U.S. Politics

Page 850 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
I'm not going to sit here and act like I'm all pro "hockey stick". I do think there is a change in the climate and how much that effects the planet I'm just supposed to place all my confidence in 9?% of all scientist who are researching it. Well thanks for the info but if life's experience tells anyone anything is that nothing is ever 100% fact when it comes to science.

I have to laugh when you guys (all the mensa's) here who are trying to explain to ScottSoCal that he is all dead wrong with his take on the subject. Seriously you mensa's need to lighten the F up.
I agree with Scott on the Vegan part. I too would rather sit here on this planet and enjoy a good steak with a good Malbec. I also dig on me some good craft beer. (drinking a Sculpin ballast point at this very moment and it is not even 11am) How they got that much goodness into a 12 ounce non recyclable bottle does not bother me one little bit NOR do I feel like lecturing anyone on my fine points of my own takes on things.
It has more to do with correcting misinformation than anything else. Just because the person the post is directed to won't change their mind doesn't mean people who read the posts won't be effected in some positive manner. Scientists are encouraged nowadays to drop the professional jargon and advocate for their profession in terms everybody can understand. Being right scientifically in journals that laypeople will never read is not enough, because people like Sarah Palin come along and spout off about why using fruit flies for research is stupid. Science needs a stronger political voice.

Regarding the 90% argument, what walk of life would people willingly choose to be led by the prevailing opinions of <10% of a certain group. That seems very counter intuitive. When the small pox vaccine was introduced, there was widespread minority opposition against getting vaccinated. Against small pox! It eventually led to a supreme court case Jacobson v Massachusetts in the early 20th century deciding in favor of compulsory vaccination. Since science is not 100%, should people have flocked to the minority who favored no vaccination? Science is usually not 100%, but that doesn't prevent most people from placing their confidence in modern medicine. The only reason that is not true for climate science is that a political party has decided to muddy the issue enough so that people who are not informed are fooled into thinking that there is 'uncertainty' where none really exists IMO.

What we should be debating is how we are going to solve this problem through policy.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Why? When someone states that the sun revolves the Earth, they aren't debating anything. They're being an idiot. Anthropomorphic climate change isn't debatable, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

John Swanson
That's a poor analogy. I know exactly what time of day the sun will rise tomorrow and every day after. ,It's very prdictable like that.

So with global warming... Can you tell me how many millimeters higher the Pacific Ocean will be on high tide by, say, May of 2020? I'm thinking of buying a beach house but I'd like to get something that won't be underwater for the next 25 years or so. Can you help a brother out?
Sure I can help - you have a very common misunderstanding. Let's say you and I head to Vegas and start playing Roulette. You can make some pretty safe conclusions about your odds of winning if you bet on black every time. Can I say that after ten rounds you will win exactly 4 times? Nope. But the best guess is that you'll win half the time.

Now what happens is that every once in a while one of the red slots is turned to black. I can predict quite safely that overall you're going to win more money. Can I tell you exactly how much you'll win and when? Nope. But I can give you some very solid predictions based on well understood principles of statistics.

And that's what weather is like in relation to climate. The deck is slowly being stacked by raising the amount of greenhouse gasses. Can I tell you exactly how hot it's going to be and how much the sea will have risen in 2025? Nope. But the IPCC can give you some vey solid predictions based on what we're doing to the climate. And those predictions are based on some *very* solid math and science.

John Swanson
In other words, yours was a poor analogy.

Can I tell you exactly how hot it's going to be and how much the sea will have risen in 2025? Nope.
And I think you also misunderstand. I don't speak for anybody except myself.

When I'm talking in terms of "much that we don't know" your quote above is EXACTLY what I'm referencing. And yet I'll get push back from BigMac or Velo saying silly **** like "it's not debateable" and then someone like yourself will roll up with an analogy that has nothing to do with anything.

You guys that bow to all things science need to take a deep breath and lighten up.

And yes, I'd rather see the world come to an end before I go vegan. I'm selfish like that.
Lordy. It's basic radiative physics, Scott, been known for over a century now - in the absence of an offsetting forcing increasing atm CO2 concs will result in planetary warming. Basic physics. The IR retention properties of CO2 are well-known, have been for a very long time, and clearly demonstrated by spectroscopic studies of changes in IR retention at CO2 wavelengths over time. Understand what that means, Scott? And sorry, Scott, but there is in fact no debate about that, except by you deniers who don't even understand what it is that you're actually denying.

