Well, I suppose that you would have to go back to before ww2 to find any US President who did not advocate for an aggressive stance in domestic spying or foreign military muscle flexing
You will find differences in application of those policies
In the good old days, domestic spying was not spoken about, the NSA was only called No Such Agency, and that was if you were even aware of the acronym. However, President Obama has placed more court oversight and review over the activities mandated by the Patriot Act than had existed for the several decades since ww2 (yes, it has been around that long)
As far as foreign adventurism goes... That Kennedy was pretty much of a hawk and Johnson inherited his mess, but most Dem Presidents since him have either avoided placing troops into war zones,or sought to negotiate themselves away from those situations. Of course Nixon got us out of Vietnam (after spending years spouting domino theory bs and demanding that we go big and win it), but ever since then the rep Presidents have been pretty on the spot about wanting to go kick butt and place our soldiers in harms way (i.e. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan)
I suppose that you can find similarities, but I find the differences to be distinct and demonstrable
Are you demonstrating the 'I'm rubber you're glue', the 'I know you are,but what am I' style of debate now? It's been so long since I was in grade school that the differences seem minute
The 'problem' is that the current fossil fuel investors have many billions of their dollars sunk into those investments
They are not going not give up that investment without a fight
They are similarly committed to keeping the country from moving to nuclear power, solar power, or any other source of energy that does not directly leverage their investments
Oh, and the fossil fuel 'investors' are deeply invested in republican politicians as well
To them it is 'good business', to the rest of us it is a disaster
President Bill Clinton placed limits on CO2 and mercury emissions on Coal power plants and regulations that any new plant that were built include scrubbers to eliminate those products
President George W Bush rolled those regulations back in the first year of his Presidency
Since you seem intent to draw this far afield, I would take particular notice of President Obama NOT shoving a few hundred thousand more troops into the middle east while removing most of the existing troops as a valid difference between him and the prior rep President who seemed to have a fetish for 'boots on the ground', a gentle euphemism for getting US troops killed
And then Dr Banjo demanded the next missing link...
Seriously, that is about the most dishonest attempt at raising the bar that I have seen lately, at least outside of the anti-Evolution lobby
I demonstrate what the leaders of each party have been saying for the past 15 years, and what the likely candidates for the next four years have to say, and you just want to start a fishing expedition to attempt to dilute the results
OK, What did the prior Dem president have to say? Oh, that's right President Bill Clinton, and his VP were ADAMANT supporters of climate change, and enacted regulations to control carbon emissions, which the following republican President Bush and his VP (both with careers in fossil fuels) rolled back immediately
But heck, let's cast the net a little wider, eh? The prior Rep President George H W Bush, lots of talk during the campaign, little actual action: " Bush charted a significantly less-ambitious path on climate change than environmentalists had hoped. The United States did not host a global warming conference in 1988, despite proposals put forth by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William. As calls mounted for Bush to keep his campaign promises on global warming, White House officials went on the offensive against critics of the president. Spokesman Marlon Fitzwater repeatedly warned of potentially drastic consequences for the U.S. economy posed by proposed solutions to global warming, such as a carbon tax or restrictions on coal-fired power plants. Fitzwater’s comments reflected a growing tendency within the Bush administration to see the economic costs of an aggressive stance on global warming as too high for comfort. " http://what-when-how.com/globa...
Or any of the other rep candidates for 2016
Rand Paul: "Paul said the earth goes through periods of time when the climate changes, but he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why.” He threw in some environmentalist-bashing: “The earth’s 4.5 billion years old, and you’re going to say that we had four hurricanes and so it proves a theory?"
Bobby Jindal: "has been a soloist in the “Drill, baby drill!” chorus. In a 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed advocating for more production of fossil fuels, Jindal wrote that Obama “must put energy prices and energy independence ahead of zealous adherence to left-wing environmental theory.”"
Chris Christie: "While the NJ DEP contends there is no political motivation to its silence on the potential connection between global warming and Sandy, it is clear that Christie has made a decision not to link Sandy, the signature moment of his tenure, to climate change."
