The Federal government makes more net money off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.
Could you provide a source for this information?
Hint: You won't find one.
Sorry, Charlie, you lose. Unfortunately, I got moderated down to oblivion for not spewing the Slashdot party line in regards to big oil, so you and no one else will probably ever read this, but here goes:
Unfortunately, it only goes out to 2001, but notice that the profitability for refining operations declines below zero after 2001. In layman's terms, that means refining is losing money.
I'm sure you're all set with data to contradict mine, so fire away, since "I won't find a source"....that implies you have lots of sources.
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates?
Absolutely the issue is more complicated, and in fact, the net effect of gun control seems to be nothing but reduced access to guns for law abiding citizens. In some cases, the rate of violent (gun) crime went up, in other cases, the rate went down.
Link to various studies
The bottom line, as a person that values personal liberty, and the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the state and the police have no obligation to protect you or me specifically, I prefer to live in a state where the right to be armed is still respected.
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
I hope you realize that the ONLY reason ethaonol is cheaper than regular fuels is because of the "tax cuts" for ethanol producers are paid for by the taxes of everyone else. The Federal government makes more net money off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does. And anyway, corn ethanol is a dead-end. Requires fossile fuels to plant, fertilize, and harvest. Even switch grass won't get us out of the hole we're in.
Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
The outer Mongolia is the region to which every single major Eurasian human migration can be traced. Before DNA techniques, language techniques and historical references have been used to trace these migrations.
Most of that has now been confirmed using DNA. There was a number of waves going as far back as the Dorian invasion which overthrew the bronze age greek civilisations and established what 500 years later became the golden age greece. This was followed by gotts, westgotts, barbarians, huns, bulgarians, etc. All of them displaced from outer mongolia a few centuries before they ended up in Europe.
Actually, no. There were lots of nomadic invasions that came from places other than the Mongolian plain. Most of the Germanic tribes that laid the Roman empire low came from Scandanavia. The Slavs that were the terror of the Balkans around 600 A.D. came from the Pripyet marshes.
Plenty of nomadic invasions hailed from the Mongolian plain, however. The Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Alans, the Huns, the Turks, and the Mongols, to name a few.
That is, of course, nonsense. A bunch of handwaving about "whoa, we don't know everything perfectly, therefore we don't know anything" is not a scientific argument.
Well, I'm glad you think so, since that isn't my argument at all. My argument is that you can't take fuzzy data, drill it out to 5 decimal points, and suddenly claim it's precise data because your computer model goes out to that many significant digits.
We can in fact construct temperature reconstructions back tens of millions of years and more. They're not hugely accurate, but they're not frauds either -- they can tell us that, say, the Cretaceous period was very tropical compared to today, and they can pick out ice ages. Reconstructions of more recent temperatures can do much better.
So, you admit the estimation of the data is fuzzy, but then have no problem with using it making detailed, very specific projections, and then imprinting these with assertions of being "fact" and "undeniable"...and I'm the science denier?
It's pretty obvious that you can take the geological record and make generalizations about overall climate for an aggregated time period. What you can't do honestly, however, is take that data, and then assert that 2006 was the "hottest year" in 10,000 or 100,000 years. AND THIS IS WHAT MANY GLOBAL WARMING PUNDITS ARE CLAIMING.
Good grief man, no wonder you have trouble understanding the science! The GP clarly stated: "Look, I'm going to make up some fake numbers here to produce an example to more clearly illustrate the point."
Thanks for pointing that out...I fully understand the main point of his post was for illustrative purposes. I wasn't attacking his exact estimate of temperature rise, I was attacking the general process for estimating that the global mean temperature is 1 degree higher than it was 10,000 years ago.
For example, real time surface temperature sensing is biased to the northern hemisphere, and excludes the polar regions. This includes man's written record. Historical analogues, on the other hand, especially ones going back farther than tree rings, is incredibly biased towards polar regions (ice cores being a large constituent of the data). Since the global mean temperature is an aggregate global data value, and ice core samples contain a lot of localized data and not as much global data (which are primarily, from what I understand, gas isotopes from biogenic activity), saying you know what the temperature was, with any certainty, 10,000 or 100,000 years ago is scientific fraud.
What we have are computer models, of which we're able to feed a couple of decades of good, hard global data, and then a collection of samples of analogues for other periods. Just because the models and analogues track well over the past 10 or 20 years doesn't mean it's a valid or accurate model, especially of what happened in the past.