If you'd bother to actually learn the science you'd understand just how silly denial is but I'm guessing that actually learning the science is out of the question.

btw the Koch's inherited much of their fortune from their dad, who made the bulk of his fortune working for Stalin, and yes, the Koch's do indeed receive billions in government handouts whereas Tesla paid back their entire DoE loan - loan, not handouts like the Koch's - with interest and Tesla has now started to turn a profit.

How ironic that the teabaggers adore the Stalinist Koch's and revile the capitalist Musk.
Lordy. It's basic radiative physics, Scott, been known for over a century now - in the absence of an offsetting forcing increasing atm CO2 concs will result in planetary warming. Basic physics. The IR retention properties of CO2 are well-known, have been for a very long time, and clearly demonstrated by spectroscopic studies of changes in IR retention at CO2 wavelengths over time. Understand what that means, Scott?
You lost me at 'Lordy.'

And sorry, Scott, but there is in fact no debate about that,
Somehow I don't think that's the point BigMac was making.

If you'd bother to actually learn the science you'd understand just how silly denial is but I'm guessing that actually learning the science is out of the question.
I'm resisting because I don't want to go through life with my sphincter in a perpetual knot and I occasionally like to laugh. That's not criticism...

btw the Koch's inherited much of their fortune from their dad
There's a good reason to hate.

How ironic that the teabaggers adore the Stalinist Koch's and revile the capitalist Musk
Can't speak for the tea party types but I don't really begrudge the Koch's and I think the entrepreneurial skillz of Musk and Algore is nothing if not damned impressive.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Hugh Januss said:
You may embed only 5 quotes within each other.
I really hate this new forum design!

Scott, how much tax payer money goes to cleaning up Elon's oil spills?


Probably not as much as it will take to clean up the Animas River in Colorado. Do ya think the EPA will fine itself? Anybody gonna get fired or go to jail? Didn't think so.

Clearly the EPA should be regulated. I think this is something we can all agree on.
I'm sure Exxon would be happy to be the regulatory agency :D
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

BigMac said:
Scott SoCal said:
ScienceIsCool said:
[
Scott SoCal said:
What's in a name? See, that's the brilliance of 'climate change.' The planet is getting toasty because if people? Here all this time I thought it was co2 produced burning fossil fuels and methane from cows and rice fields.

I know, the sky really is falling this time. Good thing some excellent entrepreneurial instincts were employed early on with the carbon trading concepts. I think that will save us.
I don't know if you noticed yet Scott, but fossil fuels aren't sucked out of Earth by some random law or event of nature, and animals certainly aren't farming themselves. But you don't actualy believe that and were just trying to make a pun, right?

Look, I find the climate change debate entertaining. John's post is a perfect example. On one hand, the world is coming to an end so we should change (globally) our behavior. On the other hand, the world is coming to an end so why bother? Argument over-sold? You tell me.

Gore nailed it with carbon credit trading. May as well go out a few hundred million dollars richer since it's all gonna end anyways.
Talk about overstating things... Nobody is stating the world is coming to an end. What several institutions are publishing are the likely consequences of global warming. On the balance, they are negative. In practical terms life will become very difficult for many people.

Example: The warmer oceans are leading to acidification (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7059/full/nature04095.html), which in turn is impacting aquatic life here in British Columbia (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/oceanography-oceanographie/impacts/acidification-eng.html). Things like mussels and scallops aren't growing viable shells (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/acidic-ocean-deadly-for-vancouver-island-scallop-industry-1.2551662). Salmon have less food to eat. This means that an entire industry is at risk and there is no replacement for it (farming halibut and clams instead of salmon and mussels for example).

And that's just one, teeny tiny consequence. What happens if the Himalayan and Karakoram glaciers recede and monsoons are altered? There goes farming on the Indo Gangetic plain (http://www.gecafs.org/publications/Publications/Aggarwal_et_al_GECAFS_IGP_Paper.pdf
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/CCAFS/Crop_Climate%20Model_Information_4_IndoGangeticPlains.pdf)

That's an annual 400 million tonnes of grains and produce that are at risk on a continent of a billion people that are already hungry. Where is their food going to come from? Or do we just let them die?

Closer to home, what do you do with 30 million people when California becomes largely uninhabitable? This might happen sooner than you think.

Engage in all the silly "Al Gore" and "cap and trade" rhetoric you want. Things are happening that we would do well to avoid. We've been warned.

John Swanson

You wrote;

Many will suffer and die before we adapt. Many ecosystems will collapse. We are in a new round of mass extinction - like what replaced the dinosaurs
That's pretty clear.

Closer to home, what do you do with 30 million people when California becomes largely uninhabitable? This might happen sooner than you think.
This State has been largely uninhabitable for a coupla decades now - mostly from the political climate :)[/quote]

That you choose to be facetious over such serious issue speaks volumes, in my opinion.