Scott Walker: "He signed a “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change and has been a keynote speaker at the climate-denying Heartland Institute."
Jeb Bush: "“It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view.”"
Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013" https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...
Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says: "Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”" http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...
Here is what the last Rep President had to say: " In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way."" http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it: " Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz." http://politicalticker.blogs.c...
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
When you respond to corporate lobbying and political advertising that tells you to cut taxes for corporations, elect leaders that promise small government and reduce the regulatory burden for companies
Then you are the problem
The American voter needs to take a long hard look at themselves and ask if following groups like the tea party and promises of applying libertarian principles to government regulation of corporations isn't just slitting our own throats and guaranteeing continued giveaways like this to companies over the rights of individuals
Considering that the Sun is related to fox news via Murdoch, I would suspect that they would use it primarily as a means to generate their own stories and give some credibility to their chosen path of propaganda
Slashdot on the other hand... would probably find a way to tie it to add revenue
Hi cold Not drinking anything harder than gatorade, but you certainly have to consider this side of it:
The righties were terrified after the 2012 election when the millenials all went dem Even young republicans were being interviewed and saying that they saw nothing interesting in the gop The common wisdom was that if people voted for the same party in their first two elections, then they would stick with that party for life Next thing you know the gop opens up with every imaginable scandal, IRS blocking teaparty pacs, NSA tracking down capitol hill leakers... and then snowden... BAMMO
They got a hit on that one,maybe it was pure luck, maybe they drew it up from the start, but it is hard to deny that it was exactly what they needed to scare people off of voting. At least the newbies. Don't know about you, but I've seen a lot of this agitprop before
Just before the whole snowden thing went greenwald, the gop was getting destroyed in the polls because everybody under thirty was voting for the dems
The spring of generated scandals was effective, not in turning these people into republicans, but getting them to become disgusted enough with their government to not show up at the polls on election day
The gopers do not have to publicly support snowden to benefit from his revelations because everybody who votes for the gop lived through the cold war and pretty much expects that stuff is going on, or supports it openly
The 2014 elections, with a spectacularly low turnout in voters under thirty and clear gop wins, demonstrates just how effective the snowden gambit has been
fwi, it is not the firs time that the gop has sold national security down the river for wins at the polls
Well there was widespread deregulation of financial markets that made for the great recession Going from no deficits and a path to paying of the national debt under Clinton to tax cuts and war debt bringing the national debt to new highs Rolling back all of the Clinton controls on CO2 emissions and encouraging the building of more coal power plants Destabilizing the middle east and getting thousands of service men and women killed on some unjustified search for wmds
you know the little things that hurt us as a nation for generations
Yes, 'American Exceptionalism' is the sort of hubris that let our auto industry fall back on their heels and let their lunch get eaten by Japanese manufacturers And, I will even go on to agree that protectionism has had a pretty horrible track record for building aggression between nations and probably helped to lead to the first two world wars
However, the IT industry in America forms (and will continue to grow as) a significant portion of the middle class. This middle class is expected to educate their young and continue to provide economic leadership in years to come. The way that I see it, the US can choose to 1. protect domestic IT jobs by avoiding policies that allow US workers to be undermined by foreign workers, or 2. provide a level of social and educational support to Americans that most of the European nations provide (education being number one on the list)
I would go on to argue that protectionism of jobs it not similar to protectionism of trade such as we saw in the early 20th century. Providing some level of support to US jobs by either supporting education or supporting workers provides money to engage in trade and prevents economic sluggishness that would lead politicians to attempt to enact trade protectionism
Right now America has an edge in risk tolerance that gives us an advantage in innovation and business creation. We need to leverage this edge while it exists, and I do not see selling out our middle class for short term quarterly profits as the right was to accomplish that. China continues to demonstrate itself as a very capable competitor and reducing our competitiveness for short term profits at this time seems foolish
So, are you suggesting that either Sony or Phillips 'left' America, when they are both brands that were originally from foreign lands?