Regarding skeptics of global warming, not all of us are "holocaust deniers". I certainly, for my part, think a lot more research needs to be done. But the evangelizing on the global warming front is pretty pathetic, dogmatic, and taking the shape of the orthodoxy. The only "solution" you here from most of the crowd is "reduce emissions now", when, if things are as dire as they say, we should be looking at carbon sequestering and increasing atmospheric albedo, rather than cutting the knees out from under modern society and a massive redistribution of wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world in the form of "atmospheric credits".
Suppose the average temperature of the Earth in 1850 was 70 degrees.
How do we know what the average temperature of the Earth was in 1850, considering we only recently had the ability to measure the global mean?
Oh yeah, we have models. Based on tree rings, ice core samples, a few isolated, non-indexed temperature measurements.
In other words, it's a guess, built off of a computer model. Which is then used to provide evidence for another computer model. And now we have computer models validating other computer models, and people waving their print outs saying "The model says the sky is falling." But a lot of the data is suspect, and unverifiable. Saying you know the global mean temperature 10,000 years ago because the trace argon isotope percentage was x is just so much b.s. You have a model that says if the argon isotope percentage was x, the global mean temperature was y. That does not mean the global mean temperature actually was y. This is the problem with the global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as FACT.
The reality is a lot of them are social engineers and socialists, not environmental or climate scientists.
I think that it is clear that the UK need to follow most of the rest of the world, and get back to being self reliant, and formulating its own foreign policy, not taking orders and instructions from, or relying on a foreign power.
Sure, and just as soon as the UK decides to spend more than 2.5% of their GDP on their military, they can start pursuing an independent path. By themselves, the UK don't have the money or the talent any more to develop state of the art military equipment across all possible spectrums. They have to "ally" with someone, and like the parent's parent said, who do you really trust? The US has gone to war twice to save the UK in the 20th Century. The UK has gone to war twice in the 20th Century to save France from Germany.
As for the special relationship the US has with the UK, how many other countries has the US given access to the Trident II D5 missile?
The UK is a sovereign country, and if they want, they can go forge their "own" path and jump into bed with the bureaucratic dictatorship that is the EU. More power to them if thats what they want. But they are hardly in a position to forge an independent path these days. Geopolitical power has shifted away from those who are no longer willing or able to use it to those who are, and those with the demographic momentum to sustain it.
Judges only count as activists if they decide for civil rights and any constitutional amendment that isn't the second amendment... They are good, upstanding judges when they side with corporations and big government.
Frequently, I see a lot of "liberal", activist judges more concerned with the rights of criminals vs the rights of citizens. Additionally, regarding the 2nd Ammendment (of which I'm a staunch supporter), if you allow the judicial abrogation of the 2nd Ammendment by re-interpretation, then you de facto allow the judicial abrogation of the whole Constitution. I find it amusing that people maintain the fiction that somehow the whole Bill of Rights applies to the rights of the People, except for the 2nd Ammendment. Apparently, by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", the Framers really meant the government, it's agencies, and military, and not joe citizen in direct contradiction to the use of "the people" throughout the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The problem with "liberals" today is that they are just like the irconservative bretheren and are more interested in enforcing ideological orthodoxy, via fair means and foul, rather than actually following the rules set down for the government. Government for the people, by the people, has become government by bureaucratic and judicial fiat.
Yeah, but "no taxation without representation" has a better ring to it than the current brouhaha. It's hard to come up with a catchy slogan about a passenger point scoring profile.
If you're waiting for "liberal" judges to restore rights, I wouldn't hold your breath. Remember, it was the "liberal" justices that decided private property rights didn't matter if a town wanted to take your land to give it to another private party in Kelo vs Connecticut.
John, this is Bob, you're neighbor and the Vice President of Yard Maintenance for the neighborhood HOA. I don't know if you got the past 4 letters, but we've noticed that your lawn is about the regulation 4 inches. Also, you haven't edged the sidewalk in several days, and it's looking pretty ragged. Remember, this is your neighborhood too!
Hey, I'm all for prosecuting Foley and putting him in jail, but your excusing of Studds activity because "it was in another country" is amusing, and more or less proves my point of a double standard. As for Crane, he was voted out by his constituents, but I guess Studd's thought that buggering a 17 year old in a foreign country was no big deal; "what happens in Cancun stays in Cancun", eh?
