World Politics

[Captain_Cavman]

Member of European Parliament talks sense shock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bdob6QRLRJU

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think some of the American Politics debaters on here may very well have another scandal to discuss in the coming weeks.

I think Obama may be having an affair with our Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Anyway, both seem to be struggling in the polls at the moment so I guess they certainly have something in common.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Remind us, Hitch, of the brilliant Mark Twain comment, because all I can recall now is the one about golf being "a good walk gone bad."

If I may Rhub - I suspect that Hitch was referring to this gem -

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

 

[The Hitch]

Remind us, Hitch, of the brilliant Mark Twain comment, because all I can recall now is the one about golf being "a good walk gone bad."

The one about the media is

"He who doesn't read the newspaper is uninformed.

He who does read the newspaper, is misinformed".

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

Havent seen that one but its also good.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Meanwhile, the House is debating whether pizza is a vegetable.

Unreal, yet unsurprising at he same time.

I think we may see the largest overturn of Congress in history next year. Not just Republicans, plenty of Democrats too. I see massive turnover, even greater than in 2010. Anyone in a district that is at all close has a serious chance of losing, and in several districts where Reps think they are safe, may find themselves on the short end of a close election.

 

[Amsterhammer]

White House reveals plans to boost cars' fuel efficiency

Major car firms sign up to Obama administration proposals – but claim 54.5mpg target by 2025 will cost them $157bn

The Obama administration proposed Wednesday increasing cars' fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a White House energy priority that has come under scrutiny in Congress.

The plan grew out of an uneasy agreement between the administration, automakers and environmental groups to reduce US dependence on oil imports and cut tailpipe emissions.

Regulators hope to finalise the proposal by summer following a 60-day public comment period. The administration wants to give industry five years to develop fuel-saving technologies further and plan products before the rule would start taking effect in 2017.

"We expect this programme will not only save consumers money, but ensure automakers have the regulatory certainty they need to make key decisions," transportation secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.

Current standards require automakers to raise efficiency from 27 miles per gallon today to 35.4mpg by 2016.

Targets beginning in 2017 would require a 5% annual efficiency gain for cars and 3.5 to 5% for light trucks, which include SUVs, pick-ups and vans.

Thirteen major automakers, including General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda have signed on to the fuel deal.

President Barack Obama has made fuel efficiency a signature environmental and energy priority since cars and trucks account for 20% of carbon emissions and more than 40% of US oil consumption.

A reasonable person would expect bi-partisan support for an initiative that makes sense any way you look at it - but wait......

But the role of federal environmental regulators and the state of California – a leader in efforts to reduce emissions – in developing auto standards has rankled the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Republican members of the Oversight Committee, who are scrutinising Obama's "green economy" agenda, have challenged administration assumptions on who can regulate gas mileage and emissions under federal law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/white-house-fuel-efficiency-plan

If it's an Obama administration plan, it simply must be opposed by the Republitards.

 

[Anonymous]

White House reveals plans to boost cars' fuel efficiency

Major car firms sign up to Obama administration proposals – but claim 54.5mpg target by 2025 will cost them $157bn




A reasonable person would expect bi-partisan support for an initiative that makes sense any way you look at it - but wait......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/white-house-fuel-efficiency-plan

If it's an Obama administration plan, it simply must be opposed by the Republitards.

Why not just outlaw auto manufacturing? Might as well do away with the internal combustion engine too.

Just think how much less oil consumption there would be not to mention a huge reduction in CO2.

It's for the good of mankind... I wonder if a proposal like this might get bi-partisan support as it too makes sense no matter how you look at it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Do not underestimate the widespread influence of the Republitards.

 

[redtreviso]

Hours after Pennsylvania State Police arrested a 21-year-old Idaho man for allegedly firing a semi-automatic rifle at the White House, the top student official for the College Republicans at the University of Texas tweeted that the idea of assassinating President Obama was “tempting.”

At 2:29 p.m. ET, UT’s Lauren E. Pierce wrote: “Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.”

Pierce, the president of the College Republicans at UT Austin, told ABC News the comment was a “joke” and that the “whole {shooting incident} was stupid.” Giggling, she said that an attempted assassination would “only make the situation worse.”

