Most of the Tea Party does NOT have a problem with increased taxes. We have a problem with increased taxes being wasted on more bloated ineffective programs and bailouts.
Opposing the bailouts is economic voodoo. I don't think anybody likes them. Ds absolutely HATE them. On paper the banks have paid back the cash, but in reality, the banks borrowed from the fed and bought government bonds as an exercise in printing free money.
The banks need reform, reform, reform, a la the depression years.
As for wasteful government expenditure -- the people who benefit most from government largess are: the old, veterans and farmers. If we want to meaningfully reduce the size of government (which most people are fine with), then we have to cut into precisely the entitlement programs that were set up by Republicans for Republicans.
Raise taxes, cut government. Great.
Unfortunately everything is backwards in the alternative knowledge system of Fox.
Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?
omfg! You don't really believe that do you? The republican party would reject their own policies if the Ds suggested them. It seems they negotiate from the play-book of North Korea.
that I am aware of are the Thai politicians who are asking for aid money.
By that impeccable logic, your parent post was a Thai politician.
Talk about arrogant. "If they complain, it is because they want aid money." How about not having their home destroyed by people who couldn't give a shit about anyone else except themselves?
Or, you can drop the sophomoric and faux-intelligent 'OAMG teh capitalizm is teh nexus of 3vilz!' act.
If you step away from the hyperbole for a moment, you will realise that the environmental malfeasance of the soviet union was also driven by the same kind of greed and corruption. People in positions of power, hell bent on raising numbers, without any concern for the externalities they create. The USSR had china-like growth for almost half a century before it entered the great period of stagnation.
Our system/would/ be great if there was a check and balance against regulatory (and policy) capture. We live in a world where the largest corporations see sovereignty as an obstacle, and purchasing government policy is a strategy to elongate the lifetime of dubious business plans.
If the occupy wall-street crowd lived in the soviet union, then they would be/against/ the established power base. Make no mistake, the republican base is the homologue to the jingoist adherence to existing power structures that led to the demise of the USSR.
But of course then it will be too late to matter. Which is always the drill babies' main strategy.
Indeed, the power brokers will have walked away with the money, and we will be left to clean up the mess they made of our lives. It is a timeless formula.
If fracking is so safe, why did the industry lobby for exemption from drinking water regulation? Because it's so safe we that we have nothing to worry about? And besides, the EPA head himself did the lobbying. Talk about regulatory capture.
Some of your former teachers -- your former professors at universities -- are stating that they have concerns over fracking. I guess that is just a minor detail. Just believe what you want to believe so that you can think of yourself as a good person.
I asked Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University,
whose research for more than 30 years has involved structural mechanics, finite element
methods, and fracture mechanics: "Can drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing liberate biogenic
natural gas into a fresh water aquifer?"
His reply: "Yes, definitely. The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by
disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing
pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus,
or though a faulty cement job. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration
of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow
laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock
mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through
joint sets or faults."
You no better then that right? Because you heard something from a natural gas public relations firm that agrees with your political ideas.
Yeah right. Google for affirming gasland. I read through some of the arguments from each side, and it looks like a canonical example of astroturffing by well funding public relations firms.
The new news is that one of the most outspoken skeptics decided to change his views based on that... which doesn't always happen
Muller was a scientist before he was a "skeptic". That is the difference. He didn't trust the results, set out to prove them wrong, and trusted his own work. The rest of the "skeptics" are really just anti-environmentalists looking for anything excuse to stonewall the political implications of a scientific understanding.
Global warming just isn't happening. In fact we are about to start cooling.
Okay, global warming/is/ happening, but it is absolutely a natural phenomenon.
Okay, global warming/is/ man-made, but we can adapt, nothing to worry about.
Okay, the planet is a bit fucked up, but that's because it is the end times.
Most people insure their house against very rare occurrences.
It is called risk management.
