The Right Side of the News

quote:

---

Ya know what, conservatives, perhaps Republicans, are still more liberal than today's Democrats

---

When Republicans are getting upset about freedom of the press, calling for political opponents to be jailed on dubious grounds and flirting with White Supremacists that’s a pretty hard case to make.

quote:

---

All the Democrats spend their time doing is criticizing the opposition, pointing the finger, finding fault, giving no benefit of the doubt or having any other civilized notion

---

Given the massive criticism faced by Obama - some of it outright insane - this seems hypocritical to say the least. Of course it is just your standard hypocrisy. In your civilised society you and your tribe get to say what you like but all criticism of you must be forbidden. That isn’t liberal - or civilised - at all.

quote:

---

Trump has been acting within his constitutional authority at every turn, but the Democrats are either so malicious or so ignorant they accuse him of violating it.

---

The courts agree that reasonable questions have been made, and certainly some have found that he did overstep the bounds.

quote:

---

Probably both malicious and ignorant.

---

You know, you may think it is clever to pretend that your enemies are like you but it really gets boring.

No, it doesn't mean any country with those services is a socialist country.Any country with those services has some socialist services and may have many non-socialist aspects.Why is it so many creationists and RWNJs have no concept of "some? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No, not a socialist country, but a country with some socialist policies, because most countries -- especially democratic ones -- find that using government resources to accomplish some tasks is of benefit to all their citizens Decided democratically. Indeed we can, and the evidence shows that GOP run state economies fail while Dem run state economies prosper. This of course includes GOP fake trickle-down give tax to the rich policies as in Brownback's failed Kansas state economy:

quote:

---

https://www.cnbc.com/...ounds-from-tax-cutting-disaster.html

​

One year ago Kansas was still nursing a hangover from a disastrous tax-cutting experiment by former Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who slashed individual income-tax rates and eliminated taxes on pass-through income from certain businesses. Even though a bipartisan super-majority of the state legislature had repealed the Brownback program over his veto in 2017, the state was still dealing with a residual $351 million revenue shortfall for fiscal 2018, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In addition to its No. 35 overall ranking last year, Kansas finished a dismal No. 45 in the Economy category.

---

... vs Dem minimum wage and healthcare etc policies building strong and growing economies.

quote:

---

It's liberal Minnesota vs. GOP Wisconsin in study of economic growth

​

The latest volley comes from a liberal research group, the Economic Policy Institute, which finds that on a multitude of key measures, Minnesota’s economic performance over the past seven years has been markedly better than that of its neighbor to the east.

​

Put another way, Minnesota has fared better economically under Democrats than Wisconsin has under Republicans, according to a study released Tuesday by the Washington, D.C.-based organization.

---

quote:

---

Latest data show Minnesota economy crushing it vs. Wisconsin | NewsCut | Minnesota Public Radio News

​

Since the end of the Great Recession, Minnesota has outpaced the Badger State.

​

The only category where Wisconsin held an edge was in total jobs. It made sense since Wisconsin has a significantly larger population than Minnesota. But in 2015 the trend was clear that when it came to total employees and total private sector employees, Minnesota was coming for Wisconsin so much so that I wrote, It will not be surprising to see Minnesota eclipse Wisconsin in a few years, I wrote.

​

Last month, it happened.

---

Given the evidence of these state "experiments" in fiscal policies, one would have to be an idiot to vote republican if they wanted a good local state economy.In fact every place that has raised the minimum wage has seen the local economy improve, with lower unemployment and higher wages and job satisfaction, more retention of workers, and higher productivity so more company stability. The basic reason is that more money in workers pockets means more spending at local level, and less time spent in multiple jobs means more time to spend it. Fewer people working multiple jobs means more opportunities for employment.Because the economy trickles up, not down. Democratically Elected officials making decisions on how to run their states influencing where people want to live and work, influencing companies on where to locate ... oh the horror ... The US Military budget is the largest hunk of federal funding in the economy.Interstate highways are run by the Federal Highway Administration.Then there are federal standards for water, sewer and other public services that set a minimum level of compliance for public safety and health. There probably is not a single business that is not in some way affected by federal regulations that are there to protect and support the public welfare. Quite evidentially wrong.

quote:

---

U.S. Constitution - Preamble - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

