This video made me sad.....
Well, hopefully you can formulate a better argument for your feelings than quoting as authoritative the Southern Poverty Law Center, because that dog ain't gonna hunt. |
|
|
|
There was a time in America when Kennedy and Nixon had a debate, and it was not about who was doing the Conservative thing and who was doing the Liberal thing. It was about who was doing the RIGHT thing.
In the Kennedy Nixon debate they BOTH talked about Hydroelectric infrastructure (renewable energy) that would bring jobs to Americans. Nixon did have a conservative argument in that he said "I spend less money and still bring nice infrastructure" while Kennedy said he wanted America to become more innovative and robust than ever.
They BOTH cared about the welfare of the people. They BOTH knew that America was only as strong as its weakest link. But at some point, Americans decided that if someone was poor, it was THEIR fault.
LBJ made a speech about "The War on Poverty" and nothing has really happened since. Obama even mentioned it on the anniversary of the speech and people were stunned. Not even a single clap from what I could hear.
No one seems to even understand what a war on poverty would look like, so they just brush it under the rug and act as if their is some individual flaw of each failed person that made them that way.
When BOTH parties cared about infrastructure and jobs, America was booming, winning basically. Not creating terrorists and debt around the world. But now we have fallen in to a hole.
Oil has us chasing our tail, and innovation has been stifled. McCain says "Russia is just a gas station masquerading as a country" and I am afraid that our leaders idolize that idea unknowingly.
SAd thing is, we do not ned Middle Eastern, Russian or any import oil at all. The USA EXPORTS OIL! It is easier however to simply export brave American service men and women as cannon fodder to protect our "interests" (Read" "OIL INTERESTS") than to break our dependence on foregin oil.. Dueing WWII, which in point of fact ENDED nearly 70 years ago, a substatial portion of the fuel supply of the Germans came from SYNTHETIC OIL. Now if the Nazis could do it that far back, why can't we now? WTF is wrong with us? Thank you for your ingitful and accurate post! We could run millions of cars on methanol, the fourth largest industrial chemical, available for about $1 per gasoline gallon equivalent, within a couple weeks of the decision to do so. This is not complicated. Yeah but do your homework on methanol. It ain't that pretty at all. I disagree. However, suppose we had been running our cars on Chemical XYZ, and someone tried to get us to use "gasoline." Given today's regulatory and risk averse environment, I bet you couldn't get gasoline introduced. As it was, it was introduced because of maximum hydrogen bonds, max energy, high fuel density, etc. and it is the standard. Methanol has certain disadvantages, but these are easily handled and at minimal cost. There are millions of cars running it in China. There was a large study IIRC in New York using several thousand vehicles in the mid 1980s on methanol. The big thing about methanol is that it's an easy way to take natural gas and move it around in a liquid form, instead of complex high pressure piping and tankage. Other fuels may also be derived from natural gas with a few more process steps such as dimethyl ether, an acceptable substitute for diesel fuel. Obviously, methanol (CH3OH) is the simplest and easiest liquid fuel that can be produced from natural gas, largely methane (CH4). Greenies would find methanol acceptable, but only if it came from "renewables." And that's nonsense, because as the fourth largest produced industrial chemical, we can buy bargeloads today at a very low competitive street price. |
|
|
|
The Nobel Peace Prize committee?
I would certainly agree with that one. It would be interesting to hear the defense arguments and production of evidence. Since there was none. |
|
|
|
This is an excellent discussion, published in a Southern Poverty Law Center blog, "teachingtolerance.org". Not just the original post, but the entire discussion that follows is for the most part sane and rational... from those agreeing with the author, to those taking exception to certain statements. So refreshing; outside of this particular asylum for nutballs (FSA) there really are people who give this issue some sane consideration. I think we tend to lose sight of that when we get so caught up in swatting mosquitos here.
For those of you who do, I recommend reading the two pages of commentary......