It's interesting to contrast the Republican treatment of Foley (forced to resign) vs the Democratic treatment of Studds (given a standing ovation, and retired some years later), and to compare the relative offenses. Foley sent suggest emails to a 17 year old intern. Studds had sex with a 17 year old intern.
Democrats thought Clinton, lying under oath, was "no big deal", and neither was Barney Frank allowing his lover to run a prostitution ring from his Congressional office.
Now, I'm all for getting rid of corrupt Republicans. I just wish Democrats had the same zeal for policing their own as they do for Republicans.
Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right?
You're kidding, right? Democrats moderated, slightly, there stance on gun control because in 1994 it cost them Congress and the Senate in the single largest turn out of incumbents in American history. Al Gore his home state of Tennesse, and hence, the election, in 2000 because he morphed from being a pro-gun Senator into being an anti-gun Vice President.
On abortion, the spectrum goes from "abortion on demand, at any point, for any reason" to "no abortion allowed, ever, for any reason". Most Americans fit in the middle of that spectrum with respect to allowing abortion. There is a sizeable fraction of people, however, that think that 3rd trimester abortions should be perfectly legal. Guess where their comfy home is? Guess who they influence to an undue degree? Yes, the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Democratic party has to change their position on abortion, because it'll never happen. But running a nominally anti-abortion Presidential candidate would take one of the largest wedge issues away from the Republicans.
On immigration, the person writing Democratic policy, more or less, is Ted Kennedy, who's an open borders advocate. His latest, greatest bill, the so-called Senate Amnesty Bill, grants illegal aliens TAX amnesty for 2 out of 5 years (something, btw, that mere subjects, I mean citizens, don't get, nor do legal immigrants either), and a guaranteed median wage for their work (something, again, that legal immigrants and US citizens don't get either). The Senate amnesty bill passed by DEMOCRATS voting en-bloc along with a few RINOs. It's hard to see a permissive immigration policy as anything but a Democratic position. The following is the House Report on Illegal Immigration: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Bord er-Report.pdf. It's worth a read, regardless of what political party you belong to.
As for Clinton, sticking chicken feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. She's a tremendous politician and a hell of a triangulator, but your examples are a thin patina on an otherwise thoroughly red core. The best that can be said for her is she's a statist interested in power for power's sake.
As for the gay issue, I'm talking principally about gay marriage, and gay adoption. And honestly, I'm ambivilent on it myself. I lean liberatarian, and it's hard to come up with an anti-gay marriage argument that is congruent with a libertarian philosophy. The "best" arguments are the slippery slope arguments (principally, bigamy, which has the same argument around consensual relations), heterosexual marriage and the organic family as a social good, and the rapid demise of intact families after the onset of legalized gay marriage in European countries (which may or may not be caused by other factors). Anyway, it's a bit like gun-rights. Republicans frequently shit on gun-owners, because honestly, where else are they going to go? Democrats could do the same to gays and get away with it as well. Not saying it's right, but parties frequently do the wrong thing for expedient political advantage during an election cycle.
By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well.
You and I both know that wouldn't and couldn't happen. By the same token, maybe we should just ignore the Second Ammendment and throw away gun owners rights, right (oh yeah, I forgot, it's the leftist canard that gun rights only apply to the government, not to citizens, despite the rest of the BoR applying to individuals...and since when has a government ever needed to enshrine its rights since given a monopoly of force, they can just take what they want?).
Sure: Because Kennedy is an unreformed hard left socialist. Take almost any position, be it immigration, foreign policy, gun control, tax policy, and yes, gay issues, and Kennedy is far to the left of mainstream America. He's probably to the left of the average Massachusets voter as well, but gets elected because of his name. His certainly far to te left of John F. Kennedy.
And Kennedy is typical of the well known national Democrats. Out of Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary is the most ring wing by a long shot and she's an unrequited left wing radical.
The formula for the death of the Democratic party is pretty simple. Keep doing what they are doing and keep nominating the same type of people they nominate. Given the level of discontent with Republicans, both inside and outside the party, this election should be a slam dunk sweep for the Democrats. But it isn't. Because Democrats, by and large, have trouble fielding good candidates (John Kerry is a perfect case in point), and they have a very hard time connecting with independent voters outside left-wing bastions like Massachusets, LA, San Fransisco, Chicago, and NYC.