... made Democratically by Elected officials at local, state and federal levels ... oh the horror ... Yes, socialism -- democratic socialism, where the decisions are made democratically, either through direct vote (referendums) or through representatives elected democratically.Socialism as an economic tool to offset the failures of unrestrained capitalism (rampant poverty, homelessness and poor health for instance) rather than a form of government. There are more empty homes than there are homeless people, an obvious sign that the economy is out of whack with peoples "general Welfare."EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Somehow you went on for 100's of words without answering two reasonably simple questions.Introduction:
The introduction went exactly as it should (though too slowly). Scientists are not and should not be unelected policy makers. They supply the information that is used to make policy.
Al Gore did not introduce the subject he was just someone with enough recognition to attract some attention.
That was, though not the question I asked: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?Name Change:
People were, (and obviously still are very confused) by the tern global warming since they (with some reason) were made to think that things should uniformally and universally be warming. In fact, as the global average temperature increases a lot of different things occur. So climate change is a much better term. That you would get in a knot about that change shows that you don’t get the basic issue at all.The name isn’t the question I asked about either.Who should fix it?
Well, obviously we are all in this together so we all need to. Settling who does is a big issue to be discussed. It’s not what I was asking about though. Is CO 2 a greenhouse gas?Actions:
You’re not discussing actions at all. You’re just suggesting hypocrisy. Of course, there is hypocrisy everywhere. That has nothing to do with the question either though. You need to focus a bit.Toxins:
So, it appears, you do think that poring toxins into the air is a bad thing. However, you seem to hope that technology will fix it all. Well, I’m a hypocrite who still burns gas in his car. A year from now that won’t be true since there is much better technology and that’s what I will use.The danger with your approach is that the technology may not arrive in time and what we already have may not be adopted nearly quickly enough.What should we do now is the question.My view does somewhat agree with you: the more we can make the right individual decisions easy and obvious (like electric cars are for half the market now) the better. If we leave things too long then we will have to mandate actions and remove individuals' freedom of choice.So what can we do to get actions implemented before we have to remove individual freedoms.Also: Since this part is on the toxins question; do you agree that removing individual liberties to burn gas anyway they wanted in their cars in California decades ago was a good decision?Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

With bi-partisan support and with republicans that wouldn't pass muster as republicans today -- back when it was okay for republicans to be liberal and open minded.Enjoy

They just outlined a democratic voting method for electing officials and presidents through elected officials.This kind of thinking means that we are not a capitalist country either, because "capitalism" isn't mentioned in the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the pledge of allegiance. SHOCKING!!! Who knew??? Which, as used in the US, is a form of democracy.

quote:

---

Republic - Wikipedia

​

In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]

---

Again, I can make the similar but stronger argument that the US is a UNION of all the people because it is in the Constitution rather than the Pledge:

quote:

---

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

​

Preamble

​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Such a union would be a socialist association of all workers coming together for the greater good of all people:Government of the people, by the people, for the people, as Abe Lincoln said. Because it is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. Which uses a narrow definition of democracy to poison the well ...{abe}Note that the conclusion of this article about Jefferson and Madison says

quote:

---

Conclusion

​

The views of Jefferson and Madison, while not coinciding, were complementary. Madison sought to explain how the government under the new Constitution served to prevent the formation of factions; Jefferson's chief concern was the correction of the wrongful acts produced by whatever factions that might occur in spite of the Constitutional protections. Madison implied that the protection against majority factions was not absolute: that they "would be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union." Our republican system tends towards greater stability, and history has demonstrated the truth of his assessment. Jefferson argued for the inclusion of the people in every function of government where they were competent. Taking Madison and Jefferson together, we find we can actually enjoy the benefits of both: our representative system, where necessary for practicable reasons, insures stability and a tendency to act on behalf of the whole nation; citizen participation to the greatest extent possible insures honesty and the safety of our rights. The two concepts complement each other and work together to produce good government to the greatest extent possible.

---

The problem with this polyanna article built on cherry-picked comments is that we now have two factions that are often at each other's throats, so the Constitution absolutely failed to protect against the formation of factions or their actions to protect their factions against the needs of the people (McConnell et al), nor against the near absolute domination of corporate sponsorship in corrupting the politicians involved.{/abe}In reality we are near to losing our representative democracy republic because of rampant disenfranchisement of voters by the republican party.

quote:

---

Democracy - Wikipedia

​

Generally, there are two types of democracy: direct and representative. In a direct democracy, the people directly deliberate and decide on legislature. In a representative democracy the people elect representatives to deliberate and decide on legislature, such as in parliamentary or presidential democracy. Liquid democracy combines elements of these two basic types.