Things are happening that we would do well to avoid.
Yeah, great. Restrict electricity production. Thousands of people die each year globally from excessive heat exposure. It's gonna get worse with global warming. It's gonna get worse restricting energy use/production. In other words, it's gonna get worse.

Other than killing energy production from fossil fuels, what's the fix?

You guessed it.... scroll to the bottom of the page.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions#.Vct0nXLn_mI
I think you suffer from a severe case of misinformation, or not being exposed to information at all. Have you heard of investing in renewable energies? A couple of years ago Portugal managed to run an entire month on hydroelectric energy, and now, together with solar and eolic it accounts for an interesting piece on the total production and consumption outcome. California, talk about the perfect spot for the installment of solar panels. It would take a small area in the south of New Mexico filled with panels to fulfill the country's electricity demand. No one mentioned restricting energy use/production, rather opt for cleaner sources. Total strawman. But for that you need willingness to change, which I don't see in you. So how come you shout 'Impossible!' when you oppose trying other ways?

So what's the fix? Apart from the previously mentioned, stop animal farming. It accounts for more greehouse gases expelled to the atmosphere than industry and transportantion, not to mention much powerful ones than Co2 such as methane and nitrous oxide. Are you not being affected by water shortage over there in SoCal? Guess what, animal agriculture is likely the biggest culprit.

What's the fix you ask, as if the there was no possible alternative to the status quo (which deep down you enjoy ;) ). Start by going vegan Scott, if you care about your fellow people, then ditch your truck, then install some solar pannels. Are you not okay with these? Alright, but the options exist.[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

....have been looking for an article I recently ran across which addresses the farm issue bolded above....and yes animal farming as it stands today is a major issue and is a huge net contributor to climate change....but this is a function of our modern industrial farming....if farming were to revert to older farming systems, which incidentally are not far removed from what we currently would call organic farming, farming would become a huge negative contributor to climate change ( and as an added bonus would help land become a renewable resource instead of one that requires more and more industrial chemicals to maintain production )....

....and just for fun take a peek at what industrial farming has on the drawing boards...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
A powerful new technique for generating “supercharged” genetically modified organisms that can spread rapidly in the wild has caused alarm among scientists who fear that it may be misused, accidentally or deliberately, and cause a health emergency or environmental disaster.



The development of so-called “gene drive” technology promises to revolutionise medicine and agriculture because it can in theory stop the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses, such as malaria and yellow fever, as well as eliminate crop pests and invasive species such as rats and cane toads.

However, scientists at the forefront of the development believe that in the wrong hands gene-drive technology poses a serious threat to the environment and human health if accidentally or deliberately released from a laboratory without adequate safeguards. Some believe it could even be used as a terrorist bio-weapon directed against people or livestock because gene drives – which enable GM genes to spread rapidly like a viral infection within a population – will eventually be easy and cheap to generate."

Cheers
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
Speaking of American politics... What's up with putting everyone into one of two bins (a lefty or a righty)? Are Americans completely devoid of nuance? When born, are you given a list of what to think if you're on the right and a different list if you're on the left? What's the matter with objectively evaluating each issue and *not* putting a label on it?

Or maybe it's just an us versus them thing. Weird. I guess that's why you only have two political parties.

John Swanson
Could be that then again maybe we like it that way ,,,,,,,,who knows. Anyhow if it wasn't for Merikans you would not have McDonalds and Coca-Cola poisoning your way of life.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

It has more to do with correcting misinformation than anything else. Just because the person the post is directed to won't change their mind doesn't mean people who read the posts won't be effected in some positive manner. Scientists are encouraged nowadays to drop the professional jargon and advocate for their profession in terms everybody can understand. Being right scientifically in journals that laypeople will never read is not enough, because people like Sarah Palin come along and spout off about why using fruit flies for research is stupid. Science needs a stronger political voice.

Regarding the 90% argument, what walk of life would people willingly choose to be led by the prevailing opinions of <10% of a certain group. That seems very counter intuitive. When the small pox vaccine was introduced, there was widespread minority opposition against getting vaccinated. Against small pox! It eventually led to a supreme court case Jacobson v Massachusetts in the early 20th century deciding in favor of compulsory vaccination. Since science is not 100%, should people have flocked to the minority who favored no vaccination? Science is usually not 100%, but that doesn't prevent most people from placing their confidence in modern medicine. The only reason that is not true for climate science is that a political party has decided to muddy the issue enough so that people who are not informed are fooled into thinking that there is 'uncertainty' where none really exists IMO.