The formula for potential Democratic dominance is pretty simple too. All they have to do is move to the middle, and only a little bit, on positions that are their big vote losers with independents like gun rights, abortion rights, immigration, and national security. The vast majority of the American public isn't comfortable with civilian disarmament, abortion on demand through the third trimester, or open borders and a demilitarized US. Hell, if the Democrats came out with a strong immigration stance (other than let the floodgates open and leave them open), they could cleave the Republican party right in half.
Yep, and thats what happens when the opposition party and their followers goes off the deep end. In response to Republican dominance, Democrats have gone even further to the left, which is the absolutely last thing they should do. Freaking Ted Kennedy is the "conscience" of the party. And that's really, really fucking scary to the average person in the midwest.
Hate to quibble, but O'Reilly isn't really conservative. He's probably as disliked by the right just as much as he is by the left. Personally, I think he's a gun grabbing statist blowhard.
Hannity is an idealogue, but I don't consider that a bad thing per se. I should've put quotes around my use in the parent post. My point was, and still is, if bad behavior by supposed conservatives is sufficient to change your point of view regarding the world (and, to a great degree, that's one of the big seperating factors between the left in the right: they disagree not only on what the problems are, but also on what the solutions should be), then your conservative identity wasn't really that strong to begin with.
That really all depends on how you define "reality", and "liberal".
Today's Democrats are reactionary leftists, not liberals in the classical sense. The end-state for the Democratic vision of America is a transnational elite (and super rich, as in Soros, Ted Turner, and others) ruling over (benignly, of course) the teeming masses, managing our dieoff as humanely as possible (since humans are such a threat to the environment, the only remediation is our removal). This is the cutting edge "liberal" ideology, the only novel ideas they are presenting today. Granted, it's the fringe, but the fringe is holding the leash and now has the money. It remains to be seen if the Democratic party faithful will follow them off a cliff.
Are you kidding? It was the Rush types that initially drove me away from the conservative side. Rush and pals contantly shout down any disagreements (even from there own co-hosts!) insult their oposition and call them names. I can't stand that sort of thing, even when I agree with the view-point.
Well, you just definitely proved that you don't listen to Rush. He doesn't have co-hosts, doesn't call people names (I'm assuming you meant callers), and the times I've heard him have a reasonable person from the opposite side of the spectrum, he's been very respectful and allowed them to state their position.
Now this is how Rush et al would say the same thing (not an actual quote):
Those STUPID Lie-beral Demon-crats want to STEAL my tax dollars to give it to some welfare queen with twenty kids so she can buy crack?!? Only a complete MORON would think that's a good idea! But then, I already said they were Democrats..."
Again, it's pretty clear you are pantomiming the liberal perception that's percolated down the grapevine, but never actually listened to the show itself. Yes, conservative talk radio attacks Democratic positions. Guess what, it's called political discourse. Democrats attack conservative positions too. They have their institutions also (the "mainstream" media, academia, 99% of Hollywood).
And if that was all it took to "drive you away from the conservative side", frankly, the conservative side doesn't need "really strong" idealogues like you. I don't think I've ever seen an argument like yours that could be considered half way intelligent. It's like saying you used to be heterosexual, but you hated the way men chased women at bars, so you turned gay in response. Either something matches your value set or it doesn't.
However, limiting pollution, especially of the toxic kind, is a very laudable goal. However, Kyoto, as it stands, is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme, not any sort of viable pollution reduction scheme.
If the planet may be subject to orbital shifts that change the climate, shouldn't our civilization be empowered to do whatever it can to minimize such changes insofar as they represent a threat to our current au courant version of the ecosystem?
The problem with this premise, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), is it presumes that a orbital shift will increase the temperature. The opposite is just as likely to happen. And a global ice age (ie, where the entire earth was covered in ice, as has happened before) would be almost as devastating to life on Earth as a runaway greenhouse chain reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal government makes more net money off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.
s p
t ml#1-2.
y sis_publications/oil_market_basics/ref_image_prof_ rate.htm
Could you provide a source for this information? Hint: You won't find one.
Sorry, Charlie, you lose. Unfortunately, I got moderated down to oblivion for not spewing the Slashdot party line in regards to big oil, so you and no one else will probably ever read this, but here goes:
Gasoline price breakdown.
The Federal government makes 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in the United States. Oil companies make, on average, 10 cents per gallon sold.