Wow, an article for people who can't think for themselves! So nice! It tells me what to think. I was so unhappy. I was up all night worried about how my small brain might fail me on right thinking on immigration. Thank you so very much, noviapriani. Y entonces yo entiendo todo, y todo el mundo soy mis amigos! |
|
|
|
There was a time in America when Kennedy and Nixon had a debate, and it was not about who was doing the Conservative thing and who was doing the Liberal thing. It was about who was doing the RIGHT thing. America is going down the toilet because people like you are so uneducated you thing the word "liberal" means "leftist". You don't even know what that word meant for a thousand years before it was Orwellian flipped in the 1950's. You are sheep who beg for Marxism, so you will be fleeced like sheep from cradle to grave. You chose it. Enjoy. Actually the Kennedy/Nixon debate was about progressive versus conservative, and was classic American Democratic and Republican arguments. |
|
|
|
the border thing was probably all about giving government contractors to their friends, particularly the republicans. at least in this case, they are just using government dollars to hook their business associates up.
Fundamental issue is there. There will be people trying to take advantage of any situation. Of course, Mexicans take jobs from American blacks. This results in increased dependency on social services systems, eg Big Gov, for the Blacks, which Democrats like. It's relatively easy to "fix the border problem", since it's a false problem created and sustained politically. This is done with false arguments and false solutions. Require work permits, stop giving citizenship to any newborns, make the work permit cheap but have it include a background check. Toss out the criminal element. Legalize marihuana in the border states, cutting the drug gangs income stream. Determine a somewhat fair set of rules on what social and welfare benefits those with work permits have. Does not have to be totally fair, if that can even be defined. At that point, it would seem the number trying to go through the desert would be nominal, they'd all go through the border city crossings. The false arguments are that they should be given citizenship, that employers want their cheap labor, and so forth. The real goal is to pad Democratic voter ranks and therefore win elections. On the Republican side, the goal is to "look Tough on Illegals" to part of their voter base. To "Fix" this problem, one must look at supply and demand, and influence those factors. I suspect that Rand Paul could get a proposal out that would fix these problems. But I am not certain of that. |
|
|
|
Good. The discussion is over. Wont stop them crying about a conspiracy of science or whatever but as their 'theories' are about as truthful as young earth creationism who also complain about a conspiracy of science who cares? Let them be idiots over there somewhere. I don't know. Is the choice then between a third rate "expert", Carter and the vast mess of forced and false consensus presented in the IPCC report, or alternately, no opposition expert? Either of these choices rings hollow. How about an expose of false statements made on BBC in the last ten years on the subject of climate change? The essential problem is a paternalistic attitude of the news agency funded and direction by a government determining what information to mete out to people to properly shape their thoughts and attitudes. Cloning is required. I await the Ginger Ranches. |
|
|
|
....ent, then manipulated them in a specific way, which has no justification other that to give the result you wanted, then claim it shows some deep meaning. It doesn't.
What? Is this a climate science dissertation? |
|
|
|
There was a time in America when Kennedy and Nixon had a debate, and it was not about who was doing the Conservative thing and who was doing the Liberal thing. It was about who was doing the RIGHT thing.
In the Kennedy Nixon debate they BOTH talked about Hydroelectric infrastructure (renewable energy) that would bring jobs to Americans. Nixon did have a conservative argument in that he said "I spend less money and still bring nice infrastructure" while Kennedy said he wanted America to become more innovative and robust than ever.
They BOTH cared about the welfare of the people. They BOTH knew that America was only as strong as its weakest link. But at some point, Americans decided that if someone was poor, it was THEIR fault.
LBJ made a speech about "The War on Poverty" and nothing has really happened since. Obama even mentioned it on the anniversary of the speech and people were stunned. Not even a single clap from what I could hear.
No one seems to even understand what a war on poverty would look like, so they just brush it under the rug and act as if their is some individual flaw of each failed person that made them that way.
When BOTH parties cared about infrastructure and jobs, America was booming, winning basically. Not creating terrorists and debt around the world. But now we have fallen in to a hole.