 

[Amsterhammer]

Why not just outlaw auto manufacturing? Might as well do away with the internal combustion engine too.

Just think how much less oil consumption there would be not to mention a huge reduction in CO2.

It's for the good of mankind... I wonder if a proposal like this might get bi-partisan support as it too makes sense no matter how you look at it.

Now that is just pathetic, Scott.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The gas mileage guidelines were agreed upon in principle a couple months ago between the Obama admin and the auto industry, so this isn't an issue of Obama trying to cripple the industry like many conservatives who fail to research the issue believe.

Back to Occupy protesters. In my town today they somewhat came up with the idea to occupy some banks, which I think was a deft move, and made their point. But of course they overdid that, with some idiots shoving the cops when they showed up and getting arrested, and then the occupiers decided to block traffic. But this was not cars coming out of the bank parking lot, they blocked mass transit. Uh, someone apparently didn't realize that the 1% don't ride the bus. No, it's working poor that do that. Great way to alienate yourself from those you purport to speak for.

 

[Anonymous]

Now that is just pathetic, Scott.

Why??

Why not legislate 75MPG... or 100MPG?? Why some random number like 54.5MPG?

And BTW, it won't cost the car companies a dime... it will cost the consumer. Then GM and Chrysler will need yet another bail-out (citing lack of consumer demand because a smart car will cost $100,000) and whichever idiot is in the White House will see this as another opportunity to buy influence with the auto workers union...

Or we could just put Solyndra panels on cars. We should have plenty of those with our $500,000,000 investment. Maybe cars with little windmills on them? I dunno, just trying to think outside the box.

So yeah, let's just cut our losses and stop with all the madness. Let's just outlaw cars.

Problem solved.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

And yet, they agreed to it. So obviously you know something about their industry they don't.

 

[Anonymous]

The gas mileage guidelines were agreed upon in principle a couple months ago between the Obama admin and the auto industry, so this isn't an issue of Obama trying to cripple the industry like many conservatives who fail to research the issue believe.

This is one of the comments from your article posted;

None of these goals, of course, are achievable. So what will happen is some other president who has to clean up this guys mess will cut it back to what is achievable.

Of course, GM doesn't care, because the government will simply pour more money into it.

I think that about sums it up.

 

[redtreviso]

Foxnews reports that several hundred people pffft showed up to protest..

 

[Anonymous]

And yet, they agreed to it. So obviously you know something about their industry they don't.

When one has a gun to their head they will agree to just about anything.

Different topic. Did you see GE's 2010 tax filing was 57,000 pages?

14 Billion in profit, $0 taxes paid and a 57,000 page tax return.

Just like they drew it up in DC, I suppose.

 

[redtreviso]

When one has a gun to their head they will agree to just about anything.

Different topic. Did you see GE's 2010 tax filing was 57,000 pages?

14 Billion in profit, $0 taxes paid and a 57,000 page tax return.

Just like they drew it up in DC, I suppose.

2 words.. Jack Welch

 

[fatandfast]

This is one of the comments from your article posted;



I think that about sums it up.

. The car makers have always had standards, they do it two ways. Buy a 3 cyl car from Suzuki or Toyota and rebrand it as a Chevy so that your fleet average mileage is on or near target or keep making huge guzzling SUVs and pay a penalty for not having met the efficiency standard.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

When one has a gun to their head they will agree to just about anything.

Considering you're taking the extreme claim that the undefined left, or the Obama administration would like to eliminate manufacturing, I'll play the same game.

By this rationale the conservatives believe government should offer no regulations and let car manufactures make cars with no emission controls, and no fuel standards. They seem to believe if this were the case the auto manufacturers wouldn't keep the profits, but pass pass on the savings to the consumer through lower prices.

And if we end up going back to pollution of the past where the Cayuga River catches on fire, the Hubbard Brook Forest is destroyed because of acid rain, and glass beach goes back to being a city dump, that's okay with conservatives, I suppose, as long as they have more money.

 

[Anonymous]

Considering you're taking the extreme claim that the undefined left, or the Obama administration would like to eliminate manufacturing, I'll play the same game.

