World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation’s racists.

I still would have taken that guy over Bush.

You know the funny thing about global warming (or climate change if you prefer) is that while I think it exists, and humans have at least some factor contributed, even if we stopped all pollution today it wouldn't change things for probably a century. The other is that the pragmatic solution is one we're already working towards, albeit slowly, and unevenly, and that is simply to cut general pollution. It's not ideal the way we're doing it, but if you look at a graph showing energy consumption to pollution ratio (in the US anyway) it's definitely very positive. We actually use less energy per capita now than we did 40 years ago. That's a very impressive stat. Even more impressive is that NO2, CO2, CO and lead (and other metals) atmospheric pollution is overall way down over the last 30 years. CO alone is down nearly 80%, lead alone down over 90%. Granted, we are still a large polluter, but that's because the US is a large, highly developed country. But these numbers seem to be dirty little secrets that the "liberals" don't want you to know about.

The biggest US polluter is actually the US military when you factor everything in. And it goes without saying the real problem there is (drum roll please) war.

The real problem areas are in China, India, and other developing industrial countries. Granted, US based companies are often eager to ship jobs there and not have to deal with the same pollution regulation in the US, but expecting US consumers to pollute less as a result is asking a bit much. Putting pressure on US corporations, and the US state department to push those countries to create more strict regulations is a real solution.

The other solution is of course in energy production. And we already have technology to assist that. Unfortunately, along with everything else, our system is so corrupted by money there's still way too much power in the oil industry, and coal as well to some extent. But there is more movement now in wind and solar power than ever before. I still believe a solid mid-term solution is nuclear power, if done right, as well. There's also excellent R&D going into fuel cell, tidal, blue green algae right now.

So yes, global warming exists, and yes we could pollute less. But we're doing a pretty good job of that right now actually, and generally headed in the right direction I think if we can keep at it. We don't need what some conservatives want, to have pollution standards lifted. And we don't need what some liberals want and much higher restrictions. Look at the big picture and you can see we're generally headed in the right direction, we just need to keep at it.

 

[ChrisE]

I'd vote for Clinton in a heartbeat. Never going to be for universal heathcare as I don't think the govt is capable, but Clinton did some very good things that helped drive economic expansion, tax increases notwithstanding. If you are waiting to vote for somebody you completely agree with then you better run for something. But remember to vote for yourself as it may be the only vote you get.

Nobody is forcing you to read my posts, Chris. Just skip them. I'd surely hate to bore you.

Yes, there is only one thing different between Clinton and Obama, other than Clinton being to the left of Obama which should alienate your vote. I wonder what that "thing" is?

 

[ChrisE]

But you live in TX, right? Last gubernatorial election with over 17m registered voters, and some 24m people qualified to vote, Rick Perry beat Bill White. Perry had 2.7m votes, to White's 2.1m. So basically only 11% of the people in your state elected your governor. What kind of message did that send? Well to him and his party, that he would be a great President. Looks to me like the other 89% that didn't vote for the guy, and 80% that didn't even bother to vote at all had zero impact. Be that out of protest, ignorance, laziness, whatever, it had none.

I mean, unless you're taking some other action to change the system - and I don't mean posting on bicycling message boards - you're not likely to have any impact at all on your state's politics, or national politics, by not voting.

If I had voted for Bill White nothing would have changed. I don't care what he says or what he did or didn't promise while campaigning. So what is the point? That IS the point. There are no vehicles of change in this country with the stupid electorate and the two entrenched parties. Democrat is not a viable option IMO, made plainfully aware by Obama and the cowards/facillitators in congress, other than the lunatic factor I alluded to.