Oil has us chasing our tail, and innovation has been stifled. McCain says "Russia is just a gas station masquerading as a country" and I am afraid that our leaders idolize that idea unknowingly.
SAd thing is, we do not ned Middle Eastern, Russian or any import oil at all. The USA EXPORTS OIL! It is easier however to simply export brave American service men and women as cannon fodder to protect our "interests" (Read" "OIL INTERESTS") than to break our dependence on foregin oil.. Dueing WWII, which in point of fact ENDED nearly 70 years ago, a substatial portion of the fuel supply of the Germans came from SYNTHETIC OIL. Now if the Nazis could do it that far back, why can't we now? WTF is wrong with us? Thank you for your ingitful and accurate post! We could run millions of cars on methanol, the fourth largest industrial chemical, available for about $1 per gasoline gallon equivalent, within a couple weeks of the decision to do so. This is not complicated. |
|
|
|
Conservatives ‘screw’ Obama by modifying trucks to spew toxic black smoke  Slightly off-topic but it's good to see the rightwing stickin' it to the man  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/07/rolling-coal-conservatives-screw-obama-by-modifying-trucks-to-spew-toxic-black-smoke/Conservatives who detest President Barack Obama and EPA clean air regulations are modifying their vehicles to purposefully spew black smoke into the atmosphere. So-called “coal rollers” install smoke stacks and special equipment in their diesel trucks that makes the engine think that it needs more fuel, resulting in plumes of black smoke. According to Slate’s Dave Weigel, the phenomenon is not new, but it is becoming more popular among conservatives who want to protest the president and his efforts to clean up the environment.
“I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all,” a smoke stack seller in Wisconsin told Weigel. “If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that.”
“To get a single stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger,” he added. “You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you.”
In June, Vocativ reported on the trend of “coal rollers” using their toxic exhaust as revenge against “nature nuffies” who drive environmentally friendly cars, like the Toyota Prius.
“The feeling around here is that everyone who drives a small car is a liberal,” a South Carolina truck owner named Ryan explained. “I rolled coal on a Prius once just because they were tailing me.”
“It’s bad for the environment. That’s definitely true,” he admitted. “And some of the kids that have diesel trucks can look like tools. And you can cause a wreck, but everything else about it is pretty good.”
The Clean Air Task Force estimates that pollutants from diesel vehicles “lead to 21,000 premature deaths each year and create a cancer risk that is seven times greater than the combined risk of all 181 other air toxics tracked by the EPA.”Let me see one in Santa Barbara, I'll believe this then. |
|
|
|
There is a lot of ruin in a nation. America's decline has been a steady once since its post World War II peak. I think you'll be hard pressed to pin point a single turning point. Maybe 1972, end of Bretton Woods monetary system, withdrawal from Vietnam, and Watergate? Hard to say but it is fun to think about.
It will be a lot easier to do this once it is clear that the US really is in the shitter. She may not be done just yet.
I am of the opinion that many facts presented to support the assumption that the US is going down, actually support a contrary position, that the largest part of the world is rising up. Thus we may interpret things as "bad" that are obviously "good". As an example, if we could time warp back to the 1950s 1960s cold war and ask "how would you like it if you didn't have a threat of nuclear war, if both China and Russia were not hell bent on world dominion, had partially free market economies that we routinely traded with..." ...so forth and so on, people back then would uniformly say that would be a wonderful future. |
|
|
|
The biggest concern I see is the continued devaluation of the US currency - whether it be through bailouts (giving money to companies doing risky practices), or running up national debt: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ That issue has to be addressed ASAP.
