|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The term "Democracy" isn't in U.S. founding documents, not the Declaration, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, any of that. ... 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???
... The pledge of allegiance is to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, not the democracy for which it stands. ... Which, as used in the US, is a form of democracy.
quote: 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: 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.
... There are several examples in U.S. foundings where a majority vote isn't used, a single president can veto something voted on by a majority of congress, and it takes a 3/5ths vote to override a veto. There are other examples. ... Because it is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
If you want to learn something, see this link; Jeffersonian Perspective: Madison & Jefferson on 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: 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: But if you don't want to learn anything and just want to "destroy", then do your usual and look up some NY Times or Washington Post columns by young college boy liberals, and parrot them here. Why do that when I can look up facts and look at what is actually involved? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
That bee is in there for a reason. If the climate change subject was any more than a political power grab, it would have been introduced in a different way, it would be discussed in a different way, and any action to address it would be completely different than the actions (threats) that are discussed today. The subject of global warming, (and climate change, both terms were used) originated decades ago, within the scientific community. But the scientific community didn't publicly introduce it, it was brought into the public eye in the 1990's not by any scientists, but by a biased, non scientist politician, Al Gore. Credentialed people within the scientific community made no forceful effort to supplement or revise what Gore had to say, at least until decades later. It started out only as global warming, and it underwent a pretty sudden, game-changing name change 10 or 15 years ago, to make it much more politically encompassing, and attention getting. So that's red flag number one, it should have been introduced by science, not politics, and it shouldn't have undergone a name change. 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.
Now to the discussion part, if it were honest, there would be practically no finger pointing at all. The more people there are on earth, the more human activity there is going to be. The earth's population has increased to about 7.7 billion today, from far less than 1 billion, when fossil fuel use first came into being about 100 years ago. The earth's increase in population in the past 100 years came largely because of the quality of life and human activity brought to us by fossil fuels. Even people in the most impoverished areas have it better, however slightly, because of fossil fuels. If climate change is caused by human activity, then every human alive today is partly responsible for it. Yet, when the poor are excluded from having to take responsibility for it, along with the idle, the very rich, poorer countries, it's quite clear that far less than 50% of the population will be commanded to foot the bill, in money and liberty, for guesses by the scientific community on methods to "fix" it. 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.
Now for the actions to address it, have you ever noticed that the organizations that are most vehement against climate change, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, are also the most vehement against nuclear power? It's clean and efficient, but it also can be dangerous. Those 2 organizations aren't the only ones of course, it seems that many who are most concerned about climate change can do a lightening fast 180 and suddenly become safety experts while relegating the climate to a secondary status. It reeks of politics more than climate. 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.
Your country, and mine, have been doing it for over 100 years. Is this suddenly the time to mandate major economic changes, and strip liberty and money away from less than 50% of the population? For a goal that cannot be measured or accounted for, since it's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity? Is a war the answer? If the political left doesn't slow down with its propaganda and hate, a war is what we'll have. 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. New free market technology has always brought about societal changes in the past that overcome undesirable qualities of that era's time, and a changeover to renewable energy can happen in the same way if it's given a chance. When the automobile came on the scene and became commonplace 100 years ago, many people resisted, and it was perfectly legal. Horses were still used on many small farms in the 30's and 40's, and the people had the freedom to stay with horses if that's what they wanted. There weren't government mandated flatulence tests for horses - they didn't have license plates hanging on their asses. Horses are recreational possessions today, their usefulness in doing work is obsolete. But they're legal to have. The same could happen with today's older cars, if the government wouldn't meddle. It would be nice if people today didn't have to wonder so much about what government will meddle with next. Fear mongering again. Get a horse. Join the Amish. Move to a hippy commune ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Just to add to the argument ...
quote: 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. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Amuse me Faith:
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%. 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. So you are saying that we can't take action because other countries are not taking action. ROFLOL Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Again you amuse me Faith, right on cue ...
It is a huge cost to the economy to do what the Left requires of us and there is no need since we've already done lots for the environment and continue to do it. We have no reason to sacrifice our economy for the Left's political ends (which are clearly aimed at destroying America by whatever means possible). Go bug China. quote: So still using bad/wrong arguments. I'll gladly donate 1% of my income to fight climate change, in fact I have already donated significantly more than that to help make up for self-centered and selfish people that want to wallow in coal ash, CO2 etc. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. ... Which are more like the republicans of the day when the women's vote amendment was passed, than today's republicans who refuse to pass the equal pay amendment. Seems to me passing one would mean you would also pass the other ... if you were dealing with the same political ideologies. And he didn't say democrats, he said liberals. There used to be many republican liberals back in the days (1920) and many democrat conservatives -- such as southern democrats.