 

[Amsterhammer]

My couple of cents -

Everyone here considers themselves to be 'reasonable'. As such, we all appear to agree that US politics, both at state and national level, are a corrupt and largely ineffective parody of what democracy should be. The entire system is desperately in need of some radical updating. We all appear to agree that this will not happen through the ballot box. It will, of course, also not happen by not voting. Ergo, another way will need to be found. I haven't felt myself to be in any sense 'revolutionary' since the 60's, but I really fear that something fundamental and revolutionary (sadly, with the risk of violence) will have to take place if we are ever to get out of the current partisan stalemate and deep divisions.

What is needed if direct action of some kind is to be avoided? Just for starters, a thorough revision of the Constitution. A fundamental alteration of the entire electoral system and the way it is funded. A fundamental restructuring of the tax system. A fundamental shift in how 'health care' is publicly viewed, provided, and paid for. A fundamental rethink about foreign policy, a drastic downsizing of the military, and an end to foreign wars that cost trillions. An acceptance of the differences between hard and soft drugs, and an end to the billions wasted on the pursuit, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana smokers. Are any of these forward-looking changes ever likely to occur under the existing system?

Maybe the only way is for millions of disgruntled citizens to take to the streets, all shouting in unison, 'we're not gonna take this sh!t any more'?


On global warming - I have to inform you US residents that yet again, the global warming skeptics of this world are almost entirely confined to the right wing US lunatic fringe. 'Reasonable' people in the rest of the world see the overwhelming evidence, and can only shake their heads when they see these people trying to deny what is obvious to everyone else.

Scott, I believe that you counted yourself amongst 'reasonable' people. Is it correct that you made a reasoned decision to support Dubya? Would you really not be just a little bit uneasy about Bachman having her finger on the trigger?

 

[ChrisE]

Again Hampsterslammer, just so I am clear.

I am not voting because there is no difference between two corrupt entities. If there was a viable 3rd party emerging I would support them in a heartbeat. 2010 was the first year I didn't vote since 1988.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, there is only one thing different between Clinton and Obama, other than Clinton being to the left of Obama which should alienate your vote. I wonder what that "thing" is?

So Obama is reducing spending as a percentage of GDP? When did Obama reduce Capital Gains... I must have missed that. Anything equivalent to welfare reform? Musta missed that too. Clinton was many things... being tone deaf was not one of them.

Take the skin color thing and cram it.

 

[Anonymous]

My couple of cents -

Everyone here considers themselves to be 'reasonable'. As such, we all appear to agree that US politics, both at state and national level, are a corrupt and largely ineffective parody of what democracy should be. The entire system is desperately in need of some radical updating. We all appear to agree that this will not happen through the ballot box. It will, of course, also not happen by not voting. Ergo, another way will need to be found. I haven't felt myself to be in any sense 'revolutionary' since the 60's, but I really fear that something fundamental and revolutionary (sadly, with the risk of violence) will have to take place if we are ever to get out of the current partisan stalemate and deep divisions.

What is needed if direct action of some kind is to be avoided? Just for starters, a thorough revision of the Constitution. A fundamental alteration of the entire electoral system and the way it is funded. A fundamental restructuring of the tax system. A fundamental shift in how 'health care' is publicly viewed, provided, and paid for. A fundamental rethink about foreign policy, a drastic downsizing of the military, and an end to foreign wars that cost trillions. An acceptance of the differences between hard and soft drugs, and an end to the billions wasted on the pursuit, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana smokers. Are any of these forward-looking changes ever likely to occur under the existing system?

Maybe the only way is for millions of disgruntled citizens to take to the streets, all shouting in unison, 'we're not gonna take this sh!t any more'?


On global warming - I have to inform you US residents that yet again, the global warming skeptics of this world are almost entirely confined to the right wing US lunatic fringe. 'Reasonable' people in the rest of the world see the overwhelming evidence, and can only shake their heads when they see these people trying to deny what is obvious to everyone else.

Scott, I believe that you counted yourself amongst 'reasonable' people. Is it correct that you made a reasoned decision to support Dubya? Would you really not be just a little bit uneasy about Bachman having her finger on the trigger?