After that, I see oil and energy sources being the second highest priority. Bolded above, just a note. It doesn't HAVE to be addressed ASAP. Quite the contrary. And realize that any calls to "address it ASAP" that you hear coming from the District of Criminals will be oriented toward taking more of your an my money. Either from our retirement plans, or shaving it off our bank accounts, capital or juggling the currency. After all, solutions that don't allow for embedded corruption can't be allowed. |
|
|
|
James Cameron wants you to eat nothing but plants to stop global warmingFilm director James Cameron and his wife, Suzy Amis Cameron, an actor and model, are planning a global campaign to persuade people to move towards a plant-only diet (where no animals or animal products are consumed) in order to sharply reduce global carbon emissions and improve their health… “The project will include many different modes of communication that will reach as many different demographics as we possibly can from children to 90-year-olds. We want to bring awareness around the connection between livestock production and our environment to leave the planet a better place for our future generations to grow up in.”… As they delved further into the subject, they recognised that the meat and dairy industry is also the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/04/james-cameron-and-wife-to-launch-campaign-advocating-sustainable-plant-only-based-diet/ Has Mr. Cameron ever actually been to an agricultural community? The amount of exhaust from combines and the sterilization of large swaths of monoculture land is all ready pretty extreme. If we all suddenly went vegetarian it would more than make up for any reduction in cow flatulence. It is also worth considering that if we allow cattle to be free ranged again they would actually build the soil and increase bio diversity and plant life. I wonder how carbon neutral his movie projects are or when he decides to roam the ocean's floor with his giant flood lights... Hey man he is Hollywood. Do as he says not as he does. If we plebeians just do as Hollyweirdos tell us the world would be a much better place. I suggest now that he's stopped eating animals, he and his wife take the next logical step. Stop eating plants, too. There should be lots of 3d-avatar-glasses that nobody wants lying around that he could eat. I haven't watch avatar yet but it seems "plants" and "trees" are alive, like animals, in this movie. So your point makes sense for him even more. Avatar is a genuinely bad movie. The plot is a trivialized concoction of happy natives on the one side and a cruel, killing war machine ran by capitalist exploiters on the other. The aliens are not even credible, neither is their technology remotely credible. Cameron bet on 3d, is what it's really about, and didn't pay attention to the fundamentals, script, character development, and plot depth. |
|
|
|
Probably you don't understand this well. But who knows? I'm just guessing about this...
Those of us that live in the border areas don't need the help of your guesswork. |
|
|
|
My comment was more toward the veracity of the suggestion that support to Americans was going to cease resulting in seniors adopting a diet of cat-food until we bought every S. American refugee a Porche or whatever gibberish Fox News is forcing down the throats of their gullible audience.
Fact is that immigration is widely used by the business class to force down wages, and that is very likely a big part of the 'problem' which has mysteriously proven so 'intractable' over the decades. From the 'Liberal' standpoint this 'problem' is nothing but one more in a countless string of examples of Obama being indistinguishable (if not worse) than any other political who is totally beholden to corporate interests.
Again, the question in my mind is whether this whether there is a direct link to the military/industrial component given the interesting age cohort observable with this latest 'immigration problem.' Americans do seem to be getting fed up with their own kids coming back from the edges of the empire without all of their limbs. Presumably it would not be that big a deal if it were some immigrant kid doing his duty in the service of America who took the brunt of this damage. Especially if we could dump them back to their country of origin if they ended up injured and costing tax dollars.