What we should be debating is how we are going to solve this problem through policy.[/
Well yes I agree.

What the trouble with that is - was - or will be,,,,,The two radical sides drown out any real debate.

For example, I think everyone here knows I have worked in Oil (either drilling or some production) Primarily offshore (not as a offshore bank but actually out in the Gulf of Mexico / Atlantic / Persian gulf) When BP lost Transocean Horizon on Macondo some here or who used to be here knew I had some pretty good ideas what was happening that day and then a good idea what might have lead up to that. What some here might not believe is that I was and am still for more regulation with respect to the drilling in deep water. Regulation not in the sense that it should be stopped or forced into a shut down, but more like regulation to make it safe and also to reduce the waste and potential for environmental hazards. For someone in my line of work that is basically not a majority position to have.

In comparison I have not seen any on the Left around here ever give real life examples about either how they can see a middle ground on such issues. All I ever get to see around here is links to articles written by others to either reputable fishwrap sites or just plain ole political blogs.

So can we really debate around here? Who knows.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
Speaking of American politics... What's up with putting everyone into one of two bins (a lefty or a righty)? Are Americans completely devoid of nuance? When born, are you given a list of what to think if you're on the right and a different list if you're on the left? What's the matter with objectively evaluating each issue and *not* putting a label on it?

Or maybe it's just an us versus them thing. Weird. I guess that's why you only have two political parties.

John Swanson
Could be that then again maybe we like it that way ,,,,,,,,who knows. Anyhow if it wasn't for Merikans you would not have McDonalds and Coca-Cola poisoning your way of life.
I stopped some time ago trying to convince non Americans how much they were benefiting from the export of the American Way of Life.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
Speaking of American politics... What's up with putting everyone into one of two bins (a lefty or a righty)? Are Americans completely devoid of nuance? When born, are you given a list of what to think if you're on the right and a different list if you're on the left? What's the matter with objectively evaluating each issue and *not* putting a label on it?

Or maybe it's just an us versus them thing. Weird. I guess that's why you only have two political parties.

John Swanson
Could be that then again maybe we like it that way ,,,,,,,,who knows. Anyhow if it wasn't for Merikans you would not have McDonalds and Coca-Cola poisoning your way of life.
I stopped some time ago trying to convince non Americans how much they were benefiting from the export of the American Way of Life.
I Feel your pain Brah. I mean what would the world do without the M16 and the pickup truck. Not to mention the Domino's / PizzaHut pizza. What would they ever do. High quality pizza like who needs anything else. LMAO

But you have to admit it feels good having the dammed Bald Eagle always on alert!
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Anyhow if it wasn't for Merikans you would not have McDonalds and Coca-Cola poisoning your way of life.
You mean Burger King and Pepsi.
Post of the Day Phil.

I was spitting beer all over my key board when I read your post.

here I was upthread talking about the radical sides and no debate and you put me on Blast with the Burger King and Pepsi post. ROFLMAO
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Hugh Januss said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
Speaking of American politics... What's up with putting everyone into one of two bins (a lefty or a righty)? Are Americans completely devoid of nuance? When born, are you given a list of what to think if you're on the right and a different list if you're on the left? What's the matter with objectively evaluating each issue and *not* putting a label on it?

Or maybe it's just an us versus them thing. Weird. I guess that's why you only have two political parties.

John Swanson
Could be that then again maybe we like it that way ,,,,,,,,who knows. Anyhow if it wasn't for Merikans you would not have McDonalds and Coca-Cola poisoning your way of life.
I stopped some time ago trying to convince non Americans how much they were benefiting from the export of the American Way of Life.
I Feel your pain Brah. I mean what would the world do without the M16 and the pickup truck. Not to mention the Domino's / PizzaHut pizza. What would they ever do. High quality pizza like who needs anything else. LMAO

But you have to admit it feels good having the dammed Bald Eagle always on alert!
This Bald Eagle?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Scott SoCal said:
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
Speaking of American politics... What's up with putting everyone into one of two bins (a lefty or a righty)? Are Americans completely devoid of nuance? When born, are you given a list of what to think if you're on the right and a different list if you're on the left? What's the matter with objectively evaluating each issue and *not* putting a label on it?

Or maybe it's just an us versus them thing. Weird. I guess that's why you only have two political parties.

John Swanson
....let me take a swing at this one....well, for starters I don't believe its everyone but rather just the sheeple who are pray at the MSM Altar and its cut-rate alternatives ( you know the ones that are in the thrall of The Real Important People, the guys with more bucks than they know what to do with...)...and no "Virginia" there ain't no librrrrl media in the US of A because that business is all money all the time....