The "rest" of the world must have, among other reams of data, missed this recent twist;

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Global warming has a political underpinning and as such should be considered corrupt to the core.

Not uneasy no matter who is elected President regarding nukes. Nukes can be summed up in two words. The end.

Given what Bachmann has done with her life, what would lead you to believe she would want this? If this is what the "rest" of the world is concerned about then the "rest" of the world may need to start doing some of their own research.

 

[ChrisE]

So Obama is reducing spending as a percentage of GDP? When did Obama reduce Capital Gains... I must have missed that. Anything equivalent to welfare reform? Musta missed that too. Clinton was many things... being tone deaf was not one of them.

Take the skin color thing and cram it.

Welfare reform? What else is there to "reform", other than abolishing it to "incentivize" people to work? BTW, I was all for the reform in the 90's.

How much to reduce in taxes? I have asked you before what that magic number was and you balked, then turned around and used the same line on somebody recently about how much taxes should be raised. At least give me credit when you use my material. Thank you.

You are a parrot as I have said before, a tape recorder of right wing talking points without critical reflection. Yes, I call you a liar when I say you think Clinton was a good president unless you admit your stupidity at the time; you use that now to show your moderation when in fact you voted for GHWB and Dole, and to try to throw off the accusation of what you really are.

I stated upthread what Obama has done, which is along the same lines as the people you would normally vote for. I can draw my own conclusions, and you are as transparent as air.

 

[redtreviso]

The "rest" of the world must have, among other reams of data, missed this recent twist;

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Global warming has a political underpinning and as such should be considered corrupt to the core.

Not uneasy no matter who is elected President regarding nukes. Nukes can be summed up in two words. The end.

Given what Bachmann has done with her life, what would lead you to believe she would want this? If this is what the "rest" of the world is concerned about then the "rest" of the world may need to start doing some of their own research.

What wouldn't you defend that the most mentally challenged of dittoheads wouldn't also?

btw scott.. Oliver North really didn't warn Al Gore about Osama bin Laden

anti science party

""Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
""

 

[redtreviso]

Here's Bush giving the country away to wall street right before his party was voted out of power.. We might never recover

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, if only we could get a Dem in office to unravel some of this crap instead of another Republican continueing it. Oooops.

 

[Anonymous]

Welfare reform? What else is there to "reform", other than abolishing it to "incentivize" people to work? BTW, I was all for the reform in the 90's.

How much to reduce in taxes? I have asked you before what that magic number was and you balked, then turned around and used the same line on somebody recently about how much taxes should be raised. At least give me credit when you use my material. Thank you.

You are a parrot as I have said before, a tape recorder of right wing talking points without critical reflection. Yes, I call you a liar when I say you think Clinton was a good president unless you admit your stupidity at the time; you use that now to show your moderation when in fact you voted for GHWB and Dole, and to try to throw off the accusation of what you really are.

I stated upthread what Obama has done, which is along the same lines as the people you would normally vote for. I can draw my own conclusions, and you are as transparent as air.

A four paragraph response to someone who's a racist and as transparent as air. What does that say about you, Chris?

I have a real novel idea. Just don't respond to my posts. I promise to do the same.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, I'm sure you weren't one of the right wingers saying the world was gonna end in 92 when he raised taxes, or proposed health care legislation.

You aren't even a subtle enough liar to make conversations interesting.

I did not vote for President Clinton the first election. I thought he was a asshat and did not want to vote myself a pay cut. His health care legislation well I honestly did not get into to it during those years. I figured it was the civilians problem etc.

I would vote for President Clinton today no problem. I would never vote for President Obama..............Now why is that?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here's Bush giving the country away to wall street right before his party was voted out of power.. We might never recover

Wonderful. How about go and read that book that rube talked about earlier?

 

[Spare Tyre]

I still would have taken that guy over Bush.