In fact, Phillips runs Phillips Electronics out of Andover Mass, presumably for American talent, and Sony runs Sony Entertainment out of Los Angeles, again for that 'American cool'
Thank you for buying products created by Americans
Welcome to business school circa 1998, where 'we'll send it all overseas and $profit$' was taught as a viable business practice.
You manage to ignore many of the failures of outsourcing, such as language and cultural divides between customers (business and consumer) and the offshore workers, and the tendency for outsourcers to provide their A team at the beginning of the contract, then shifting their B and C teams into place as they attempt o land more contracts
And, even if you decide that you are going to take the whole kit and kaboodle offshore, that may work for canned existing services that are fully commoditized, but it completely ignores that American tendency to innovate and create new services and companies
As much as you seem to hate Americans, we are still fucking cool and continue to create what the rest of the world wants to buy
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I suppose that you would have to go back to before ww2 to find any US President who did not advocate for an aggressive stance in domestic spying or foreign military muscle flexing
You will find differences in application of those policies
In the good old days, domestic spying was not spoken about, the NSA was only called No Such Agency, and that was if you were even aware of the acronym.
However, President Obama has placed more court oversight and review over the activities mandated by the Patriot Act than had existed for the several decades since ww2 (yes, it has been around that long)
As far as foreign adventurism goes... That Kennedy was pretty much of a hawk and Johnson inherited his mess, but most Dem Presidents since him have either avoided placing troops into war zones,or sought to negotiate themselves away from those situations. Of course Nixon got us out of Vietnam (after spending years spouting domino theory bs and demanding that we go big and win it), but ever since then the rep Presidents have been pretty on the spot about wanting to go kick butt and place our soldiers in harms way (i.e. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Afghanistan)
I suppose that you can find similarities, but I find the differences to be distinct and demonstrable
troll is troll
Are you demonstrating the 'I'm rubber you're glue', the 'I know you are,but what am I' style of debate now?
It's been so long since I was in grade school that the differences seem minute
Don't tell me, next you are gonna fling poo
The 'problem' is that the current fossil fuel investors have many billions of their dollars sunk into those investments
They are not going not give up that investment without a fight
They are similarly committed to keeping the country from moving to nuclear power, solar power, or any other source of energy that does not directly leverage their investments
Oh, and the fossil fuel 'investors' are deeply invested in republican politicians as well
To them it is 'good business', to the rest of us it is a disaster
President Bill Clinton placed limits on CO2 and mercury emissions on Coal power plants and regulations that any new plant that were built include scrubbers to eliminate those products
President George W Bush rolled those regulations back in the first year of his Presidency
Since you seem intent to draw this far afield, I would take particular notice of President Obama NOT shoving a few hundred thousand more troops into the middle east while removing most of the existing troops as a valid difference between him and the prior rep President who seemed to have a fetish for 'boots on the ground', a gentle euphemism for getting US troops killed
And then Dr Banjo demanded the next missing link...
Seriously, that is about the most dishonest attempt at raising the bar that I have seen lately, at least outside of the anti-Evolution lobby
I demonstrate what the leaders of each party have been saying for the past 15 years, and what the likely candidates for the next four years have to say, and you just want to start a fishing expedition to attempt to dilute the results
OK, What did the prior Dem president have to say?
Oh, that's right President Bill Clinton, and his VP were ADAMANT supporters of climate change, and enacted regulations to control carbon emissions, which the following republican President Bush and his VP (both with careers in fossil fuels) rolled back immediately
But heck, let's cast the net a little wider, eh?
The prior Rep President George H W Bush, lots of talk during the campaign, little actual action:
" Bush charted a significantly less-ambitious path on climate change than environmentalists had hoped. The United States did not host a global warming conference in 1988, despite proposals put forth by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William. As calls mounted for Bush to keep his campaign promises on global warming, White House officials went on the offensive against critics of the president. Spokesman Marlon Fitzwater repeatedly warned of potentially drastic consequences for the U.S. economy posed by proposed solutions to global warming, such as a carbon tax or restrictions on coal-fired power plants. Fitzwater’s comments reflected a growing tendency within the Bush administration to see the economic costs of an aggressive stance on global warming as too high for comfort. "
http://what-when-how.com/globa...
