U.S. Politics

Page 413 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Isn't it interesting how results are just not important. Intentions are only what matters.
Results are important. Rs know that as well as anyone, that's why they're obstructionist - they understand that they can't allow results, cause who gets the credit then, eh? But results can only be attained in the US political system in three ways: if one party has enough control of Congress and the executive (so they can just ram stuff through willy-nilly), through compromise by the politicial parties (but that only works if both parties are willing to play ball, which the Rs aren't and haven't been since day one of the Obama administration - even before that, actually) , or by executive fiat, which gives you guys the vapors.

I'll never understand it.
That's pretty obvious.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
Don't confuse Republican obstructionsim with Obama's incompetence. This is a president that feels he is too good to involve himself in dealing with the legislature. If it were not for Joe Biden, he would have done nothing but sit in the Oval Office, patting himself on the back for bamboozling the public into voting for him.

The only thing Obama has managed to accomplish is carrying out the neo-con agenda. It appears it is the only thing he is willing to fight for, and he does that by execute order, like a king.
I understand and respect some of your criticisms of Obama, but this one is not based in reality. In reality, Obama hasn't been able to get Republicans to vote for ideas that were originally promoted by Republicans. Their answer is that Obama is too divisive toward them which is the biggest load of crap that has been shoveled during his term. To suggest that he has EVER been welcomed with a modicum of any sense of compromise from the right is disingenuous. The more he tried/s to engage with Republicans in Congress, the less likely he was to get anything done. He has to send the white guy to have any hope of anything.

As for the suggestion that climate change is a farce, almost all of the deniers in the scientific community are funded by conservative groups with an interest in calling it into question. The overwhelming majority of independent scientists agree that the change is real, and accelerated, and that the most likely cause is a man-made one. The aversion Republicans have toward science is appalling. The majority of them deny evolution. They DENY evolution. How do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of one of the most basic ideas in science?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
So, just for grins, how would climate change be affected if the US stopped burning 1 billion tons of coal per year (1/8th of the world's use).

I'm just curious. Should be able to put that in one of Mike Mann's super accurate computer model whiz-bangs and come up with a hockey stick or something, right?
You ask a question that hides the real question which is: Why is it irrational to regulate the largest producers of CO2 that can be regulated if the majority of the scientific community agrees that CO2 is a major component of climate change?

A secondary question comes to mind: Why is the US absolved of curtailing CO2 emissions by coal fired power plants simply because it is only 1/8th of the problem? Republicans love the idea that the US will do the right thing if everyone else does the right thing too...which completely belies the dictates of the religion most of them follow.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
Yup. Completely delusional. It is amazing.
Wait, hold on a sec, back it up - are you honestly saying that Obama and Bush's economic, social, and foreign policies are the same??? That's just ****ing hilarious. And completely delusional.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
You ask a question that hides the real question which is: Why is it irrational to regulate the largest producers of CO2 that can be regulated if the majority of the scientific community agrees that CO2 is a major component of climate change?

A secondary question comes to mind: Why is the US absolved of curtailing CO2 emissions by coal fired power plants simply because it is only 1/8th of the problem? Republicans love the idea that the US will do the right thing if everyone else does the right thing too...which completely belies the dictates of the religion most of them follow.
Or to paraphrase the preferred clinic hardliner question: what's the threshhold of natural destruction that has to be reached before humans should be asked to modify their habits with an eye to future resources? What's the acceptable level of comfort necessary for relatively unproductive people to survive?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
How do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of one of the most basic ideas in science?
I'd rephrase that slightly: how do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of basic science?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, has been trying to move his party to the center on issues such as climate change, but he said many Republicans were wary of science because they believed it was "serving the agenda of the regulatory state."

"There has been more and more resistance to accepting scientific conclusions," he said. "There is concern about what those conclusions could lead to in terms of bigger government and more onerous regulation."
In other words, when science conflicts with ideology, ideology comes out on top.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
You ask a question that hides the real question which is: Why is it irrational to regulate the largest producers of CO2 that can be regulated if the majority of the scientific community agrees that CO2 is a major component of climate change?