You know the funny thing about global warming (or climate change if you prefer) is that while I think it exists, and humans have at least some factor contributed, even if we stopped all pollution today it wouldn't change things for probably a century. The other is that the pragmatic solution is one we're already working towards, albeit slowly, and unevenly, and that is simply to cut general pollution. It's not ideal the way we're doing it, but if you look at a graph showing energy consumption to pollution ratio (in the US anyway) it's definitely very positive. We actually use less energy per capita now than we did 40 years ago. That's a very impressive stat. Even more impressive is that NO2, CO2, CO and lead (and other metals) atmospheric pollution is overall way down over the last 30 years. CO alone is down nearly 80%, lead alone down over 90%. Granted, we are still a large polluter, but that's because the US is a large, highly developed country. But these numbers seem to be dirty little secrets that the "liberals" don't want you to know about.

The biggest US polluter is actually the US military when you factor everything in. And it goes without saying the real problem there is (drum roll please) war.

The real problem areas are in China, India, and other developing industrial countries. Granted, US based companies are often eager to ship jobs there and not have to deal with the same pollution regulation in the US, but expecting US consumers to pollute less as a result is asking a bit much. Putting pressure on US corporations, and the US state department to push those countries to create more strict regulations is a real solution.

The other solution is of course in energy production. And we already have technology to assist that. Unfortunately, along with everything else, our system is so corrupted by money there's still way too much power in the oil industry, and coal as well to some extent. But there is more movement now in wind and solar power than ever before. I still believe a solid mid-term solution is nuclear power, if done right, as well. There's also excellent R&D going into fuel cell, tidal, blue green algae right now.

So yes, global warming exists, and yes we could pollute less. But we're doing a pretty good job of that right now actually, and generally headed in the right direction I think if we can keep at it. We don't need what some conservatives want, to have pollution standards lifted. And we don't need what some liberals want and much higher restrictions. Look at the big picture and you can see we're generally headed in the right direction, we just need to keep at it.

The real problem, as I see it, is that consumer capitalism is probably the worst form of economy imaginable given the greenhouse gases produced by manufacturing and the finite resources of the planet.

We have outsourced our production to China and India. They produce OUR consumer products therefore WE bear responsibility for the associated emissions.

The carbon footprints of 'first world' individuals far exceeds that of the vast majority of the rest of the world's population. We cause the problem, they bear the brunt of the consequences. Bangladesh is a perfect example.

I think the governments and general populations of the US and Australia (your country and mine) are appallingly remiss when it comes to recognising their contribution to the environmental damage being done and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My couple of cents -

Everyone here considers themselves to be 'reasonable'. As such, we all appear to agree that US politics, both at state and national level, are a corrupt and largely ineffective parody of what democracy should be. The entire system is desperately in need of some radical updating. We all appear to agree that this will not happen through the ballot box. It will, of course, also not happen by not voting. Ergo, another way will need to be found. I haven't felt myself to be in any sense 'revolutionary' since the 60's, but I really fear that something fundamental and revolutionary (sadly, with the risk of violence) will have to take place if we are ever to get out of the current partisan stalemate and deep divisions.

What is needed if direct action of some kind is to be avoided? Just for starters, a thorough revision of the Constitution. A fundamental alteration of the entire electoral system and the way it is funded. A fundamental restructuring of the tax system. A fundamental shift in how 'health care' is publicly viewed, provided, and paid for. A fundamental rethink about foreign policy, a drastic downsizing of the military, and an end to foreign wars that cost trillions. An acceptance of the differences between hard and soft drugs, and an end to the billions wasted on the pursuit, prosecution, and incarceration of marijuana smokers. Are any of these forward-looking changes ever likely to occur under the existing system?

Maybe the only way is for millions of disgruntled citizens to take to the streets, all shouting in unison, 'we're not gonna take this sh!t any more'?