Or any of the other rep candidates for 2016
Rand Paul:
"Paul said the earth goes through periods of time when the climate changes, but he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why.” He threw in some environmentalist-bashing: “The earth’s 4.5 billion years old, and you’re going to say that we had four hurricanes and so it proves a theory?"
Bobby Jindal:
"has been a soloist in the “Drill, baby drill!” chorus. In a 2012 Wall Street Journal op-ed advocating for more production of fossil fuels, Jindal wrote that Obama “must put energy prices and energy independence ahead of zealous adherence to left-wing environmental theory.”"
Chris Christie:
"While the NJ DEP contends there is no political motivation to its silence on the potential connection between global warming and Sandy, it is clear that Christie has made a decision not to link Sandy, the signature moment of his tenure, to climate change."
Scott Walker:
"He signed a “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change and has been a keynote speaker at the climate-denying Heartland Institute."
Jeb Bush:
"“It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view.”"
notice a trend Dr Banjo?
Um... Climate Change?
Here is what the sitting Dem President has to say:
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.” - President Barack Obama, June 25, 2013"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene...
Here is what the Dem candidate for President in 2016 says:
"Clinton began her remarks at the National Clean Energy Summit by laying out the problems climate change is already causing today, including extreme weather and droughts. “[These are] the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she said. “No matter what deniers say.”"
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil...
Here is what the last Rep President had to say:
" In 2001, President Bush decided to pull out of the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol, a worldwide agreement to try to keep greenhouse gases down. Environmentalists were aghast. The president said he had his reasons. "That I felt the Kyoto Treaty was unrealistic. It was not based upon science. The stated that mandates in the Kyoto Treaty would affect our economy in a negative way.""
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
And here is what a Rep candidate for 2016 has to say about it:
" Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the "data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing." "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened," said Cruz."
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...
So, yeah there are real differences between US political parties, particularly on the subject of this article, Climate Change
Politicians who require millions of dollars to get elected will represent the people who get them into office
We have simply legitimatized the process of bribery by calling corporate contributions 'free speech'
When you respond to corporate lobbying and political advertising that tells you to cut taxes for corporations, elect leaders that promise small government and reduce the regulatory burden for companies
Then you are the problem
The American voter needs to take a long hard look at themselves and ask if following groups like the tea party and promises of applying libertarian principles to government regulation of corporations isn't just slitting our own throats and guaranteeing continued giveaways like this to companies over the rights of individuals
I was thinking of a Lovecraft tale, At the Mountains of Madness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It seems quite clear to me that each plant's 'briny solution' is the real intelligence on the planet, and we are just playthings for them
Murdoch does not seek to curry favor with the government
Murdoch seeks place people in charge of the government who want to curry favor with him
Considering that the Sun is related to fox news via Murdoch, I would suspect that they would use it primarily as a means to generate their own stories and give some credibility to their chosen path of propaganda
Slashdot on the other hand... would probably find a way to tie it to add revenue
jeez ya woulda thought that the aspartame lobby could afford to buy their own 5 digit uid instead of posting as AC
to a Twilight Zone episode?