And yeah, I listed a conocophillips website. Mea culpla. Here's a government one that breaks down the component prices for gasoline:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.a
And here's another (state) government study that breaks down cost http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.h
And here's a graph that breaks down the profit margin for oil and gas production and refining operations:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/anal
Unfortunately, it only goes out to 2001, but notice that the profitability for refining operations declines below zero after 2001. In layman's terms, that means refining is losing money.
I'm sure you're all set with data to contradict mine, so fire away, since "I won't find a source"....that implies you have lots of sources.
I love the slashdot moderation system...post anything that isn't socialist left wing dogma and you are moderated as a troll.
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates?
Absolutely the issue is more complicated, and in fact, the net effect of gun control seems to be nothing but reduced access to guns for law abiding citizens. In some cases, the rate of violent (gun) crime went up, in other cases, the rate went down. Link to various studies
The bottom line, as a person that values personal liberty, and the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the state and the police have no obligation to protect you or me specifically, I prefer to live in a state where the right to be armed is still respected.
More at Znet [zmag.org]
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
I hope you realize that the ONLY reason ethaonol is cheaper than regular fuels is because of the "tax cuts" for ethanol producers are paid for by the taxes of everyone else. The Federal government makes more net money off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does. And anyway, corn ethanol is a dead-end. Requires fossile fuels to plant, fertilize, and harvest. Even switch grass won't get us out of the hole we're in.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
You mean like in Washington D.C.?
Or maybe you mean Chicago
Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
His staunch support of gun control and redistributive economics.
The outer Mongolia is the region to which every single major Eurasian human migration can be traced. Before DNA techniques, language techniques and historical references have been used to trace these migrations.
Most of that has now been confirmed using DNA. There was a number of waves going as far back as the Dorian invasion which overthrew the bronze age greek civilisations and established what 500 years later became the golden age greece. This was followed by gotts, westgotts, barbarians, huns, bulgarians, etc. All of them displaced from outer mongolia a few centuries before they ended up in Europe.
Actually, no. There were lots of nomadic invasions that came from places other than the Mongolian plain. Most of the Germanic tribes that laid the Roman empire low came from Scandanavia. The Slavs that were the terror of the Balkans around 600 A.D. came from the Pripyet marshes.
Plenty of nomadic invasions hailed from the Mongolian plain, however. The Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Alans, the Huns, the Turks, and the Mongols, to name a few.
That is, of course, nonsense. A bunch of handwaving about "whoa, we don't know everything perfectly, therefore we don't know anything" is not a scientific argument.
Well, I'm glad you think so, since that isn't my argument at all. My argument is that you can't take fuzzy data, drill it out to 5 decimal points, and suddenly claim it's precise data because your computer model goes out to that many significant digits.
We can in fact construct temperature reconstructions back tens of millions of years and more. They're not hugely accurate, but they're not frauds either -- they can tell us that, say, the Cretaceous period was very tropical compared to today, and they can pick out ice ages. Reconstructions of more recent temperatures can do much better.
So, you admit the estimation of the data is fuzzy, but then have no problem with using it making detailed, very specific projections, and then imprinting these with assertions of being "fact" and "undeniable"...and I'm the science denier?
It's pretty obvious that you can take the geological record and make generalizations about overall climate for an aggregated time period. What you can't do honestly, however, is take that data, and then assert that 2006 was the "hottest year" in 10,000 or 100,000 years. AND THIS IS WHAT MANY GLOBAL WARMING PUNDITS ARE CLAIMING.
Good grief man, no wonder you have trouble understanding the science! The GP clarly stated: "Look, I'm going to make up some fake numbers here to produce an example to more clearly illustrate the point."
Thanks for pointing that out...I fully understand the main point of his post was for illustrative purposes. I wasn't attacking his exact estimate of temperature rise, I was attacking the general process for estimating that the global mean temperature is 1 degree higher than it was 10,000 years ago.
For example, real time surface temperature sensing is biased to the northern hemisphere, and excludes the polar regions. This includes man's written record. Historical analogues, on the other hand, especially ones going back farther than tree rings, is incredibly biased towards polar regions (ice cores being a large constituent of the data). Since the global mean temperature is an aggregate global data value, and ice core samples contain a lot of localized data and not as much global data (which are primarily, from what I understand, gas isotopes from biogenic activity), saying you know what the temperature was, with any certainty, 10,000 or 100,000 years ago is scientific fraud. What we have are computer models, of which we're able to feed a couple of decades of good, hard global data, and then a collection of samples of analogues for other periods. Just because the models and analogues track well over the past 10 or 20 years doesn't mean it's a valid or accurate model, especially of what happened in the past.