This which you wrote, is a rather strange concoction of illogic, fantasy, and shreds of fact aligned with each other regardless of the lack of meaning in so doing. |
|
|
|
James Cameron wants you to eat nothing but plants to stop global warmingFilm director James Cameron and his wife, Suzy Amis Cameron, an actor and model, are planning a global campaign to persuade people to move towards a plant-only diet (where no animals or animal products are consumed) in order to sharply reduce global carbon emissions and improve their health… “The project will include many different modes of communication that will reach as many different demographics as we possibly can from children to 90-year-olds. We want to bring awareness around the connection between livestock production and our environment to leave the planet a better place for our future generations to grow up in.”… As they delved further into the subject, they recognised that the meat and dairy industry is also the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/04/james-cameron-and-wife-to-launch-campaign-advocating-sustainable-plant-only-based-diet/ Has Mr. Cameron ever actually been to an agricultural community? The amount of exhaust from combines and the sterilization of large swaths of monoculture land is all ready pretty extreme. If we all suddenly went vegetarian it would more than make up for any reduction in cow flatulence. It is also worth considering that if we allow cattle to be free ranged again they would actually build the soil and increase bio diversity and plant life. I wonder how carbon neutral his movie projects are or when he decides to roam the ocean's floor with his giant flood lights... Hey man he is Hollywood. Do as he says not as he does. If we plebeians just do as Hollyweirdos tell us the world would be a much better place. I suggest now that he's stopped eating animals, he and his wife take the next logical step. Stop eating plants, too. There should be lots of 3d-avatar-glasses that nobody wants lying around that he could eat. |
|
|
|
Ooops I guess a lot of IT workers are going to be very busy making sure all tracks are covered and that all computers and ledgers are wiped clean. But "I lost the evidence" isn't an excuse in a court of law, it tends to fall on the side of the plaintiff if the defense loses the evidence so we the tax payers are probably going to get screwed by the IRS when they have to pay out yet again for their criminal behavior.
A pundit on tv suggested that the House needs to use their power of the purse to defund the IRS for all expenses other than collecting income taxes and supplying refund checks. I think that sounds like a wonderful idea and a lead into implementing the fair tax to ensure that the IRS never again is allowed to use its omnipotent power to abuse Americans.
BTW True the Vote which was accused of being partisan against democrats and for conservatives has filed a suit against the Mississippi republican Cochran for voter fraud. I guess that blows that IRS claim right out of the water.
Just abolish it altogether. The treasury can process tax payments and refunds. Each tax return should be the size of a post card. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992, they went to a tax system that is one page, flat tax and takes about 5 minutes to fill out. The Austrailian tax form also, takes just a few minutes to fill out. The equivalent US one? Maybe ten hours, and much of that is poring through incomprehensible paragraphs of complex instructions. Result is you never know if you did it right. I was hoping that the 2009 collapse would result in reformation of this problem, but instead they've doubled down. Not just in complexity of the morass of rules, but also in corruption. It could be that corruption is best sheltered in complexity. |
|
|
|
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
I think you've got your priorities mixed up....When a law is legally passed and the president uses an executive order to nullify it, THAT is political bullshit. Educate me. Which law(s) are you talking about? Educate YOU? You brought the subject up. Which executive actions are you defending? You defined this matter as political bullshit. But courts are where genuine differences of opinion on the meaning of law SHOULD BE DECIDED. That's the right way to resolve a conflict. |
|
|
|
Supreme Court? I would think they would throw out this suit, because it's political bullshit so boenher can keep his job. But 5 conservative judges might go for it. Question is, can democrats sue a republican president. the stats the media keeps showing is that Obama has issued far fewer executive orders than his predecessors.
that makes no sense. You have a genuine conflict between the legislative and the executive branch, in which the legislative feels their constitutional right to legislate is being capriciously over ruled with executive orders. Taking such a matter to a judicial body is the right thing to do, as they interpret the law and apply it. Taking this matter to a judicial body - I think it would be the District Court in DC, by the way - is not a punative measure, but a request for clarification of the law. Further, if a controversial executive order was protested to the court, an injunction for a restraining order could be had until such time as the court ruled on the matter. |
|
|
|
Well now media has become paid shills of the corporate owners. Very few journalists now, and even fewer people who seek out the news rather than opinion. People want news they can agree with, not news which disturbs them. You will find this scandal pushed under the rug like all the other phony scandals.
I agree with you about how the media is nothing more than a group of bought and paid-for shills. But how exactly is this a phony scandal? The IRS was unfairly targeting Conservative groups, and the top brass at the IRS are lying in front of Congress by cooking up some completely unbelievable story about a hard drive crash causing the complete loss of 2 years worth of emails. How is that a phony scandal? The media has a very strong liberal bias and as a result they will not report as much on these types of scandals and will not ask tough questions. This is probably an inadequate explanation. Corruption in the IRS will detrimentally affect everyone, whatever their political inclination. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