....and for those sheeple keeping it simple is real important because frankly they are as dumb as a bag of hammers ( they believe The Flintstones is a documentary for heaven's sake )....so two is a good number because its simple, and more importantly, they can't count past two....makes doing the stories real easy, us vs them, left vs right ( like there is a real left and right in the US of A....well not really ...its more like making a distinction btwn McD and Burger King or Pepsi and Coke or I'm a Chevy guy or I just luv my F150 ...)

....there is however a silver lining in this dark cloud because as soon as you hear a discussion head down a left right path youse will know immediately that you are in the presence of the brain dead....the problem is that living in a bipolar fantasy they have no way to meaningfully deal with reality....because reality as we all know is real complisticated, like needing numbers way beyond two to comprehend....so their babble is usually very seriously wrong....and here is the critical thing, these folks have a very major issue with being wrong, in fact they go bonkers when they are wrong which is like all the time, and they are often armed to the teeth....and stand your ground may in some states include political disagreement....bottom line, you are now in a danger zone and you have to disengage immediately....

.....so, at first mention of the left right thingee take the first opportunity leave the conversation ( left the kettle on, have to get my hair cut or I gotta get my nails done...whatever it takes...) and then walk away....slowly at first, because you don't want to startle them because they scare real easy like and are real twitchy ( oh look !!!! there is a moozlim terrorist squirrel !!!! twitchy ) , and then run like hell until you get out of rifle range....

....that being said getting out of rifle range may only be a temporary solution because these morans have some big dreams ( see headline below )

"Michele Bachmann’s creepy End Times fantasies: Why the religious right yearns for World War III "

....apparently their "friendship" with Israel has a , uhhh, hidden agenda....

"One of the creepiest aspects of contemporary American politics is the unholy alliance between the Christian right and Israel. It’s uncomfortable because the religious right’s affinity for Israel is tied to a rather disturbing fever dream: Israel’s destruction. Many evangelicals are utterly convinced that every addition to the sum of suffering in the Middle East is but a sign of the end times, of Christ’s return.

They’re convinced because they interpret foreign affairs through the prism of Bronze Age biblical prophesy. Without getting bogged down in the colorful details of Christian eschatology, the story runs something like this: In order for Jesus to return and establish his Kingdom, the state of Israel must first be conquered by an invading army (preferably Persian or Arab) – because God says so. The unfortunate part (if you’re Jewish, at least) is that before Christ descends from the clouds, a holocaust of sorts must occur, resulting in the deaths of 2/3 of Israel’s people. For certain Christians, then, Israel must exist as a state (which is why they defend it so passionately), but it must also suffer immensely so that Christians can escape physical death in the form of the Rapture."


Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Amsterhammer said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Sure I can help - you have a very common misunderstanding. Let's say you and I head to Vegas and start playing Roulette. You can make some pretty safe conclusions about your odds of winning if you bet on black every time. Can I say that after ten rounds you will win exactly 4 times? Nope. But the best guess is that you'll win half the time.

Now what happens is that every once in a while one of the red slots is turned to black. I can predict quite safely that overall you're going to win more money. Can I tell you exactly how much you'll win and when? Nope. But I can give you some very solid predictions based on well understood principles of statistics.

And that's what weather is like in relation to climate. The deck is slowly being stacked by raising the amount of greenhouse gasses. Can I tell you exactly how hot it's going to be and how much the sea will have risen in 2025? Nope. But the IPCC can give you some vey solid predictions based on what we're doing to the climate. And those predictions are based on some *very* solid math and science.

John Swanson
John, you are wasting your time and energy on Scott when it comes to climate change. He has heard and seen the facts for years, yet chooses to ignore them, instead preferring to snipe with smartass remarks.
WOAH Amsterhammer that is supposed to be my job! Why you trying to give it away to some Cali Brah!
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
....please run this thru your working theory....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borowitz: Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont Senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” said the political strategist Harland Dorrinson. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-shamelessly-pandering-to-voters-who-want-to-hear-truth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&cndid=24323066&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&CNDID=24323066&spMailingID=7982893&spUserID=MjY3NjA3NTM0MzAS1&spJobID=741657126&spReportId=NzQxNjU3MTI2S0


Question? Could I have posted this in GD?
Anyway ........... come on folks .... its Borowitz.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

....and as long as I have your undivided attention could you please point me in the direction of some source of sustained , uhhh, right wing humour ( and not just the farting and belching jokes common to your electorate core )....did a quick search and all I could find was Denis Miller and he hasn't been funny for decades...