Regarding skeptics of global warming, not all of us are "holocaust deniers". I certainly, for my part, think a lot more research needs to be done. But the evangelizing on the global warming front is pretty pathetic, dogmatic, and taking the shape of the orthodoxy. The only "solution" you here from most of the crowd is "reduce emissions now", when, if things are as dire as they say, we should be looking at carbon sequestering and increasing atmospheric albedo, rather than cutting the knees out from under modern society and a massive redistribution of wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world in the form of "atmospheric credits".
Suppose the average temperature of the Earth in 1850 was 70 degrees.
How do we know what the average temperature of the Earth was in 1850, considering we only recently had the ability to measure the global mean?
Oh yeah, we have models. Based on tree rings, ice core samples, a few isolated, non-indexed temperature measurements.
In other words, it's a guess, built off of a computer model. Which is then used to provide evidence for another computer model. And now we have computer models validating other computer models, and people waving their print outs saying "The model says the sky is falling." But a lot of the data is suspect, and unverifiable. Saying you know the global mean temperature 10,000 years ago because the trace argon isotope percentage was x is just so much b.s. You have a model that says if the argon isotope percentage was x, the global mean temperature was y. That does not mean the global mean temperature actually was y. This is the problem with the global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as FACT.
The reality is a lot of them are social engineers and socialists, not environmental or climate scientists.
I think that it is clear that the UK need to follow most of the rest of the world, and get back to being self reliant, and formulating its own foreign policy, not taking orders and instructions from, or relying on a foreign power.
Sure, and just as soon as the UK decides to spend more than 2.5% of their GDP on their military, they can start pursuing an independent path. By themselves, the UK don't have the money or the talent any more to develop state of the art military equipment across all possible spectrums. They have to "ally" with someone, and like the parent's parent said, who do you really trust? The US has gone to war twice to save the UK in the 20th Century. The UK has gone to war twice in the 20th Century to save France from Germany.
As for the special relationship the US has with the UK, how many other countries has the US given access to the Trident II D5 missile?
The UK is a sovereign country, and if they want, they can go forge their "own" path and jump into bed with the bureaucratic dictatorship that is the EU. More power to them if thats what they want. But they are hardly in a position to forge an independent path these days. Geopolitical power has shifted away from those who are no longer willing or able to use it to those who are, and those with the demographic momentum to sustain it.
Judges only count as activists if they decide for civil rights and any constitutional amendment that isn't the second amendment... They are good, upstanding judges when they side with corporations and big government.
Frequently, I see a lot of "liberal", activist judges more concerned with the rights of criminals vs the rights of citizens. Additionally, regarding the 2nd Ammendment (of which I'm a staunch supporter), if you allow the judicial abrogation of the 2nd Ammendment by re-interpretation, then you de facto allow the judicial abrogation of the whole Constitution. I find it amusing that people maintain the fiction that somehow the whole Bill of Rights applies to the rights of the People, except for the 2nd Ammendment. Apparently, by saying "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", the Framers really meant the government, it's agencies, and military, and not joe citizen in direct contradiction to the use of "the people" throughout the rest of the Bill of Rights. The problem with "liberals" today is that they are just like the irconservative bretheren and are more interested in enforcing ideological orthodoxy, via fair means and foul, rather than actually following the rules set down for the government. Government for the people, by the people, has become government by bureaucratic and judicial fiat.
Dissent is what founded our country.
Yeah, but "no taxation without representation" has a better ring to it than the current brouhaha. It's hard to come up with a catchy slogan about a passenger point scoring profile.
If you're waiting for "liberal" judges to restore rights, I wouldn't hold your breath. Remember, it was the "liberal" justices that decided private property rights didn't matter if a town wanted to take your land to give it to another private party in Kelo vs Connecticut.
John, this is Bob, you're neighbor and the Vice President of Yard Maintenance for the neighborhood HOA. I don't know if you got the past 4 letters, but we've noticed that your lawn is about the regulation 4 inches. Also, you haven't edged the sidewalk in several days, and it's looking pretty ragged. Remember, this is your neighborhood too!