A secondary question comes to mind: Why is the US absolved of curtailing CO2 emissions by coal fired power plants simply because it is only 1/8th of the problem? Republicans love the idea that the US will do the right thing if everyone else does the right thing too...which completely belies the dictates of the religion most of them follow.
It's my understanding the US has done much more in cleaning up the use of coal. Manchin rattled off a bunch of different technologies. I'm not in that world so I don't know how much co2 and other ghg's they still produce.

But why not tend away from rather than crush the use of coal? Why should the US cripple itself when doing so won't alter the path we are on much and if the other coal users be allowed to do their thing?
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
Results are important. Rs know that as well as anyone, that's why they're obstructionist - they understand that they can't allow results, cause who gets the credit then, eh? But results can only be attained in the US political system in three ways: if one party has enough control of Congress and the executive (so they can just ram stuff through willy-nilly), through compromise by the politicial parties (but that only works if both parties are willing to play ball, which the Rs aren't and haven't been since day one of the Obama administration - even before that, actually) , or by executive fiat, which gives you guys the vapors.

That's pretty obvious.
Up, down, black, white parallel universe.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I understand and respect some of your criticisms of Obama, but this one is not based in reality. In reality, Obama hasn't been able to get Republicans to vote for ideas that were originally promoted by Republicans. Their answer is that Obama is too divisive toward them which is the biggest load of crap that has been shoveled during his term. To suggest that he has EVER been welcomed with a modicum of any sense of compromise from the right is disingenuous. The more he tried/s to engage with Republicans in Congress, the less likely he was to get anything done. He has to send the white guy to have any hope of anything.

As for the suggestion that climate change is a farce, almost all of the deniers in the scientific community are funded by conservative groups with an interest in calling it into question. The overwhelming majority of independent scientists agree that the change is real, and accelerated, and that the most likely cause is a man-made one. The aversion Republicans have toward science is appalling. The majority of them deny evolution. They DENY evolution. How do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of one of the most basic ideas in science?
Gotta call BS. He ended any chance of cooperation with ACA and his ongoing attempts to crush, not work with, the opposing party.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's my understanding the US has done much more in cleaning up the use of coal. Manchin rattled off a bunch of different technologies. I'm not in that world so I don't know how much co2 and other ghg's they still produce.

But why not tend away from rather than crush the use of coal? Why should the US cripple itself when doing so won't alter the path we are on much and if the other coal users be allowed to do their thing?
Clean coal is a myth. The CO2 produced cannot be reduced in any measurable amount, so the proponents of "clean coal" push the sequester idea...that idea is to bottle the CO2 and hide it in the ground...an idea that is fraught with dangers.

Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with the US being the leader in reduction of pollution from coal fired power plants. None.

I'm a proponent of nuclear power as I believe the technology is advanced enough to warrant major infrastructure projects to build those plants, and I fully recognize that many liberals are completely against that idea, which means that they have little to no solution for the reduction in power output from the reduction of coal fired power plants. No idea is perfect.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Gotta call BS. He ended any chance of cooperation with ACA and his ongoing attempts to crush, not work with, the opposing party.
So a president pushing through an extremely unpopular idea in the early part of his presidency absolves the opposing party from offering ANY cooperation to that president for the remainder of his term? Yea, check your history on that one. Also note that the ACA was one of those ideas he got passed that started out as a Republican idea...

BTW, speaking of "crushing," how many times have the Republicans in Congress attempted to repeal ACA unsuccessfully?...yea, it's all big ole' bad Obama's fault for not playing nice with them. The fact is that if Obama's plan had not gone through, NO meaningful reform would have seen the light of day. The Republicans would have watered down and watered down and watered down to the point that the eventual law would have had as much effect as the votes they take on recognizing the importance of the Red Cross in our history.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Gotta call BS. He ended any chance of cooperation with ACA and his ongoing attempts to crush, not work with, the opposing party.
But you are right, the Republicans did take their ball and go home once Obama got the ACA passed...a measure he CAMPAIGNED ON OPENLY and one that was HUGELY POPULAR with the core of his base...crazy that he followed through on something like that...