Cheers
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

blutto said:
Scott SoCal said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Amsterhammer said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Sure I can help - you have a very common misunderstanding. Let's say you and I head to Vegas and start playing Roulette. You can make some pretty safe conclusions about your odds of winning if you bet on black every time. Can I say that after ten rounds you will win exactly 4 times? Nope. But the best guess is that you'll win half the time.

Now what happens is that every once in a while one of the red slots is turned to black. I can predict quite safely that overall you're going to win more money. Can I tell you exactly how much you'll win and when? Nope. But I can give you some very solid predictions based on well understood principles of statistics.

And that's what weather is like in relation to climate. The deck is slowly being stacked by raising the amount of greenhouse gasses. Can I tell you exactly how hot it's going to be and how much the sea will have risen in 2025? Nope. But the IPCC can give you some vey solid predictions based on what we're doing to the climate. And those predictions are based on some *very* solid math and science.

John Swanson
John, you are wasting your time and energy on Scott when it comes to climate change. He has heard and seen the facts for years, yet chooses to ignore them, instead preferring to snipe with smartass remarks.
WOAH Amsterhammer that is supposed to be my job! Why you trying to give it away to some Cali Brah!
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
....please run this thru your working theory....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borowitz: Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont Senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” said the political strategist Harland Dorrinson. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-shamelessly-pandering-to-voters-who-want-to-hear-truth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&cndid=24323066&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&CNDID=24323066&spMailingID=7982893&spUserID=MjY3NjA3NTM0MzAS1&spJobID=741657126&spReportId=NzQxNjU3MTI2S0


Question? Could I have posted this in GD?
Anyway ........... come on folks .... its Borowitz.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

....and as long as I have your undivided attention could you please point me in the direction of some source of sustained , uhhh, right wing humour ( and not just the farting and belching jokes common to your electorate core )....did a quick search and all I could find was Denis Miller and he hasn't been funny for decades...

Cheers
Dennis Miller was funny at some point?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
blutto said:
Scott SoCal said:
Amsterhammer said:
ScienceIsCool said:
Sure I can help - you have a very common misunderstanding. Let's say you and I head to Vegas and start playing Roulette. You can make some pretty safe conclusions about your odds of winning if you bet on black every time. Can I say that after ten rounds you will win exactly 4 times? Nope. But the best guess is that you'll win half the time.

Now what happens is that every once in a while one of the red slots is turned to black. I can predict quite safely that overall you're going to win more money. Can I tell you exactly how much you'll win and when? Nope. But I can give you some very solid predictions based on well understood principles of statistics.

And that's what weather is like in relation to climate. The deck is slowly being stacked by raising the amount of greenhouse gasses. Can I tell you exactly how hot it's going to be and how much the sea will have risen in 2025? Nope. But the IPCC can give you some vey solid predictions based on what we're doing to the climate. And those predictions are based on some *very* solid math and science.

John Swanson
John, you are wasting your time and energy on Scott when it comes to climate change. He has heard and seen the facts for years, yet chooses to ignore them, instead preferring to snipe with smartass remarks.
WOAH Amsterhammer that is supposed to be my job! Why you trying to give it away to some Cali Brah!
Right??

This all goes to my working theory that nearly everyone on the left is missing any sense of humor. I can't even imagine what the blood pressure reading is of the average progressive. At some point you'd think they would tire of being angry every waking moment. Guess not.
....please run this thru your working theory....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borowitz: Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

NEW HAMPSHIRE (The Borowitz Report)—Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont Senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” said the political strategist Harland Dorrinson. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-shamelessly-pandering-to-voters-who-want-to-hear-truth?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&cndid=24323066&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20(36)&CNDID=24323066&spMailingID=7982893&spUserID=MjY3NjA3NTM0MzAS1&spJobID=741657126&spReportId=NzQxNjU3MTI2S0


Question? Could I have posted this in GD?
Anyway ........... come on folks .... its Borowitz.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

....and as long as I have your undivided attention could you please point me in the direction of some source of sustained , uhhh, right wing humour ( and not just the farting and belching jokes common to your electorate core )....did a quick search and all I could find was Denis Miller and he hasn't been funny for decades...

Cheers
Dennis Miller was funny at some point?[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------

...good point...

....be aware that this point has been discussed at great length in the relevant parts of the blogoshere and the consensus was that he was technically funny while performing on SNL ( technically because he himself was never funny but he was part of funny skits wherein he would read funny material written by other people....read, he was at the scene of the crime and while he was never convicted of anything he remains a person of interest...)

