This discussion is about domestic issues in the U.S
I realize it's been dragged off course but I have to say something when I see some sister fucking hillbilly arguing for the prolonging of slavery, character flaw of mine i know.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany (Pub.L. 77–331, Sess. 1, ch. 564, 55 Stat. 796), hours after Germany declared war on the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan. The vote was 88–0 in the Senate and 393–0 in the House.
Text of the declaration:
Seventy-Seventh Congress of the United States of America; At the First Session Begun and held at the City of Washington, on Friday, the third day of January, 1941. JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Government of Germany and the Government and the People of the United States and Making Provisions To Prosecute The Same Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States. (Signed) Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives (Signed) H. A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate Approved December 11, 1941 3:05 PM E.S.T. (Signed) Franklin D. Roosevelt
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
Do you propose that we amend the Constitution to declare that the can by-pass the political process and dictate rules and regulations however it sees fit?
No. Do you propose that the scientific community should be ignored or distrusted when governments consider legislation?
The calculations for the eventual death and suffering can be taken into consideration before anyone dies ...
Thanks! What a sweetheart!
...alongside the calculations of possibilities of corruption, of what companies will be destroyed by new political action, what companies (and politicians) will stand to benefit greatly from new political action, etc.
If we knew how to calculate possibilities of corruption, political science would be a true science and we'd live in a completely different world now. Sorry. There's no such science.
Facts are facts, whether they're from science labs or accounting departments. It's the job of our legislators to legislate intelligently, taking all available info into consideration and resisting corruption. If legislation (or lack of it) causes harm to the population, something need to change (or be done).
If laws, rules, and regulations benefit the well-being and happiness of the overall population, who cares which political or industrial players might win or lose?
As only one example, government mandated airbags sometimes kill children and small adults. It's considered, by the government, to be a worthwhile trade-off.
Good call by the government. A good trade off. Thousands of lives have been saved.
They can make estimates, (unprovable of course) of how many lives airbags save,...
The stats are very solidly provable. Obviously and painfully true. They prevent much more harm than they cause. Like vaccines.
... and they can point fingers at parents every time a child is killed. If we don't like it, if we don't agree with them, that's just tough for us.
Yes. People pointed fingers. The parents hadn't even fastened their kids' safety belts, or put the seat facing the right way.
Yes. It's tough for uninformed ignorant people to understand.
There is a huge difference between free market accountability versus government accountability.
And cheers to that! Human suffering only counts as an intangible asset - negative goodwill - on balance sheets in a free market. It has to count for a lot more in government.
What freedoms do you have to sacrifice, for people to be forbidden to poison one another?
The system we have works just fine. If you don't agree, what would your solution be?
Dude! You're the one complaining about the system! They want to do what's right in the long term for the people, the economy and the planet; and you're whining about liberties and "factions".
No one needs to be convinced that murder is bad. You wouldn't hesitate to condemn terrorists for poisoning a municipal water supply. But if a corporation does it, maybe it's OK because ... liberties?
No. But a possibly corrupt faction can't make knee-jerk decisions concerning political action.
True. Since the beginning of time. Your point? The scientific community is probably the least prone to corruption of all. They have to prove their ideas to each other and the world. In writing. With supporting data and reasoned conclusions. If they turn out to be just a little wrong, they're called out for it. Their work is revised or rejected. If they fake data or lie about methods, they risk losing their careers. Immediately. Can you think of another "faction" like that?
What should have been done to fix it? (global warming) I've been asking that question over and over in this thread, and I'm not getting any answers.
It's because "fixing" it is impossible. The best we can hope is to slow the process we set in motion, and mitigate the cost in dollars and human suffering. Some day Earth's climates might approximate what they would have been, had we not fouled things up so bad. But by then we'll have extincted many more species, and coastal populations will have been forced inland. The dead will be buried.
You're asking the wrong question. It's, "What should be done to stop making things worse and minimize the damage?"
I've pointed out the necessary products that are only available through fossil fuel use, that would cause enormous problems if they were banned by government.