But really, to blame him for Republicans acting like children is political football and not reflective of reality.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
aphronesis said:
Or to paraphrase the preferred clinic hardliner question: what's the threshhold of natural destruction that has to be reached before humans should be asked to modify their habits with an eye to future resources? What's the acceptable level of comfort necessary for relatively unproductive people to survive?
Both fantastic questions.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
VeloCity said:
I'd rephrase that slightly: how do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of basic science?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329

In other words, when science conflicts with ideology, ideology comes out on top.
....which goes a long way to explain why people such as SoWrong have such a difficult time dealing with even the simplest understanding of reality....

....is there a charity that we could contribute to that would help those poor ignorant souls?....obviously schools have failed....

Cheers
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
VeloCity said:
I'd rephrase that slightly: how do you deal rationally with people who hold such a completely irrational view of basic science?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/29/nation/la-na-conservatives-science-20120329

In other words, when science conflicts with ideology, ideology comes out on top.
You can see it in their policies and read it in their Supreme Court decisions. They are terrified that science will replace their faith as the guiding force for mankind. What they don't seem to understand is that science doesn't have to replace faith in any way unless they want it to.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I understand and respect some of your criticisms of Obama, but this one is not based in reality. In reality, Obama hasn't been able to get Republicans to vote for ideas that were originally promoted by Republicans. Their answer is that Obama is too divisive toward them which is the biggest load of crap that has been shoveled during his term. To suggest that he has EVER been welcomed with a modicum of any sense of compromise from the right is disingenuous. The more he tried/s to engage with Republicans in Congress, the less likely he was to get anything done. He has to send the white guy to have any hope of anything.
Obama never even tried. People within his own administration have decried Obama's aversion to dealing with the nitty-gritty horse trading and politicking that is required to push bills through the legislature. That has become Biden's job because Obama feels it is beneath him.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Wait, hold on a sec, back it up - are you honestly saying that Obama and Bush's economic, social, and foreign policies are the same??? That's just ****ing hilarious.
Four years from now it will be hilarious watching sheep like you doing your best to forget the Obama regime in the same way Scott pretends Dubya was not a conservative.

Try being honest to yourself. You were suckered by the change and hope flim-flam. You got George W. Obama instead.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
BroDeal said:
Obama never even tried. People within his own administration have decried Obama's aversion to dealing with the nitty-gritty horse trading and politicking that is required to push bills through the legislature. That has become Biden's job because Obama feels it is beneath him.
Hold on, I thought this was the guy that Repubs decried because he came from old time Chicago politics.:rolleyes:
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Hold on, I thought this was the guy that Repubs decried because he came from old time Chicago politics.:rolleyes:
I guess being a community organizers that reads a speech well does not prepare one for pushing laws through Congress. Who would have thought?

The funny thing about this is wingnuts painting Obama as the bogeyman when he has turned out to be utterly incompetent at fulfilling any of his campaign rhetoric.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Like Greece? Italy? Spain? Portugal? Ireland? France?

It's not too hard... just too often wrong-headed.
and still the citizens of those countries have higher median wealth than the US and all of the services that it is just too hard for americans to get, all while carrying less debt per capita than the US. Even though their citizens may be taxed higher than the US, this certainly implies that whatever their governments are doing, they are creating more opportunity for their citizens to generate wealth than the US and at the same time getting affordable health care, reasonable paid vacation time and a decent pension when they retire.

to be sure those countries have economic problems, but there are other contributing factors, such as the currency union, that exacerbate their woes.

a slight digression: there has been some interesting behavioral research recently on perception of wealth and status. (i'll try to dig up links later, but i'm sure if anyone is interested they would be easy to find).

the gist of what researchers are finding is people's perception of their wealth has little to do with what they can afford and more to do with what they can afford relative to others around them. for example, even though a doctor making $250,000 a year is comfortable, his neighbors are hedge fund managers and their wealth increased enormously, so the doctor feels poorer, even though his buying power is unchanged or even increases.

two other bits of research also come to mind. one has shown that people who perceive themselves as poor are often more generous than those who perceive themselves as rich. another is a little more difficult to explain. it has to do with fairness. a person is given a dollar. they can choose to split it 50/50 with another person or 80/20 (the larger portion is for themselves). however, the accepting person can reject the offer in which case both parties get nothing. the vast majority of people reject anything other than 50/50 even though the unequal split would leave them ahead. various researchers have duplicated these findings even with a difference as small as 51/49.

tl;dr
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
Four years from now it will be hilarious watching sheep like you doing your best to forget the Obama regime in the same way Scott pretends Dubya was not a conservative.