On global warming - I have to inform you US residents that yet again, the global warming skeptics of this world are almost entirely confined to the right wing US lunatic fringe. 'Reasonable' people in the rest of the world see the overwhelming evidence, and can only shake their heads when they see these people trying to deny what is obvious to everyone else.

Scott, I believe that you counted yourself amongst 'reasonable' people. Is it correct that you made a reasoned decision to support Dubya? Would you really not be just a little bit uneasy about Bachman having her finger on the trigger?

Wow all of this coming from someone who lives ????? where? Have we tried to take apart your country? Hey I just heard that you guys like to hit the hippy lettuce? Is this true?

Your country needs to "fundamentally rethink" your current immigration policies toward the Turkish NO? How about you guys need to "fundamentally rethink" your dope , doper ,dopey problems. (see I really do not give a rats *** about your dope issues in Hampsterslammer) (but if you want to sling some **** then be my guest)

 

[redtreviso]

Wow all of this coming from someone who lives ????? where? Have we tried to take apart your country? Hey I just heard that you guys like to hit the hippy lettuce? Is this true?

Your country needs to "fundamentally rethink" your current immigration policies toward the Turkish NO? How about you guys need to "fundamentally rethink" your dope , doper ,dopey problems. (see I really do not give a rats *** about your dope issues in Hampsterslammer) (but if you want to sling some **** then be my guest)

Are you fixn to ask him if he speaks German ala Tom DeLay?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Are you fixn to ask him if he speaks German ala Tom DeLay?

that is a great MUG shot of a true SLIME BALL! did you donate to his defense?

Nah those ******-landers speakeze dutch. I know because I work for dem derrr DUTCH.

 

[redtreviso]

Need a loan for you small business scott? Just hit the Federal Reserves' discount window..
---------------------------------------------------------------------

""ATLANTA, Aug 28, 2011 (IPS) - The first-ever audit of the U.S. Federal Reserve has revealed 16 trillion dollars in secret bank bailouts and has raised more questions about the quasi-private agency’s opaque operations.

"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else," U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said in a statement.

The majority of loans were issues by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY).

"From late 2007 through mid-2010, Reserve Banks provided more than a trillion dollars… in emergency loans to the financial sector to address strains in credit markets and to avert failures of individual institutions believed to be a threat to the stability of the financial system," the audit report states.

"The scale and nature of this assistance amounted to an unprecedented expansion of the Federal Reserve System’s traditional role as lender-of-last-resort to depository institutions," according to the report.

The report notes that all the short-term, emergency loans were repaid, or are expected to be repaid.

The emergency loans included eight broad-based programmes, and also provided assistance for certain individual financial institutions. The Fed provided loans to JP Morgan Chase bank to acquire Bear Stears, a failed investment firm; provided loans to keep American International Group (AIG), a multinational insurance corporation, afloat; extended lending commitments to Bank of America and Citigroup; and purchased risky mortgage-backed securities to get them off private banks’ books.

Overall, the greatest borrowing was done by a small number of institutions. Over the three years, Citigroup borrowed a total of 2.5 trillion dollars, Morgan Stanley borrowed two trillion; Merryll Lynch, which was acquired by Bank of America, borrowed 1.9 trillion; and Bank of America borrowed 1.3 trillion. ""

cont

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=104913

and mostly because of THIS.. courtesy of Phil and Wendy Gramm(R-DFistan/Switzerland)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

 

[redtreviso]

that is a great MUG shot of a true SLIME BALL! did you donate to his defense?

Nah those ******-landers speakeze dutch. I know because I work for dem derrr DUTCH.

You ought to try that (im)famous Tom DeLay line out on them....

