ignorance on your part.
The New Deal was very much leftist,
Yes it was. Because conservative corporate cronyism had caused the Depression.
tripled taxes mainly affecting the poor
Nope.
Wrong again.
The Revenue Act of 1935 was a progressive tax, which means it impacted low incomes the least, and grew in impact the more you earned, up to 75% of the highest incomes. This was followed a year later with a bill that taxed the largest corporations (exempted small businesses).
and causing the 1938's depression
Again.
Still wrong.
The Recession of 1937 was caused by prematurely cutting spending, tightening the money supply at the federal reserve, and trying to balance the budget in the middle of a recovery while said recovery was still fragile. IE, "austerity", like what the GOP tried to do, but thankfully didn't, in more recent history in 2010 and 2011.
AND to that point FDR had been hesitant to run much of a deficit at all, only about 3%
companies at this time also underwent a period of merger mania, reducing competition and increasing prices for goods and services, causing peoples limited purchasing power to decrease.
with unemployment at 19% in 1939
you mean 1938, in the middle of the recession of 1937, which ended by mid-1938.
by 1939 the rate was already dropping again, incomes were reaching previous levels, and the economy was recovering again.
, it wasn't until the US spent billions on the "war effort" that the mismanagement of The New Deal was undone
nearly full employment was reached before the War Machine was even really kicking into gear.
and the New Deal programs continued into and past the War, indeed, they were the only thing supporting many families who saw incomes drop as a result of the war as people were called up for the draft.
even though FDR doubled the national debt.
again: prior to the war, there was very little deficit spending.
that debt didn't come from the new deal, but from building the war machine and fighting WWII.
like I said: you need to learn your history.
jfc you're an idiot.
The US has one of the most open and liberal immigration/visa systems of any nation
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
again with the blatant bigotry and ignorance.
they were the slaves you f'ing bigot.
a) re-read the First Amendment.
I'll wait.
b) the idea of blocking people, or removing people, who hate the country is ALSO unconstitutional. opinions are also constitutionally protected, including that one, and not just because of existing citizenship.
c) you keep flinging out the Names To Hate Of the Day, without a single clue about them.
d) "Sharia" is as much an ignorant pavlovian phrase among conservatives as "Benghazi!"
so we shouldn't expect PR flunkies to do their job?
its neither ambush nor amateurish journalism.
trump and his surrogates talked about restricting muslim immigration and refugees.
they also talked about registration and camps (the camps being not even a week and a half ago, using the Japanese Internment as an excuse and example of how to do it!)
That makes it something the incoming administration has talked about, both on the campaign trail and following the election.
Following up on it is logical.
Such a thing would obviously need some sort of help or input from Big Data, ie, Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.
You know...the ones that were already pumped for information and handed National Security Letters in the past.
I mean, what are these amateur reporters thinking?
Taking something the soon to be President and his flunkies said and following up on it in a logical manner?
What kind of journalist does that???
keep hearing this, but no real evidence to support it.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
A short and very incomplete list of completely racist things Trump has said or done:
-"theres one of my blacks"
-"mexico is sending us rapists"
-"laziness is a trait in blacks"
-"the judge is a Mexican"
-"they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”
-supports stop-and-frisk, as practiced by the NYPD (ie, unconstitutional and racially discriminatory), and wants it expanded nationwide, claiming it worked, contrary to all evidence
-Obama's birth certificate
-condoned the abuse and even beatings of multiple Black Lives Matter protesters and other minorities at his campaign rallies
-regularly engages in anti-Semitism
-treats his minority supporters as literal tokens
-treats minorities and racial groups as monolithic stereotypes
-thinks all African americans live in the inner city, are poor, without work, receiving welfare, and uneducated, and that the inner city is a hell hole
-saying 88% of white murders are committed by black folks
-repeating statements from white supremacists multiple occasions
-making blatant dog whistles to the alt-right, white supremacist crowd
-not condemning or distancing from white supremacists campaigning for him, including David Duke
-encouraged mob justice against the Central Park 5, and continues to insist they are guilty years after its proven otherwise, including spending 85k$ on full page ads in the paper advocating for their execution
-being sued by the federal government on multiple occasions for not renting to minorities
Hell, even when he claims to be trying to reach out, he's doing so in white communities and actually only repeating racist myths and stereotypes that are meant to appeal to white voters and make them feel better about voting for such overt racist.
His sons kept appearing on white supremacist radio programs..."accidentally".
Once may be an accident. Twice, you need to fire your booking agent. four times and counting? its no longer accidental or someone else's fault.
Donald Trump IS racist, regardless of the efforts of the ignorant to ignore it or explain it away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/... [fortune.com]
typo.
i meant 2016, not 2012.
my kingdom for an edit button
1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Repeated ignorance in the face of facts deserves ridicule.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Not in human history.
And the level sat at ~280pp for several million years without a die off in sight.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Completely wrong.
The current rate is over 333,000x faster than anything that has come before.
4. Measuring temperatures from millions of years ago to tenths of a degree with any certainty is not realistic. Yet, that's what we're doing.
Wrong.
5. The measuring devices we use, known as Stevenson Screens, have approximately 70% of them improperly cited in such a way as to produce more than 2 degrees of error making it appear hotter (see http://www.surfacestations.org...).
Still wrong.
6. We know some, perhaps a lot, of data has been fabricated (e.g. Yamal tree ring data) or manipulated in such a way as to produce the desired results (e.g. the so called hockey stick graph) and how it conveniently always gets colder in the past as data is adjusted.
Yep, wrong again.
7. We know from the ClimateGate email leaks that coordinated efforts to suppress any conflicting information/studies occurred and were successful.
Manufactured scandal.