The truth is that the political right will embrace energy independence for almost all the correct reasons, so long as you never mention the environment, because that just freaks them out. They think that some cabal is out to control them, or something crazy like that.
Holy uninformed. If the US government raises a tax on carbon, who says that that money must go to the "UN"? I mean, wtf? Surely a good tax and spend Republican (well, you guys do have the record of taxing and spending, except GeorgeW, who just spent) would be able to put 2+2 together, and realise that raising a carbon tax could be compensated by lowering other taxes.
That's right! A tax can be revenue neutral, and the UN doesn't get a dime!
This only shows the consequences of an earth that heats up. It does not show that man is responsible for the earth heating up or that man has any control over it.
Because something as simple as AGW needs a/single/ paper that encapsulates the entire phenomena in no more than an abstract, so that it can fit between two commercials. Would you believe it then?
a government system that has preferentially given them out
We all know there is a secret room where top government official plan how to extend their power over the masses.
Conspiratorial thinking aside, if you are any type of scientist (not even a climate scientist), and want to have a crack at debunking AGW, then you will have no trouble attracting a very fat grant from the empire builders of the political right. Being somewhat privy to the cut-throat game of getting research funding, that is absolutely and easy way out.
There isn't a dearth of anti-AGW science because of research funding. The reason is far more straight-forward.
Hypocrites indeed. Happiness doesn't come from their crap anyway. Not being able to download something is nothing to get bent out of shape about. If this law is ever enforced, then we'll just see a sharp contraction in MAFIAA profits, and it will serve them right. Nothing of real value will have been lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the Tea Party does NOT have a problem with increased taxes. We have a problem with increased taxes being wasted on more bloated ineffective programs and bailouts.
Opposing the bailouts is economic voodoo. I don't think anybody likes them. Ds absolutely HATE them. On paper the banks have paid back the cash, but in reality, the banks borrowed from the fed and bought government bonds as an exercise in printing free money.
The banks need reform, reform, reform, a la the depression years.
As for wasteful government expenditure -- the people who benefit most from government largess are: the old, veterans and farmers. If we want to meaningfully reduce the size of government (which most people are fine with), then we have to cut into precisely the entitlement programs that were set up by Republicans for Republicans.
Raise taxes, cut government. Great.
Unfortunately everything is backwards in the alternative knowledge system of Fox.
Aren't the democrats just as uncompromising and extreme?
omfg! You don't really believe that do you? The republican party would reject their own policies if the Ds suggested them. It seems they negotiate from the play-book of North Korea.
Has it taken this long because Mr. Manning has been getting his own ducks in a row before the trial?
It is highly unlikely that Manning wants to be abused (and is confinement is abusive). I suspect that someone is teaching him a lesson.
Well too bad for Manning then he uncovered NOTHING while in the meantime delivering the enemy all kinds of juicy intelligence
You've got your blinkers on there.
Let me guess, your a jingoist?
that I am aware of are the Thai politicians who are asking for aid money.
By that impeccable logic, your parent post was a Thai politician.
Talk about arrogant. "If they complain, it is because they want aid money." How about not having their home destroyed by people who couldn't give a shit about anyone else except themselves?
Most new artists wouldn't be able to make much money from one public showing.
You are under the mistaken impression that artists make art for the money. Why do you think the record companies are able to rip them off so much?
Or, you can drop the sophomoric and faux-intelligent 'OAMG teh capitalizm is teh nexus of 3vilz!' act.
If you step away from the hyperbole for a moment, you will realise that the environmental malfeasance of the soviet union was also driven by the same kind of greed and corruption. People in positions of power, hell bent on raising numbers, without any concern for the externalities they create. The USSR had china-like growth for almost half a century before it entered the great period of stagnation.
/would/ be great if there was a check and balance against regulatory (and policy) capture. We live in a world where the largest corporations see sovereignty as an obstacle, and purchasing government policy is a strategy to elongate the lifetime of dubious business plans.