 

[Bala Verde]

Here's Bush giving the country away to wall street right before his party was voted out of power.. We might never recover

And Obama (re)appointed half of these GoldmanSachs @$$clowns.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/27/barack_obama_wall_street

The first troubling sign was his personnel appointments: Larry Summers, the man behind nearly every disastrous policy that created the crisis, fresh from making $20 million from hedge funds and investment banks while at Harvard, to become the director of the National Economic Council; Tim Geithner, plucked from the New York Federal Reserve Bank and put in charge at Treasury; as Geithner's chief of staff, Mark Patterson, a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist; to succeed Geithner at the New York Fed, William C. Dudley, who was chief economist of Goldman Sachs during the housing bubble years; Michael Froman, straight from Citigroup Alternative Investments, which lost billions while its executives became rich, to coordinate economic policy for the National Security Council; Jacob Lew, who was the CFO of Citigroup Alternative Investments, as deputy secretary of state (and now, Obama's nominee to run the Office of Management and Budget); Gary Gensler, a former Goldman executive who helped ban the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, to lead the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives; Mary Shapiro, former head of the Financial Industry Regulatory Agency, the investment banking industry’s self-policing body, to run the Securities and Exchange Commission; reappointing Ben Bernanke. And on and on.

No prosecutions and accountability for the engineers of the biggest heist in human history.

 

[redtreviso]

And Obama (re)appointed half of these GoldmanSachs @$$clowns.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/27/barack_obama_wall_street



No prosecutions and accountability for the engineers of the biggest heist in human history.

Bush already gave the farm away to them.. or else.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html

Just in case Obama had any ideas of going Andrew Jackson on them

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

If I had voted for Bill White nothing would have changed.

I get all that. What I want to know is what, beyond not voting because it doesn't matter, your method of action is towards facilitating change, that's all. I mean, if it's not voting, or getting people to vote (in a state where hardly anyone does), what is it?

I used to really rail against people who don't vote, but after listening to George Carlin say why he hadn't voted since something like Ford vs. Carter, as it didn't matter, and there were better ways to get your word through (his through biting stage satire), I get it. But most people who don't vote, also don't do anything other than sit around and complain to no one that listens.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by..."scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

The problem with statements like this from Perry are that they are open ended, and void of definition or clarity. If the media were doing it's job they would instantly have pressed him and said "And therefore...? You believe we should do what, governor? Because which scientists are saying what exactly?" But the pathetic (not liberal, not conservative, just pathetic) media will do no such thing, because the pathetic (not liberal or conservative...) public is hardly interested. They'd rather know why Kim Kardashian's boobs and rear end looked big in her wedding dress.

 

[rhubroma]

Wonderful. How about go and read that book that rube talked about earlier?

That you find such a book scandalous, immoral and even destructive, is precisely what has created such a vast cultural divide between an unsupportably hypocritical puritanical and moralistic Americana and the rest of the Western World.

This kind preaches from the pulpit, but then goes out to break every form of morality on the record.

Whereas such a book challenges us to confront the lurid nature of desire and the sinister aspect of unrivaled power, which are things that frankly make them cringe with disgust.

The work, though, is an aesthetic tour de force and a masterpiece of perversion and hence should be widely read and contemplated above all by the puritans and among those in the so called moral majority to shake them out of their drunken stupor and join the rest of civilization.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Wow all of this coming from someone who lives ????? where? Have we tried to take apart your country? Hey I just heard that you guys like to hit the hippy lettuce? Is this true?

Your country needs to "fundamentally rethink" your current immigration policies toward the Turkish NO? How about you guys need to "fundamentally rethink" your dope , doper ,dopey problems. (see I really do not give a rats *** about your dope issues in Hampsterslammer) (but if you want to sling some **** then be my guest)

This post so totally disqualifies you as someone to take seriously in this discussion and is unworthy of any serious reply!

FYI - I am a US citizen, and entitled to my opinion about the state of the country even if I don't live there. Holland has no "dope issues" thanks to this country's enlightened approach, and I really have no idea what your irrelevant diversion about Turkish immigration is supposed to mean. But by all means, continue to demonstrate the political perspicacity of Texans. (I can make sweeping generalizations too.)