Hey, I'm all for prosecuting Foley and putting him in jail, but your excusing of Studds activity because "it was in another country" is amusing, and more or less proves my point of a double standard. As for Crane, he was voted out by his constituents, but I guess Studd's thought that buggering a 17 year old in a foreign country was no big deal; "what happens in Cancun stays in Cancun", eh?
It's interesting to contrast the Republican treatment of Foley (forced to resign) vs the Democratic treatment of Studds (given a standing ovation, and retired some years later), and to compare the relative offenses. Foley sent suggest emails to a 17 year old intern. Studds had sex with a 17 year old intern.
Democrats thought Clinton, lying under oath, was "no big deal", and neither was Barney Frank allowing his lover to run a prostitution ring from his Congressional office.
Now, I'm all for getting rid of corrupt Republicans. I just wish Democrats had the same zeal for policing their own as they do for Republicans.
Thanks for your concern, but given that you're not even attacking positions that the party actually holds, why on earth would the Democratic party want to move to the right?
You're kidding, right? Democrats moderated, slightly, there stance on gun control because in 1994 it cost them Congress and the Senate in the single largest turn out of incumbents in American history. Al Gore his home state of Tennesse, and hence, the election, in 2000 because he morphed from being a pro-gun Senator into being an anti-gun Vice President.
On abortion, the spectrum goes from "abortion on demand, at any point, for any reason" to "no abortion allowed, ever, for any reason". Most Americans fit in the middle of that spectrum with respect to allowing abortion. There is a sizeable fraction of people, however, that think that 3rd trimester abortions should be perfectly legal. Guess where their comfy home is? Guess who they influence to an undue degree? Yes, the Democratic party. I'm not saying the Democratic party has to change their position on abortion, because it'll never happen. But running a nominally anti-abortion Presidential candidate would take one of the largest wedge issues away from the Republicans.
On immigration, the person writing Democratic policy, more or less, is Ted Kennedy, who's an open borders advocate. His latest, greatest bill, the so-called Senate Amnesty Bill, grants illegal aliens TAX amnesty for 2 out of 5 years (something, btw, that mere subjects, I mean citizens, don't get, nor do legal immigrants either), and a guaranteed median wage for their work (something, again, that legal immigrants and US citizens don't get either). The Senate amnesty bill passed by DEMOCRATS voting en-bloc along with a few RINOs. It's hard to see a permissive immigration policy as anything but a Democratic position. The following is the House Report on Illegal Immigration: http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Bord er-Report.pdf. It's worth a read, regardless of what political party you belong to.
As for Clinton, sticking chicken feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. She's a tremendous politician and a hell of a triangulator, but your examples are a thin patina on an otherwise thoroughly red core. The best that can be said for her is she's a statist interested in power for power's sake.
As for the gay issue, I'm talking principally about gay marriage, and gay adoption. And honestly, I'm ambivilent on it myself. I lean liberatarian, and it's hard to come up with an anti-gay marriage argument that is congruent with a libertarian philosophy. The "best" arguments are the slippery slope arguments (principally, bigamy, which has the same argument around consensual relations), heterosexual marriage and the organic family as a social good, and the rapid demise of intact families after the onset of legalized gay marriage in European countries (which may or may not be caused by other factors). Anyway, it's a bit like gun-rights. Republicans frequently shit on gun-owners, because honestly, where else are they going to go? Democrats could do the same to gays and get away with it as well. Not saying it's right, but parties frequently do the wrong thing for expedient political advantage during an election cycle.
By your lights, we should have the state establish a religion, because that would probably pass popular muster as well.
You and I both know that wouldn't and couldn't happen. By the same token, maybe we should just ignore the Second Ammendment and throw away gun owners rights, right (oh yeah, I forgot, it's the leftist canard that gun rights only apply to the government, not to citizens, despite the rest of the BoR applying to individuals...and since when has a government ever needed to enshrine its rights since given a monopoly of force, they can just take what they want?).
Look, you may not lik
And could you explain why?
Sure: Because Kennedy is an unreformed hard left socialist. Take almost any position, be it immigration, foreign policy, gun control, tax policy, and yes, gay issues, and Kennedy is far to the left of mainstream America. He's probably to the left of the average Massachusets voter as well, but gets elected because of his name. His certainly far to te left of John F. Kennedy.
And Kennedy is typical of the well known national Democrats. Out of Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary is the most ring wing by a long shot and she's an unrequited left wing radical.