...hope that clears things up....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....the Wrong Wing is always proud to proclaim that as prudent managers of government that they always balance the books....find below a prime example of some classic book balancing by one of the more prominent clowns in the Wrong Wing clown car....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forbes- Milwaukee Bucks' New Arena is a Multimillion Dollar Mistake-Walker cuts $250M from education


TWEET:
Not backing down ‏@Pie_SocialMedia 5h5 hours ago

Wow! Forbes calls @scottwalker arena deal a Multimillion Dollar Mistake! This looks bad for #walker16 #scottwalker! http://onforb.es/1J5kmiG


8/12/2015 @ 8:56PM 6,606 views
Milwaukee Bucks' New Arena is a Multimillion Dollar Mistake
Comment Now Follow Comments

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has approved a new arena deal for the Milwaukee Bucks despite the state having more pressing needs. AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Though Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has already signed a bill that calls for $250 million of taxpayer money to go towards a new arena for the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, the reality of the matter is that the team itself should be paying for that kind of luxury.

As was reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the bill calls for taxpayers to cover exactly half the cost of a $500 million arena over the next twenty years and in exchange, the Bucks will not move to Las Vegas, Seattle or any other city in the market for a professional basketball franchise. Noble as the cause may be, particularly since the Bucks have been in Milwaukee since 1968, this deal stinks to high heaven.

First off, more important necessities are being sacrificed for this arena. According to Jordan Weissmann of Slate, citing Valerie Strauss of The Washington Post, Walker cut $250 million from the state’s education budget, and is now asking state taxpayers to pay for half the cost of this proposed arena, with the other half coming from current and past team owners. The $250 million that taxpayers contribute will also go up to $400 million with interest and given how Wisconsin already has a $2.2 billion budget deficit, cutting funding for education and asking the public to finance a new arena is along the same lines of quitting one’s job, then asking friends and family to help pay for a new big-screen TV. It’s a nice thing to have, but a luxury that one can ill afford given certain circumstances...............

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
.....and this important breaking news....and in the interests of full disclosure I admit to being a "cat guy" though some of my best friends have been dogs....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cats vs dogs: Scientists confirm that felines are better... from an evolutionary perspective

Source: the independent

It’s the debate that has long divided animal lovers. Now scientists have confirmed that cats really are better than dogs – at least from an evolutionary perspective.

A groundbreaking study of 2,000 ancient fossils reveals that felids – the cat family – have historically been much better at surviving than the “canid” dog clan, and often at the latter’s expense.

The research finds that cats have played a significant role in making 40 dog species extinct, outcompeting them for scarce food supplies because they are generally more effective hunters. But researchers found no evidence that dogs have wiped out a single cat species.

The dog family – which includes the wolves from which today’s domesticated dogs are descended – originated in North America about 40 million years ago and reached a maximum diversity around 20 million years later, when there were more than 30 species on the continent. At that point, the cat family arrived from Asia.

-----
Dr Silvestro says it is unclear exactly why, when times were tough, the cats were able to see off dogs so comprehensively. But he believed it could be something to do with the retractable claws that ancient cats have passed down to their domesticated descendants, but which dogs don’t have.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/cats-vs-dogs-scientists-confirm-that-felines-are-better-from-an-evolutionary-perspective-10454590.html

Cheers
 
Dennis Miller's HBO show was really funny too. MNF was a disaster that he never recovered from.

In regards to the stadium, there is also quite a bit of crony-capitalism going on. This deal stinks for the taxpayers of Wisconsin. All to protect a team that no one really cares about.

"On the very day that Walker began pushing for taxpayers to foot much of the bill for the new arena, one of the team’s owners donated $150,000 to his super PAC. The investor, Jon Hammes, has donated directly to Walker’s past campaigns, as well, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and this year, Walker hired him as his national finance co-chairman. Another Bucks owner, Ted Kellner, gave $50,000 to Walker’s Super PAC."

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/12/3690020/scott-walker-signs-bill-to-spend-hundreds-of-millions-of-tax-dollars-on-a-private-stadium/
 
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Dennis Miller's HBO show was really funny too. MNF was a disaster that he never recovered from.

In regards to the stadium, there is also quite a bit of crony-capitalism going on. This deal stinks for the taxpayers of Wisconsin. All to protect a team that no one really cares about.

"On the very day that Walker began pushing for taxpayers to foot much of the bill for the new arena, one of the team’s owners donated $150,000 to his super PAC. The investor, Jon Hammes, has donated directly to Walker’s past campaigns, as well, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and this year, Walker hired him as his national finance co-chairman. Another Bucks owner, Ted Kellner, gave $50,000 to Walker’s Super PAC."