---

Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago, and they wrote papers and letters to editors, and I know one personally that was on the National Science Board during Nixon's administrations that raised the issue to the president. The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more. How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest. It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change.Fear mongering again. Get a horse. Join the Amish. Move to a hippy commune ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

No Republicans are upset about freedom of the press but we're all very much upset about the lack of freedom of the press, or in Mark Levin's book title, Unfreedom of the Press, which is what we have today, nothing but Leftist opinion masquerading as journalism. Huge fraud on the American people. No idea what this refers to but I'm very sure if any such calling for the jailing of leftists is going on it's not for dubious but very legitimate reasons. Unbelievable criminal behavior what the Democrats have been doing against our duly elected President for instance. One of the unconscionable false accusations by the Left.

quote:

---

No Republicans are upset about freedom of the press but we're all very much upset about the lack of freedom of the press, or in Mark Levin's book title, Unfreedom of the Press, which is what we have today, nothing but Leftist opinion masquerading as journalism. Huge fraud on the American people.

---

I other words you are upset about the freedom of the press. You don’t like the fact that the press is reporting truths you want suppressed and that’s why you keep lying about it.

quote:

---

No idea what this refers to but I'm very sure if any such calling for the jailing of leftists is going on it's not for dubious but very legitimate reasons. Unbelievable criminal behavior what the Democrats have been doing against our duly elected President for instance.

---

In other words you do want them jailed on false charges to protect your corrupt leader. Who got caught. Again.

quote:

---

One of the unconscionable false accusations by the Left.

---

And another fact. Aside from Bannon, and all the racism Trump has a hand in you’ve got Steve King in Congress.I don’t know why you waste your time with all this lying. It’s just so transparent.

RAZD erites: ...now who could that be?

Just to add to the argument ...

quote:

---

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

​

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

​

​

At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.

​

1. Science denial

​

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

​

Some even suggest that CO is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

​

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

​

​

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. ...
... In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

​

2. Economic denial

​

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

​

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

​

3. Humanitarian denial

​

Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 Moscow heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.

​

Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

​

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.

​

This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.

​

​

4. Political denial

​

Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.

​

Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.

​

​

Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

​

Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

​

5. Crisis denial

​

The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times — especially if we are richer or in power.

​

But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.

​

The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?

---

So if you find yourself wallowing around in any one of these denial swamps, you should recognize that you have been pwned.Sounds like you hit every one marc. You talked about climate change being a well funded liberal fear hoax, but in actuality the well funded hoax is on the part of the deniers funded by big oil.Enjoy

Correct. I heard about it in the 1960s, in Newsweek. This is mostly wrong.The scientists published in research journals, which are public. The media did pick up on it, and there were frequent reports.The view of most scientists, is that they should do the science and leave policy decisions to the politicians. The scientists did the science. The media did report the science. But, with the exception of a few like Al Gore, the politicians failed to address the policy questions. I'm not seeing any basis for that "red flag" comment.The scientists did what they should do. The media did what they should do. The policy makers, for the most part, failed completely to participate. The few politicians who were willing to act started raising their voices because they saw this as an urgent matter that was being ignored.The red flags should be for the many politicians who failed to act. That may be true of Greenpeace and Sierra Club. But there are also plenty of people who want action on climate change and who advocate nuclear fuel as an alternative.

I'm not allowed to call this a pack of lles, am I? But that's what it is. "Other countries?" No, SPECIFIC counries, such as China and India, which are major polluters. THEY are the ones that need to do something. And the other big fat lle is presenting this information PER CAPITA. So the US looks like a big polluter and China doesn't. Now THAT IS a big fat political LlE. This should be measured in terms of the percentage of actual contribution to the problem by nation and by that standard we've done our part but China and India and others have not.

quote:

---

As the Incredible Hulk, Lou Ferrigno brought the bad guys to book with his famous thunderclap, a signature superhero move as loud as a sonic boom or a hurricane.

​

But the actor most famous for bringing the Marvel Comics legend to life in the long-running 1970s CBS television series will have to rely on more traditional crime-fighting tools in his latest role, as a sheriff’s deputy in the New Mexico desert.

​

The 68-year-old former bodybuilder will be sworn in on Thursday as the newest recruit of the Socorro county sheriff’s department.

---

The Guardian If I can keep the Incredible Hulk occupied, the least you can do is not vote for Trump.

So you are saying every american citizen has the right to burn more fossil fuels then every other citizen in the world.But even if we go by total emissions the us comes in second to china, third place India pollutes less then half as much as you, russia a third. So yea the US needs to do something not them. BY YOUR LOGIC.