And we've pointed out that these products are not endangered. Many can easily be made without fossil fuels today. If fossil fuels are indeed necessary, they'll be available. No one is proposing an outright ban.
Climate alarmists always imply that there has been lavish, unnecessary use of fossil fuels that have caused the problems.
No. They don't. They say it's mainly the use of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, transportation, and industry.
Which ones should have been banned long ago? Auto racing? Pleasure boating? Major sporting events? The antique auto industry? Michael Bloomberg's 72 gallon per hour helicopter? ...
Again: No one is proposing an outright ban.
Too many farting cows? WHAT?
You do understand that cows aren't fossil fuels, right?
What have poisons got to do with the climate?
You said CO2 pollution is just a "claim by a faction" because it's invisible and undetectable. I said a lot of poisons are too. Undetectable in the water supply. So when a lab reports poisons, is it just a "claim by a faction"?
It's an alarm going off. Not that different than our smoke, monoxide, and radon detectors. And not that different than all the facts that prove we accidentally screwed up the whole Earth by spewing massive amounts of garbage exhaust into the atmosphere.
Here's a vid that makes the case for why free markets, not government, is best suited to "do something about" challenges to society.
Quaint. You might as well tell us how free markets are best at ending wars, drug abuse, or prostitution.
Obviously, free markets helped create global warming, as did governments. Neither one functions well without the other, for good or bad. Together they can accomplish a lot. Lax government regulations played a large in creating this crisis. Setting free markets free is the stupidest possible thing we could do.
And also equally informed by human history, past examples of corruption, and the tendencies that factions can have for starting with a conclusion, then working backwards, upside down, however they have to work to arrive at the desired conclusion.
But that's pretty much the description of you guys. You guys start with the conclusion - that free markets are the solution to all problems - and the evaluate everything in terms of this conclusion. Global climate change is such an immense danger that it requires government intervention to address it, therefore it cannot possibly be true since the sanctity of free markets cannot be contradicted. It also doesn't help that you are apparently extremely uncomfortable with making any adjustments to your lifestyle. Basically, your entire argument is an appeal to consequences.
And this is what leads you to the sciencey-sounding propaganda sites that promote exaggerated, ridiculous consequences of taking necessary action while dismissing real science as part of some conspiracy of corrupt elites who hate American values and want to turn the US into another Venezuela.
But [Frederick] Douglass was not gone; he was merely dead. -- David W. Blight
Putting aside that you continue to show a profound lack of knowledge of US history, I have to say you seem pretty blasé about the entire concept of people owning other people as property and working them like livestock.
But [Frederick] Douglass was not gone; he was merely dead. -- David W. Blight
A report from the Commodities Future Trading Commission indicates the climate change is already affecting markets.
Regulators "must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the US financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks."
The report, called "Managing Climate Risk in the US Financial System," was written by a group of 35 advisors from major banks such as Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Ceres, energy firms such as BP and ConocoPhillips, several investment firms, and experts from several universities.
They conclude that the markets are failing to take climate change into account, even though the effects are already causing problems.
They argue that it will take international action to control the problem and urge that the US rejoin the Paris Agreement.
With the Trump administration taking the opposite tack, will the voices of sanity speak up? Or will the Republicans continue their slavish devotion to Trump?
Ten years ago the nations of the world gathered together and set 20 goals concerned with protecting biodiversity and lessening global climate change.
All 20 targets will be missed with only 6 of them deemed "partially achieved".
Humanity is failing at protecting our ecosystems from the ravages of anthropomorphic climate change and destruction of native habitats by human encroachment.
quote:Humanity's impact on the natural world over the last five decades has been nothing short of cataclysmic: since 1970 close to 70 percent of wild animals, birds and fish have vanished, according to a WWF assessment this month.
quote:Humanity stands at a crossroads with regard to the legacy it leaves to future generations. Biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, and the pressures driving this decline are intensifying. None of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets will be fully met, in turn threatening the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and undermining efforts to address climate change.
In failing to even start to protect global biosystems from the rapid devastation of life on this planet from human activity we have failed to even start to protect ourselves. We have done nothing to forestall the quick and inevitable extinction of H.sapiens.