The formula for the death of the Democratic party is pretty simple. Keep doing what they are doing and keep nominating the same type of people they nominate. Given the level of discontent with Republicans, both inside and outside the party, this election should be a slam dunk sweep for the Democrats. But it isn't. Because Democrats, by and large, have trouble fielding good candidates (John Kerry is a perfect case in point), and they have a very hard time connecting with independent voters outside left-wing bastions like Massachusets, LA, San Fransisco, Chicago, and NYC.
The formula for potential Democratic dominance is pretty simple too. All they have to do is move to the middle, and only a little bit, on positions that are their big vote losers with independents like gun rights, abortion rights, immigration, and national security. The vast majority of the American public isn't comfortable with civilian disarmament, abortion on demand through the third trimester, or open borders and a demilitarized US. Hell, if the Democrats came out with a strong immigration stance (other than let the floodgates open and leave them open), they could cleave the Republican party right in half.
Yep, and thats what happens when the opposition party and their followers goes off the deep end. In response to Republican dominance, Democrats have gone even further to the left, which is the absolutely last thing they should do. Freaking Ted Kennedy is the "conscience" of the party. And that's really, really fucking scary to the average person in the midwest.
Hate to quibble, but O'Reilly isn't really conservative. He's probably as disliked by the right just as much as he is by the left. Personally, I think he's a gun grabbing statist blowhard.
Hannity is an idealogue, but I don't consider that a bad thing per se. I should've put quotes around my use in the parent post. My point was, and still is, if bad behavior by supposed conservatives is sufficient to change your point of view regarding the world (and, to a great degree, that's one of the big seperating factors between the left in the right: they disagree not only on what the problems are, but also on what the solutions should be), then your conservative identity wasn't really that strong to begin with.
That really all depends on how you define "reality", and "liberal".
Today's Democrats are reactionary leftists, not liberals in the classical sense. The end-state for the Democratic vision of America is a transnational elite (and super rich, as in Soros, Ted Turner, and others) ruling over (benignly, of course) the teeming masses, managing our dieoff as humanely as possible (since humans are such a threat to the environment, the only remediation is our removal). This is the cutting edge "liberal" ideology, the only novel ideas they are presenting today. Granted, it's the fringe, but the fringe is holding the leash and now has the money. It remains to be seen if the Democratic party faithful will follow them off a cliff.
Are you kidding? It was the Rush types that initially drove me away from the conservative side. Rush and pals contantly shout down any disagreements (even from there own co-hosts!) insult their oposition and call them names. I can't stand that sort of thing, even when I agree with the view-point.
Well, you just definitely proved that you don't listen to Rush. He doesn't have co-hosts, doesn't call people names (I'm assuming you meant callers), and the times I've heard him have a reasonable person from the opposite side of the spectrum, he's been very respectful and allowed them to state their position.
Now this is how Rush et al would say the same thing (not an actual quote):
Those STUPID Lie-beral Demon-crats want to STEAL my tax dollars to give it to some welfare queen with twenty kids so she can buy crack?!? Only a complete MORON would think that's a good idea! But then, I already said they were Democrats..."
Again, it's pretty clear you are pantomiming the liberal perception that's percolated down the grapevine, but never actually listened to the show itself. Yes, conservative talk radio attacks Democratic positions. Guess what, it's called political discourse. Democrats attack conservative positions too. They have their institutions also (the "mainstream" media, academia, 99% of Hollywood).
And if that was all it took to "drive you away from the conservative side", frankly, the conservative side doesn't need "really strong" idealogues like you. I don't think I've ever seen an argument like yours that could be considered half way intelligent. It's like saying you used to be heterosexual, but you hated the way men chased women at bars, so you turned gay in response. Either something matches your value set or it doesn't.
The causes of global warming are debatable.
However, limiting pollution, especially of the toxic kind, is a very laudable goal. However, Kyoto, as it stands, is nothing more than a wealth transfer scheme, not any sort of viable pollution reduction scheme.
If the planet may be subject to orbital shifts that change the climate, shouldn't our civilization be empowered to do whatever it can to minimize such changes insofar as they represent a threat to our current au courant version of the ecosystem?
The problem with this premise, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), is it presumes that a orbital shift will increase the temperature. The opposite is just as likely to happen. And a global ice age (ie, where the entire earth was covered in ice, as has happened before) would be almost as devastating to life on Earth as a runaway greenhouse chain reaction.