IE, lies.
8. Many times the data and methodology of studies supporting AGW is not shared and that even occurs illegally in the refusal of FOIA requests.
Total fabrication
9. So many of the predicted side effects of AGW have not come to pass. For example, we were supposed to be seeing Katrina like hurricanes as the norm but instead the exact opposite happened and we have the longest stretch of reduced cyclonic activity since we began keeping records or the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be created by now - the UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. They now say it'll be by 2020 - only a little over 3 years from now. It's not happening. [More here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/).
Actually 2012 was a record year for tropical storm damage, especially in areas that don't typically see much of them.
Cherry picking for only hurricanes, a geographically restricted term, leaves out rather a lot of the globe.
10. Experiments allegedly proving AGW are sometimes blatantly faked ([see here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/)).
Link to nonscientists who lie about science, and get paid to do so.
11. The breakdown of the scientific method as it becomes science by consensus with massive reliance on appeals to authority and popularity as well as theories that are not falsifiable.
Myth.
12. Computer models are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, computer models are not necessarily "proof" of the future. For example, the "pause" of the last 15 years that is causing all the confusion now.
There was no confusion.
the only thing you proved is that the media has been sensationalizing and misreporting science for a very long time.
and you get modded down because the things you say are discredited BS, the same tired BS that gets trotted out by "skeptics" every time.
only thing is, a skeptic only gets to question until his question actually gets answered.
it is then, when begin ignoring science and still post the same BS that you are no longer a skeptic.
you are not a skeptic.
you are a troll, posting BS.
the only hypocrisy is your own as you cherry pick to suit your confirmation bias.
context matters:
the bush number was in a slowing but steady economy not recovering from a recession and already near maximum employment (which is not 0% unemployment btw).
besides calling out one month's number alone isn't useful.
the average is better metric to use.
and to that end, I give average annual job growth, by presidential term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms):
Jimmy Carter: +3.06%
Ronald Reagan (1): +1.43%
Ronald Reagan (2): +2.69%
George H. W. Bush: +0.62%
Bill Clinton (1): +2.64%
Bill Clinton (2): +2.33%
George W. Bush(1): +0.01%
George W. Bush(2): +0.23%
Barack Obama (1): +0.25%
Barack Obama (2): +1.98%
So again I say: Context matters.
And yes, Bush's job growth was anemic.
It's completely possible, if you're not ignorant and understand what's happening, and a few definitions:
(Hint: you're ignorant)
without getting into the different U-x metrics, Unemployment Rate is generally: "the % of people not employed compared to the labor force".
Labor force then logically consists of both people currently employed, and those seeking employment. if you're not seeking employment, you're not unemployed, even if you aren't working.
Labor Force Participation Rate is then the size of the Labor Force in relation to the overall population, 16 and older (so young children not included).
(http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#definitions for more reading)
So this is a really simple concept.
its possible because: the two things are not mutually exlcusive, they are not zero-sum.
there was a population boom.
this caused an employment boom.
an explosion in the LFPR.
now we're facing a retirement boom.
and these retirees are living far longer than their predecessors, and so they are inflating that P value, by being a member of the population for far longer, at the same time that they deflate the LF by retiring. this even while the two components of LF, U and E, are respectively at record low and high percentages. give them time to die off, and the P side of that formula will drop, and we'll see a flattening of the current downward trend of the LFPR plot vs time.
and Carter's time is just completely by coincidence about the time the baby boomers began entering the workforce in large numbers...right?
and now, 40-50 years later, they're all retiring.
but its all Obama's fault! right?
you're an idiot.
labor force participation isn't going to "recover".
it has nothing to recover to.
yes some people leave the labor pool by going to school or retiring, until the economy is better.
but as the economy improves, they then get tempted to rejoin the workforce, which causes LFPR to increase, and the unemployment rate to increase temporarily (as they join the labor market but aren't hired yet). or maybe they don't come back. why would they if they have no incentive to?
retirees are usually done working, and don't come back if they don't have to. they aren't "unemployed".
students who don't work are likewise not "unemployed".
and hell, people have to remember the PRIMARY cause of LFPR drops right now is the retiring of baby boomers.
the LFPR spiked for two reasons:
-first is that women began entering the workforce (double income homes, etc).
-the second is the baby boomers. the explosion in the us population.
the first cause isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
but the second is. and has been for some years now.
and there's nothing to be done about Boomers leaving the workforce.
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at.
bull.
so everyone should be arrested right now instantly, because at some point we may commit a crime, even if right now this moment we haven't yet.
that is the chief problem with liberalism:
the success of liberalism, which is basically every good thing about the 20th century, breeds complacency.
people forget just how good they had it, and begin to, misguidedly, see liberalism as the source of their woes rather than the source of their peaceful and comfortable lives, lives largely free of want, war, and conflict.
the rich have always had it good.
and the poor have always had it bad.
whether they toiled all in day in the fields, or in the factories.
but what I (or we) are talking about is the middle class.
the life we take for granted didn't really come about or exist until we created the middle class.
the middle class doesn't exist on its own, not as we know it.
the middle class today is a given for the majority of people (though that is decreasing, courtesy of continued voodoo economics from conservatives).
it didn't used to be; the middle class existed, but was much smaller than the one we know, and for most people was only slightly less unattainable than the upper classes.
and this middle class as we know it, and take for granted, owes this existence to liberalism, to progressivism. to ideas like worker safety, decent pay, decent leisure time, decent rights and protections, availability of credit and financing, and regulations and controls on financial institutions.
(there's a corollary to how living without diseases for so long has allowed people, ignorant people, to begin questioning why we even need vaccines....forgetting in their ignorance that vaccines are the very basis for that complacency)