By this rationale the conservatives believe government should offer no regulations and let car manufactures make cars with no emission controls, and no fuel standards. They seem to believe if this were the case the auto manufacturers wouldn't keep the profits, but pass pass on the savings to the consumer through lower prices.

And if we end up going back to pollution of the past where the Cayuga River catches on fire, the Hubbard Brook Forest is destroyed because of acid rain, and glass beach goes back to being a city dump, that's okay with conservatives, I suppose, as long as they have more money.

So we are back to conservatives are looking to foul the air and water. As if we neither breathe or are thirsty.

If Obama had his way, fewer people would drive, less co2 would be emitted, less oil consumed, etc.

"Energy prices will necessarily have to rise" (I'm paraphrasing) from candidate Obama's mouth. Cap and trade 101.

 

[gregod]

If I may ask where do you live, and also is the standard of news any better? To me its all crap, apart from a handul of magazines.

My avatar did once say that he became a journalist so that he wouldn't have to rely on the media to get his news, and I can't disagree with the idea.

Then theres the brilliant Mark Twain comment on the issue, which everyone no doubt knows well.

where i live there are journalism accountability laws the way their used to be in the US. also, on TV hard news and soft news are in separate programs. comment is also kept separate and not done by presenters, but left to people in the respective fields as opposed to professional pundits. overall newspapers and TV news do a good job. the news magazines, though are a whole different story. they are quite partisan.

i have lived in several countries with state controlled media. one of them, singapore, still was more trustworthy and substantive than the US. the others were bad, but in different ways from corporate controlled media. both extremes do not advance democracy very well.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Because you like the play the game with your own rules. You create these absurd claims in your posts:

Why not just outlaw auto manufacturing? Might as well do away with the internal combustion engine too..

Why??

Why not legislate 75MPG... or 100MPG?? ...

...Or we could just put Solyndra panels on cars. ...So yeah, let's just cut our losses and stop with all the madness. Let's just outlaw cars.

Yet when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine you don't like it, and try to deflect the conversation to cherry pick various arguments and claims, as if the Republicans are rational and the Democrats all support your claims. Someone calls you on that, and you state you never said those exact words when in reality by making absurd posts like the above that's essentially what you're insinuating.

 

[redtreviso]

the non obedient ones

Sky reporter, live from Manhattan: "Sir, you're on Sky News, why are you protesting?"

https://twitter.com/#!/JohnAmato/status/137387479664824320

 

[ramjambunath]

where i live there are journalism accountability laws the way their used to be in the US. also, on TV hard news and soft news are in separate programs. comment is also kept separate and not done by presenters, but left to people in the respective fields as opposed to professional pundits. overall newspapers and TV news do a good job. the news magazines, though are a whole different story. they are quite partisan.

i have lived in several countries with state controlled media. one of them, singapore, still was more trustworthy and substantive than the US. the others were bad, but in different ways from corporate controlled media. both extremes do not advance democracy very well.

Singapore has news , the stock exchange followed by a leaking roof.

On the topic of responsible media, India's press council chairman Justice Katju wants media regulation and states that self regulation has failed

Indian Newspaper society's response. How unpredictable.

 

[Anonymous]

Because you like the play the game with your own rules. You create these absurd claims in your posts:





Yet when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine you don't like it, and try to deflect the conversation to cherry pick various arguments and claims, as if the Republicans are rational and the Democrats all support your claims. Someone calls you on that, and you state you never said those exact words when in reality by making absurd posts like the above that's essentially what you're insinuating.

This is really quite simple. 54.5 MPG is likely an absurd standard, but even if it's not, if 54.5 is good then why not make it 60?

It reminds me of the stupidity of minimum wage laws. In California minimum wage is around $9/hr. So, what has happened? Teen unemployment in this state is around 40% and much higher if you happen to be a black teen. Minimum wage laws have essentially killed the entry level jobs in this state. But the argument from the left of course is how unfair it is to try and feed a family of four on an entry level wage (as if an entry level job was meant to provide for a family).

So, if $9 per hour is the absolute minimum, then wouldn't it be even more fair if the wage was set at $10... Or $15 even?

Perhaps I do a lousy job of illustrating absurdity by being absurd.... so I will make a concerted attempt to go along with the group-think from now on.