Fricking physicists mucking around in god's domain
Hi cold
Not drinking anything harder than gatorade, but you certainly have to consider this side of it:
The righties were terrified after the 2012 election when the millenials all went dem
Even young republicans were being interviewed and saying that they saw nothing interesting in the gop
The common wisdom was that if people voted for the same party in their first two elections, then they would stick with that party for life
Next thing you know the gop opens up with every imaginable scandal, IRS blocking teaparty pacs, NSA tracking down capitol hill leakers... and then snowden... BAMMO
They got a hit on that one,maybe it was pure luck, maybe they drew it up from the start, but it is hard to deny that it was exactly what they needed to scare people off of voting. At least the newbies. Don't know about you, but I've seen a lot of this agitprop before
Have a nice evening
Google should do what it does well, which is build links into other people's services and provide them all in a single place
Just before the whole snowden thing went greenwald, the gop was getting destroyed in the polls because everybody under thirty was voting for the dems
The spring of generated scandals was effective, not in turning these people into republicans, but getting them to become disgusted enough with their government to not show up at the polls on election day
The gopers do not have to publicly support snowden to benefit from his revelations because everybody who votes for the gop lived through the cold war and pretty much expects that stuff is going on, or supports it openly
The 2014 elections, with a spectacularly low turnout in voters under thirty and clear gop wins, demonstrates just how effective the snowden gambit has been
fwi, it is not the firs time that the gop has sold national security down the river for wins at the polls
Pretty funny coming from an AC
They call pretty much anybody that can run a script a hacker these days
In the old days we used to call then spies
Putin and Snowden are the new heroes of the gop and fox news
I think that Obama derangement syndrome has taken a serious toll on the American right wing's sanity
Well there was widespread deregulation of financial markets that made for the great recession
Going from no deficits and a path to paying of the national debt under Clinton to tax cuts and war debt bringing the national debt to new highs
Rolling back all of the Clinton controls on CO2 emissions and encouraging the building of more coal power plants
Destabilizing the middle east and getting thousands of service men and women killed on some unjustified search for wmds
you know the little things that hurt us as a nation for generations
Yes, 'American Exceptionalism' is the sort of hubris that let our auto industry fall back on their heels and let their lunch get eaten by Japanese manufacturers
And, I will even go on to agree that protectionism has had a pretty horrible track record for building aggression between nations and probably helped to lead to the first two world wars
However, the IT industry in America forms (and will continue to grow as) a significant portion of the middle class. This middle class is expected to educate their young and continue to provide economic leadership in years to come. The way that I see it, the US can choose to 1. protect domestic IT jobs by avoiding policies that allow US workers to be undermined by foreign workers, or 2. provide a level of social and educational support to Americans that most of the European nations provide (education being number one on the list)
I would go on to argue that protectionism of jobs it not similar to protectionism of trade such as we saw in the early 20th century. Providing some level of support to US jobs by either supporting education or supporting workers provides money to engage in trade and prevents economic sluggishness that would lead politicians to attempt to enact trade protectionism
Right now America has an edge in risk tolerance that gives us an advantage in innovation and business creation. We need to leverage this edge while it exists, and I do not see selling out our middle class for short term quarterly profits as the right was to accomplish that. China continues to demonstrate itself as a very capable competitor and reducing our competitiveness for short term profits at this time seems foolish
So, are you suggesting that either Sony or Phillips 'left' America, when they are both brands that were originally from foreign lands?
In fact, Phillips runs Phillips Electronics out of Andover Mass, presumably for American talent, and Sony runs Sony Entertainment out of Los Angeles, again for that 'American cool'
Thank you for buying products created by Americans
Welcome to business school circa 1998, where 'we'll send it all overseas and $profit$' was taught as a viable business practice.
You manage to ignore many of the failures of outsourcing, such as language and cultural divides between customers (business and consumer) and the offshore workers, and the tendency for outsourcers to provide their A team at the beginning of the contract, then shifting their B and C teams into place as they attempt o land more contracts
And, even if you decide that you are going to take the whole kit and kaboodle offshore, that may work for canned existing services that are fully commoditized, but it completely ignores that American tendency to innovate and create new services and companies
As much as you seem to hate Americans, we are still fucking cool and continue to create what the rest of the world wants to buy
No, it is the difference between nationalistic and global free markets
If America is constrained by their national boundaries (and citizens) for IT workers, the supply will be less than demand and wages will rise
Id America is free to engage a global market, then there is a glut of IT workers and wages will fall
FYI, no other country, including India, allows foreign IT workers to create a glut and reduce the value of their own workers
Um, yeah, never seen emotion driven diatribes on the right either. Unless Hannity and O Reilly are libs now