Hixter Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 As confirmed by this decidedly non-partisan resource: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/clearing-up-claims-on-epa-fracking-study/Decidedly non-partisan? Disclosure: The author of this post has previously written for and provided Web production services for OnEarth, a publication of the Natural Resources Defense Council, on a freelance basis. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Yeah another shooting! Another mentally ill person who bought a gun, legally. God Bless America. Is there some symbol we can remove so this tradegy will never happen again. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/24/us/louisiana-theater-shooting/ Also got to love this statement by Gov. Bobby Jindal At the press conference in the theater parking lot, Jindal, a presidential candidate, was asked what he would do to stem gun violence. He declined to talk about that, saying, "It hasn't been 24 hours. Let's focus on these families." Yeah in other words he is saying, "I am too chicken shit to potentially piss off my GOP base to say anything about guns, can I just go back to running a terrible campaign for president." You know what would have been a good way to "focus on the families." By actually do something to prevent tragedies like this in the first place. But whatever, we'll argue, I am sure there are some reasons why gun laws don't work or whatever. At this point it is an endless cycle. This will repeat. A mentally ill person with a gun will kill more people. So what do you think in two months we will have another shooting? America, yeah America! Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Decidedly non-partisan? Disclosure: The author of this post has previously written for and provided Web production services for OnEarth, a publication of the Natural Resources Defense Council, on a freelance basis.They pulled info from the study. It's not exactly damning. Other than thinking rationally about the available info, and thinking critically about the lack of info, you have to ask how the money effects the discussion. Who has the most to gain by manipulating the dialog. It's no conspiracy, there's a clear history of using financial and political muscle to do just that. Do you think there's a reason for it? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 They pulled info from the study. It's not exactly damning. Other than thinking rationally about the available info, and thinking critically about the lack of info, you have to ask how the money effects the discussion. Who has the most to gain by manipulating the dialog. It's no conspiracy, there's a clear history of using financial and political muscle to do just that. Do you think there's a reason for it?It is easier to attack the author as biased, then to refute the evidence that was presented. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I think or at least I would hope that whatever side of the political divide you are on we all can agree that Trump is a moron and is neither good for the political process and probably detrimental to GOP. He is exposing the worst parts of the far Right Wing of the GOP. And in effect he is making the other candidates say and do equally stupid stuff just to get some much needed air time. You look at Rand Paul going after the tax code with a chainsaw, Graham destroying his phone and calling Trump a Jackass, etc. It is shameful what Trump is doing and what he is making the others do as well. But the true front runners have the luxury of staying above the fray. They can ignore Trump for the most part and be secure in their status. But what is even more dangerous is that people like Scott Walker can say completely insane and dangerous things and not be called out for it, because in comparison to Trump it doesn't seem that bad. Take for example what Walker said about the Iran deal. Not only on day one of his presidency would dismantle the deal, he would start working with other countries to destroy the deal as soon as he is elected. The pure idiocy of that idea is mind boggling. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There is no idiocy involved in wanting to dismantle a terrible "deal" that essentially costs the Iranian nuclear weapons program almost nothing while freeing up more than a hundred billion dollars to fund their dirty deeds in the region. It's unbelievable that the Obama administration is readying to release a convicted spy to Israel as a consolation prize while several Americans rot in Iranian prisons. One of them is a close friend of a close friend and I'm appalled that his release wasn't tied to the nuclear deal. The Saudis have already signaled that they intend to acquire nukes and at least one or two other nations will likely join them. What could possibly go wrong when the region is awash in nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deliver them? Hixter's Diplomacy Rule of Thumb: Don't bother with negotiating with a nation whose favorite slogan is Death to America. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There is no idiocy involved in wanting to dismantle a terrible "deal" that essentially costs the Iranian nuclear weapons program almost nothing while freeing up more than a hundred billion dollars to fund their dirty deeds in the region. It's unbelievable that the Obama administration is readying to release a convicted spy to Israel as a consolation prize while several Americans rot in Iranian prisons. One of them is a close friend of a close friend and I'm appalled that his release wasn't tied to the nuclear deal. The Saudis have already signaled that they intend to acquire nukes and at least one or two other nations will likely join them. What could possibly go wrong when the region is awash in nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deliver them? Hixter's Diplomacy Rule of Thumb: Don't bother with negotiating with a nation whose favorite slogan is Death to America. I guess I failed to make my point (or did I?) The next president I am sure is able to make his or her own decision on the Iran deal. The merits of the plan are up to them and congress to ultimately figure out. And my post was not about the merits of the plan. That is to be debated another time. But here is the dangerous and stupid thing about what Walker is suggesting. He is saying after becoming elected (not sworn in as President) he would work with foreign leaders to dismantle the plan. Which is a completely illegal and unconstitutional thing to do. By working with foreign government as a private citizen (or sitting governor) he would violating the Logan Act. If you want to president, please understand the laws you are going to protect. But he like the rest of the Republican clown car would rather throw red meat to the Right Wing Media to look tough against Obama's policies. Never mind the law! Here is the dangerous thing about the Right at this point in time. They are all about what sounds good. Yes (according to the Right) the Iran deal is bad, and they are going to nuke us in 10 years and we are all going to die, blah freaking blah. But rather then understand the law they would much rather undermine a current sitting president, illegally then go through the due process of law. Actually subvert the laws of our country. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 There is no idiocy involved in wanting to dismantle a terrible "deal" that essentially costs the Iranian nuclear weapons program almost nothing while freeing up more than a hundred billion dollars to fund their dirty deeds in the region. It's unbelievable that the Obama administration is readying to release a convicted spy to Israel as a consolation prize while several Americans rot in Iranian prisons. One of them is a close friend of a close friend and I'm appalled that his release wasn't tied to the nuclear deal. The Saudis have already signaled that they intend to acquire nukes and at least one or two other nations will likely join them. What could possibly go wrong when the region is awash in nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles needed to deliver them? Hixter's Diplomacy Rule of Thumb: Don't bother with negotiating with a nation whose favorite slogan is Death to America.If it goes through and is properly implemented it will keep Iran nuke free for 15 years. I agree that they're sketchy, but what would you do? Topple their military, build a democracy putting moderates in office and train a new military to defend them against extremist revolutionaries? Link to post Share on other sites