quote: ... It was a lie. Not really. It was passed by a Democrat President, by 304 (to 89 against) representatives that would include a lot of democrats, and by 19 democrats (with 37 republicans) in the senate, so there was very strong democrat support and it was passed with bi-partisan votes. It also looks like President Wilson actively campaigning for its passage in the senate and scheduling a special session in congress was critical to it finally being passed. But let's just ignore the rest of the list because of this one little quibble? That how reason works in your world? It's a facebook meme -- want me to find some conservative facebook memes with bigger lies? I can think of several that I read today ... you know ones that call people communists, right? And I can also find some on what unions have done for working people while the current GOP is trying hard to turn all workers into poor starving sick wage slaves. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Like the health insurance companies did. VERY, VERY GOOD! If the government wouldn't have meddled, the health insurance companies wouldn't have profited from it. I'll be keeping an eye out for another brilliant flash from you, sometime in the next..... 5 years or so I hope. Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment
I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets: Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA. The second Obama administration was dominated by GOP house and senate, working as hard as possible to dismember the ACA, including raising costs. Blame the GOP as Obama had nothing to do with ACA costs in his second term. Among other causes healthcare increased because the the ACA now prevented then from excluding/omitting people with pre-existing conditions and provide insurance for more people than before, especially ones they considered high-risk patients. This is a good thing. This is what public healthcare would cover. We also KNOW that a universal single payer public healthcare system (medicare4all), like exists in every other advanced country, would result in lower net costs to the individual tax payers, but that Republicans block that as well. Because the republicans are owned by the big insurance companies. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Some" yes, not constantly increasing. Increasing as need increases for social and economic justice. What we need less of is socialism for the rich and the big corporations. Companies that pay no taxes are living off the socialist teat instead of paying their fair share. Companies that pay starvation wages while reaping record profits are living off socialist teat instead of paying their workers a living wage (so the workers don't apply for and get for medicare, food stamps, etc -- the socialist teat paying what the corporation wages should). You want to reduce socialist spending on the poor, then make these companies pay a living wage. If they can't afford that, then they shouldn't be in business.
Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions. 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: California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades. The Results Are In: Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline Those 3 states still are net payers of tax to the Federal Government while the Conservative states mentioned are net receivers of tax benefits. Losing population is not the same as being economically successful. An ALEC report, color me surprised. Another cherry picking wonder. AND one published "By Troy SenikThursday, April 26 2012" Let's look at a more recent review "Submitted by Arn Pearson on January 21, 2016"
quote: IE you used an out of date fake news report by biased and misrepresenting ALEC, not reality. Since that report we have had the disaster of Brownback's Kansas bankruptcy proving GOP economics just don't work.
Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government. As is the post office. And all still socialist programs in being run by the government for the people's benefit/s. The GOP wants to "privatize" the post office because it doesn't make a profit, so I wonder if the military and the highways should be run for profit?
That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific; Curiously, I was using that as a counter example to your silly claim that the Pledge of Allegiance meant we weren't a democratic government. Similar logic means we are a union run by the people, and it's much more specific than the Pledge, which didn't come along until 1942 and was authored by a socialist, and modified in 1954, when the words "under God" were added.
quote: Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want. As in ICE is not mentioned in the constitution (which includes all amendments, of course). Reserved ... to the people. So we can enact things through our representatives that we want enacted, or we can do it by popular referendum ... including things like universal healthcare. Doesn't it also mean that congress cannot pass laws restricting the rights of people? Like voting rights? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings. Not really, and certainly not so much with our freedom and our pursuit of happiness, justice and the common good, and the degree that it goes against those means it is not the sole ideal economic system for this country.
THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who ... destroyed me. He didn't need your help! Interesting. Am I not allowed to comment on posts not directed at me? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago, What was causing that?? Too many model T's? Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal.
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. With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it? When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes. US companies today are not paying for 1900 technology and innovation, why should others? The technology and innovation of concern today is the use of alternative energy systems.
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. There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S. Meanwhile Germany closes down all its Nuclear Generation plants.
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. So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels? That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century). Of Note, saturday January 11th we set a new highest temperature for this day in history -- 69°F -- in Providence RI. The next day we broke it with 70°F, and that's over 100 years of documenting temps here.
Fear mongering again. Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up. Except one is real and yours is fake alarmism. Chicken Little claiming the sky is going to fall if we do anything to try to hold back climate change. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Just to add to the argument I can do that! I'm sure you can cite a library full of fake denial documents by people who are not climate scientists (like your electrical engineer), none of which cite any real evidence of a hoax. Meanwhile you ignore the article on The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial, while citing a conspiracy paper that is pure science denial and obscurantism. Yes, I read it, it's worthless pandering to fear and outrage, but not to facts. It relies on a lot of debunked garbage that is decades out of date.
Didn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more. Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious. More to the point would be a search of scientific articles as opposed to conspiracy theorists. I searched for: scientific papers on climate change denial and the top paper was
quote: Need more?, there is plenty more. None of it actual science. For instance here's a review of the scientific papers:
quote: So there's 24 papers you could have cited with an actual (if flawed) scientific basis. LOL, thanks for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment marc9000 writes: I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets: Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA. My healthcare increased very little during the entire Bush 43 administration, when it was purely free markets. It stair-stepped up several times shortly after the ACA took effect. During the Bush 43 (Schrubbia) administration there was no requirement to insure those of us with pre-existing conditions. This meant that I could no leave my then current employment without losing my insurance (I was diagnosed with cancer while there) and then paying exorbitant fees (plus high deductibles and co-pays) to cover my cancer ... if I could get anyone to take me. Curiously I call that an extreme increase in healthcare fees AND an infraction on my right to work where I want to. Then I retired and got on medicare, and then the ACA was passed ... and my fees didn't change. That's what would have happened with the public option or with universal single payer medicare4all, but that was blocked by the republicans. ie -- you need to blame the republicans for your high fees, not the ACA or Obama. Sorry not sorry.
... . I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here. Well I'll be happy to take the Climate Change debate there, but here's a little tid=bit for you from facebook
That's a scientific notice published in a newspaper in 1912. See Message 563 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : changed photo linkby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
See Message 564 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
See Message 565 on Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I understood supply side economics to be the idea that demand can be created by supply, sort of an economic "If you build it they will come." (It was actually "he will come," but I never remember it that way.) That would be my concept of supply side as well. The problem of course is that if you don't have consumers -- people that want and can afford the product -- you end up with a large inventory that won't move until you cut prices ... if then.
Do you remember supply side economics anything like that? I was in Canada for most of the Reagan/Bush1 era of voodoo economics and its resultant recession. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024