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/08/12/3690020/scott-walker-signs-bill-to-spend-hundreds-of-millions-of-tax-dollars-on-a-private-stadium/
Even if you have the best franchise in the NBA, how can you cut $250 Mil from education to "balance the budget", and then spend that money on an arena?! That is criminal! Politicians have always been deceptive and dishonest, but more often now they are in your face "F you, I'm spending your money for the benefit of me and my friend$".
 
I'm not a Walker fan, I've actually been woefully unimpressed with him since his campaign, and I'm puzzled as to what all the hubbub is about him. But I am not entirely sure this is a dollar for dollar swap here. That is, I'd like to know more details before just believing he took $250m from education, and put it into a basketball arena.

Though I do agree that education should be funded, at least to some degree, better than it is, and I'm very iffy on the social engineering done in the tax code to appease sports teams under the guise of "job creation". Studies on the effectiveness of such deals have been all over the map.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....looks like Jimmy is gonna go down swinging....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brutally Frank Jimmy Carter Calls Out Israel on Permanent Apartheid

In an interview with the U.K.‘s Prospect magazine, former President Jimmy Carter is brutally frank in saying that all hope for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict has ended. “At this moment, there is zero chance of the two-state solution,” he said, according to journalist Bronwen Maddox.

That judgment is widely shared and not so controversial. It is what he said next that ruffled feathers in Israel: “The Netanyahu government decided early on to adopt a one-state solution … but without giving them equal rights.” In this sentence, he accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of having pursued, upon his election in 2009, a deliberate policy of relentlessly annexing and colonizing the Palestinian West Bank, ensuring that it will end up as part of Israel. At the same time, he said, Netanyahu conspired to ensure that the 4.2 million Palestinians under Israeli occupation remain stateless and without rights.

It seems fairly clear to any dispassionate observer of Netanyahu’s government that these steps are precisely the ones it has taken, and Carter is simply stating the obvious. But in the world of international diplomacy, it is customary to put some of the blame for this state of affairs on the Palestinians. Pro-Israeli critics run interference for Tel Aviv, insisting that the PLO, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has declined perfectly reasonable negotiating offers and that Israel would be very happy to have someone take Palestine off its hands, if only it could receive security in return. Carter violated these conventions of “on the one hand” political discourse by boldly and correctly blaming the occupying authority for its illegal actions, rather than the helpless, occupied population.

Carter wasn’t done with Netanyahu. Not only is the two-state solution dead, the Palestinian West Bank being entirely stolen, the Palestinians doomed to be ruled by the Israelis in perpetuity—but Israeli society and politics are such that in the single state now forming under Netanyahu’s iron fist, Palestinians “will never get equal rights.” In short, he implicitly called Israel an apartheid state in which the only hope for the Palestinians is to achieve at least “more equal rights.”

.............
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_brutally_frank_jimmy_carter_calls_out_israel_on_permanent_apartheid_20150

Cheers
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
if 'jimmy is going down swinging', why doesn't he expose to the fullest the united states complicity, including his own foreign policy, in promoting, supporting etc the one-sided policies towards the zionist state and the 'superpower' total subservience to the zionist lobby ?

if he did that, though by the us double standards jimmy does deserves some credit, only then i'd call his position brutally honest...until then, he is being timid, imo. and if compared to obama who did have the balls to take the zionists on, he is ...well, no comment.
 
Re:

Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm not a Walker fan, I've actually been woefully unimpressed with him since his campaign, and I'm puzzled as to what all the hubbub is about him. But I am not entirely sure this is a dollar for dollar swap here. That is, I'd like to know more details before just believing he took $250m from education, and put it into a basketball arena.

Though I do agree that education should be funded, at least to some degree, better than it is, and I'm very iffy on the social engineering done in the tax code to appease sports teams under the guise of "job creation". Studies on the effectiveness of such deals have been all over the map.
No it is not, even if the numbers are conveniently similar. The bonds for the stadium will be paid out over many, many years, while the cut to the UW system will be out of the annual operating budget. Even without a stadium project, UW was going to get a substantial haircut. Walker won his last two state races in large part by outspending his opponents, so he knows the value of campaign money. This may hurt him down the road as it makes him look like a shady politician (is there any other kind?), but enough ads in Iowa might overcome that.

Besides the typical 'stadiums improve the economy' fantasy, the stadium deal was marketed as a cost saving move because the yearly tax money from the NBA players salaries (~6-10 million /year) would pay off the bonds. So, it is the millionaire players (and not the taxpayers) that are paying for the construction of the stadium for their billionaire owners. If the team moved, that money would be gone anyway, claimed many supporters of the bill. Bradley Center didn't even last 30 years. If the new stadium doesn't last much longer than that, the team will be playing the same shell game in 2050.
 
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