Try being honest to yourself. You were suckered by the change and hope flim-flam. You got George W. Obama instead.
Like I've said many, many times before, I supported Hillary during the '08 primaries, not Obama. If you want to keep repeating the "suckered by change and hope" thing, fine, go for it, but given your bitterness it's pretty obvious which of the two of us was suckered in.

Compare where we are now to the state of the country that Obama inherited. Four years from now I and most Americans - and you - will be giving a huge sigh of relief that Obama was POTUS during those times and not a conservative Republican.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
What did happen to all those worse-than-Watergate/Iran-Contra scandals anyway?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obama-scandals-used-to-be-a-thing.html?mid=rss

Why did we think the agency was targeting only conservatives? Because apparently Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, ordered the agency to audit its treatment of tea-party groups, and only tea-party groups. The IRS dutifully reported it was indeed targeting tea-party groups; everybody assumed it was doing no such thing to liberal groups. The IRS inspector general is defending its probe, but the IRS's flagging of conservative groups seems, at worst, to be marginally stricter than its flagging of liberal groups, not the one-sided political witch hunt portrayed by early reports.

What about the rest of the scandals? Well, there aren’t any, and there never were. Benghazi is a case of a bunch of confused agencies caught up in a fast-moving story trying to coordinate talking points. The ever-shifting third leg of the Obama scandal trifecta — Obama’s prosecution of leaks, or use of the National Security Agency — is not a scandal at all. It’s a policy controversy. One can argue that Obama’s policy stance is wrong, or dangerous, or a threat to democracy. But when the president is carrying out duly passed laws and acting at every stage with judicial approval, then the issue is the laws themselves, not misconduct.

The whole Obama scandal episode is a classic creation of a “narrative” — the stitching together of unrelated data points into a story. What actually happened is this: House Republicans passed a twisted account of a hearing to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who misleadingly claimed to have seen it, creating the impression that the administration was caught in a major lie. Then the IRS story broke, which we now see was Republicans demanding a one-sided audit and thus producing the impression of one-sided treatment. In that context, legitimate controversies over Obama’s civil-rights policies became the “three Obama scandals,” exposing a government panopticon, if not a Nixonian administration bent on revenge.

The collapse of the Benghazi story happened very quickly, when Jake Tapper’s reporting found that Karl had peddled a bogus story. (It’s notable that the only misconduct in both the Benghazi and the IRS stories was committed by House Republicans.) But the scandal cloud lingered through the still-extant IRS scandal, which in turn lent the scandal odor to the civil-liberties dispute. Now that the IRS scandal has turned into a Darrell Issa scandal, we’re left with … an important dispute over domestic surveillance, which has nothing to do with scandal at all. The entire scandal narrative was an illusion.
(It’s notable that the only misconduct in both the Benghazi and the IRS stories was committed by House Republicans.)
Yes it is. I'm sure they'll open investigations into that asap. Sarcasm aside, maybe it is time for a special prosecutor, but for Darrell Issa, not Obama.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
patricknd said:
she wouldn't have been executed had she worried more about her victim's right to life :eek:
Victims don't rate very highly on the list of things Democrats cry about. They appear to be ranked somewhere around two hundred while murderers make the top ten every year.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
Compare where we are now to the state of the country that Obama inherited. Four years from now I and most Americans - and you - will be giving a huge sigh of relief that Obama was POTUS during those times and not a conservative Republican.
I will certainly have to be careful to say so in all written and oral communication or Obama's Stasi will determine that I am an enemy of the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS