Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

Perhaps the dems will be willing to break the energy monopolies for us.. lol..

[WM Wolverine]

Both political parties are in bed with the energy, pharmaceutical, & banking lobbyists. The solution is to get the lobbyists away from our politicians so they can do their job without outside interference/influence.

[Ghengis Jon]

The only reasonable explanation for the right's infatuation with denying climate change is money. If there is anything that even remotely increases the cost of production, the basis must therefore be fraudulent and indisputably a 'left wing' creation. If you ask a science denier to give reasons (that do not include money) why humans should not make efforts to stem the ecological destruction of our planet, you get deafening silence.

What science says is that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. This is normal and can be documented over the centuries with evidence from the analysis of tree rings and ice layers. The unfettered industrialization of the past 100 years has introduced more pollutants than what has been released in the previous 1000. This simply magnifies the extremes (to a detectable level) of a normal climate change cycle.

Global temperature shifts are normal. Massive amounts of man made poisons and pollutants are abnormal. Couple the two together and the temperature extremes are increased. This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Despite the propaganda spewed by Fox and it's ilk, I have never, ever heard any left leaner say that climate change was not a naturally occurring cycle. Not even the internet's inventor Al Gore has made such a statement. It's the force multiplier that pollution is, that aggravates the problems we are experiencing.

Yes it is science. It's clearly demonstrated if one looks at the empirical evidence. But it will never be settled so long as there are people looking at the issue with agenda colored glasses. It's much easier to deny, mock and impune those with a differing opinion.

Zealots don't let the facts get in the way of proper political ideology. Happens on both sides of the aisle.

[Hannibal]

Can anyone accurately suggest what Hillary will do.. besides go with the wind?

There's not much more to suggest than that.

In her case, corruption is a good thing since people with some skin in the game of economics will at least have some say in our policies.

[Wild Hoss]

Arguably small-government conservatism never really existed save other than being pablum. A fig leaf for people to focus on whilst spending is shifted to military pork wherever possible.

Small-government conservatism exists when there is a Democrat in the White House.

History has shown us that when handed control of the budget, Small Government Conservatives spend in ways that make New Dealers blush.

[Hannibal]

History has shown us that when handed control of the budget, Small Government Conservatives spend in ways that make New Dealers blush.

At least we'll never be disappointed in that department again.

[Wild Hoss]

At least we'll never be disappointed in that department again.

Sure you will. Its always been easy to stump on. Its happening now in fact.

Whether you fall for it again...well, that's up to you.

[Hannibal]

Sure you will. Its always been easy to stump on. Its happening now in fact.

Neither front runner is doing this. Trump is talking about "taking care of" people. I think that he's on the record as supporting some form of universal health care.

We're becoming a Socialist Democracy. I've grown to accept it. :|

[CGVT]

The only reasonable explanation for the right's infatuation with denying climate change is money. If there is anything that even remotely increases the cost of production, the basis must therefore be fraudulent and indisputably a 'left wing' creation. If you ask a science denier to give reasons (that do not include money) why humans should not make efforts to stem the ecological destruction of our planet, you get deafening silence.

What science says is that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. This is normal and can be documented over the centuries with evidence from the analysis of tree rings and ice layers. The unfettered industrialization of the past 100 years has introduced more pollutants than what has been released in the previous 1000. This simply magnifies the extremes (to a detectable level) of a normal climate change cycle.

Global temperature shifts are normal. Massive amounts of man made poisons and pollutants are abnormal. Couple the two together and the temperature extremes are increased. This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Despite the propaganda spewed by Fox and it's ilk, I have never, ever heard any left leaner say that climate change was not a naturally occurring cycle. Not even the internet's inventor Al Gore has made such a statement. It's the force multiplier that pollution is, that aggravates the problems we are experiencing.

Yes it is science. It's clearly demonstrated if one looks at the empirical evidence. But it will never be settled so long as there are people looking at the issue with agenda colored glasses. It's much easier to deny, mock and impune those with a differing opinion.

Zealots don't let the facts get in the way of proper political ideology. Happens on both sides of the aisle.

QFT

[iam416]

At some point in time people are going to realize that money isn't ever coming out of politics. Ever. Pass whatever legislation you want. It's going to be there in a form largely similar to what we have now. Deal with it.

IMO, "getting money out of politics" as a solution is akin to passing more drug laws to combat the drug problem.

Moreover, I'm not convinced that money in politics is a problem. The US has enacted a number of major pieces of legislation that are directly contrary to corporate interests -- from environmental laws to workplace safety regulations to hiring practices (and attendant litigation and costs) and so on. Corporations win some times and they lose some times. Welcome to a fucking constitutional republic.

As for fossil fuels, if you can replace them with a cost-effective alternative, then more power to you. If you can't, then you better be prepared establish why a less cost-effective alternative is better with something more than rainbows and unicorns.

[Wild Hoss]

Neither front runner is doing this. Trump is talking about "taking care of" people. I think that he's on the record as supporting some form of universal health care.

We're becoming a Socialist Democracy. I've grown to accept it. :|

Cruz wants to do away with the IRS and DoE completely, and cut taxes....that's right out of that particular playbook. Maybe you've stopped listening to him though, like most other everybody else.

But that aside...we can take care of people just fine if we're realistic about the expectations and how we fund it. But that requires sane adults in both parties, having grown-up conversations.

[iam416]

And I still can't conceive of Carbon fucking Dioxide as a "pollutant". I prefer to think of it as an absolute fucking necessity to life on earth. But, hey, I leave it to the alarmists and their constant track record of being wrong to claim that the backbone of life on this planet is a pollutant.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Who are you an what have you done with that prick Talent???

[iam416]

But it will never be settled so long as there are people looking at the issue with agenda colored glasses. It's much easier to deny, mock and impune those with a differing opinion.

Or prosecute them for fraud in brazen disregard for the First Amendment.

[Hannibal]

Cruz wants to do away with the IRS and DoE completely, and cut taxes.

And he has no chance of winning.