/against/ the established power base. Make no mistake, the republican base is the homologue to the jingoist adherence to existing power structures that led to the demise of the USSR.
Our system
If the occupy wall-street crowd lived in the soviet union, then they would be
History shows that pollution reaches a maximum for a country around when GDP per head reaches about $10,000.
After that, the pollution is just exported to another country, right?
Did you even read the report? rotfl!
But of course then it will be too late to matter. Which is always the drill babies' main strategy.
Indeed, the power brokers will have walked away with the money, and we will be left to clean up the mess they made of our lives. It is a timeless formula.
If fracking is so safe, why did the industry lobby for exemption from drinking water regulation? Because it's so safe we that we have nothing to worry about? And besides, the EPA head himself did the lobbying. Talk about regulatory capture.
Some of your former teachers -- your former professors at universities -- are stating that they have concerns over fracking. I guess that is just a minor detail. Just believe what you want to believe so that you can think of yourself as a good person.
I asked Dr. Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research for more than 30 years has involved structural mechanics, finite element methods, and fracture mechanics: "Can drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer?"
His reply: "Yes, definitely. The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus, or though a faulty cement job. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults."
You no better then that right? Because you heard something from a natural gas public relations firm that agrees with your political ideas.
You are the sucker for believing in the "truths" of a well funded public relations campaign.
Yeah right. Google for affirming gasland. I read through some of the arguments from each side, and it looks like a canonical example of astroturffing by well funding public relations firms.
The new news is that one of the most outspoken skeptics decided to change his views based on that... which doesn't always happen
Muller was a scientist before he was a "skeptic". That is the difference. He didn't trust the results, set out to prove them wrong, and trusted his own work. The rest of the "skeptics" are really just anti-environmentalists looking for anything excuse to stonewall the political implications of a scientific understanding.
A government system that /preferentially/ gives out grants to scientists who are going to prove AGW is correct. Yeah right. Not conspiratorial.
Most people insure their house against very rare occurrences.
It is called risk management.
The truth is that the political right will embrace energy independence for almost all the correct reasons, so long as you never mention the environment, because that just freaks them out. They think that some cabal is out to control them, or something crazy like that.
UN's banksters
Holy uninformed. If the US government raises a tax on carbon, who says that that money must go to the "UN"? I mean, wtf? Surely a good tax and spend Republican (well, you guys do have the record of taxing and spending, except GeorgeW, who just spent) would be able to put 2+2 together, and realise that raising a carbon tax could be compensated by lowering other taxes.
That's right! A tax can be revenue neutral, and the UN doesn't get a dime!
This only shows the consequences of an earth that heats up. It does not show that man is responsible for the earth heating up or that man has any control over it.
Because something as simple as AGW needs a /single/ paper that encapsulates the entire phenomena in no more than an abstract, so that it can fit between two commercials. Would you believe it then?
Nahhhh =0
There is a simple solution -- put a tariff on goods produced in countries that pollute. Fair's fair.
I am sure the critics will move onto some other flaw, almost certainly equally imaginary. Such is the nature of political discourse.
a government system that has preferentially given them out
We all know there is a secret room where top government official plan how to extend their power over the masses.
Conspiratorial thinking aside, if you are any type of scientist (not even a climate scientist), and want to have a crack at debunking AGW, then you will have no trouble attracting a very fat grant from the empire builders of the political right. Being somewhat privy to the cut-throat game of getting research funding, that is absolutely and easy way out.
There isn't a dearth of anti-AGW science because of research funding. The reason is far more straight-forward.
Oh big mishap!
If only Ron Paul wasn't economically illiterate.
Fuck those guys.
Hypocrites indeed. Happiness doesn't come from their crap anyway. Not being able to download something is nothing to get bent out of shape about. If this law is ever enforced, then we'll just see a sharp contraction in MAFIAA profits, and it will serve them right. Nothing of real value will have been lost.