The Inside of Outside Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I agree that they're sketchy, but what would you do? Topple their military, build a democracy putting moderates in office and train a new military to defend them against extremist revolutionaries? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 If it goes through and is properly implemented it will keep Iran nuke free for 15 years. I agree that they're sketchy, but what would you do? Topple their military, build a democracy putting moderates in office and train a new military to defend them against extremist revolutionaries? I guess some people are willing to send our soldiers into another war in the Middle East. This is what I don't understand, like all of the GOP's outrages over things Obama have done, there is no other real plan or way to solve the situation. Let's play a thought game here, so congress or the next GOP president ends the deal with Iran. Iran now has all of their centrifuges with no oversight and able to enrich uranium to whatever they want, but the US continues its sanctions (maybe even to a greater effect). They are still on track to get a nuclear weapon. What are the sanctions doing to prevent this? By logic of sanctions, we would impose such economic hardship that the government would have no choice to stop their nuclear program. Is there any indication that the current sanctions have actually worked? So at the end they get a nuclear weapon and one could argue much quicker then without the deal. Or we end up going to war to stop them. So on the flip side we let the deal go through. Don't think anyone would say it is a perfect deal, nor is Iran a perfectly trustworthy country. But as the deal stands 2/3 of the centrifuges are no longer in the hands of Iranians and they cannot enrich uranium high enough to make a weapon. So on the notion (and that is all there is there is no fact) that Iran might lie about this, just so they can kill us and Israel people fear they will get a nuclear weapon, and we still go to war. It is not like once we make this deal we can't still pursue military action against Iran. In fact it would be more likely we would purse military action and seen as justified by the rest of the world if they did break the deal. So both options in a worse case scenario end up in war. I think it has been shown the sanctions don't work, nor will they work. Let's see how diplomacy actually works. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 In either scenario, if Israel thinks Iran's nuclear capability is imminent, they will carry out airstrikes. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm trying to figure out what all of the snippets of our national dialogue are telling us about how our country is thinking right now. We've had more gratuitous examples of police brutality and overuse of force/deadly force, and then we have this dentist asshole who killed this lion. And everyone gets really pissed off at the guy. And then everyone else gets really mad at people for caring about the lion when they should be upset about something else (consumption of animals, abortion, starving Africans, global warming, the Iran deal). Sorry, my facebook feed is a mess right now with Cecil the lion. I think to engage I'm supposed to say "No man, I'm going to tell YOU how to feel about that Minnesota dentist poaching a lion!!". Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Poor Cecil. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 ^^^ haha. That made me laugh. I think the dentist is going through a considerable amount of pain right now. Just Deserts. I'm a meat eater, so I obviously sanction and support the cruel industry of harvesting animals for my consumption: chicken, beef, pork, fish... I don't hunt, but I don't have a problem with people hunting deer or other animals that they're going to eat. Killing a Lion, though... Or a rhino, or an elephant... (I don't know where I draw the line, or how to define the ethics I use to draw it, other than having some vague idea of the notion of a "magnificent beast") is just pointless and wrong. Especially the way they killed Cecil. They lured him out of the park with a dead animal tied to the hood of a car? Then blinded him with a spotlight, then shot him from behind a blind with a crossbow? Doesn't seem very sporting at all. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm trying to figure out what all of the snippets of our national dialogue are telling us about how our country is thinking right now. We've had more gratuitous examples of police brutality and overuse of force/deadly force, and then we have this dentist asshole who killed this lion. And everyone gets really pissed off at the guy. And then everyone else gets really mad at people for caring about the lion when they should be upset about something else (consumption of animals, abortion, starving Africans, global warming, the Iran deal). Sorry, my facebook feed is a mess right now with Cecil the lion. I think to engage I'm supposed to say "No man, I'm going to tell YOU how to feel about that Minnesota dentist poaching a lion!!". We don't have a long complicated history with lions. We have a long complicated history with race. So there is that. Also there are many is society that see the actions by police as justified, whereas I would say 99% of our society agree that this denist is an asshat (though, Ted Nugent feels differently.) People like to hear that they are right or that people agree with them (thus the major polarization of our politics right now.) It is just easier then having people tell us why we are wrong about the police shootings, global warming, the Iran deal. People just like to be reafirmed on why they are right. And if one thing that can bring this nation together is a f*ckwad dentist. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 ^ Thank you. That's the most rational least grandstanding analysis I've seen yet. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 We don't have a long complicated history with lions. We have a long complicated history with race. So there is that. Also there are many is society that see the actions by police as justified, whereas I would say 99% of our society agree that this denist is an asshat (though, Ted Nugent feels differently.) http://www.theonion.com/article/black-man-bids-tearful-goodbye-family-daily-commut-50964 Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Maybe this is not even a tripping hazard for the more cynical among us, but is it not a total affront to Fox's claim of "fair and balanced" that they're literally running the GOP debate, with nothing at all similar to present the democratic hopefuls? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Maybe this is not even a tripping hazard for the more cynical among us, but is it not a total affront to Fox's claim of "fair and balanced" that they're literally running the GOP debate, with nothing at all similar to present the democratic hopefuls?I would imagine it's all up to the DNC. I don't think they've announced any debates yet. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I would imagine it's all up to the DNC. I don't think they've announced any debates yet. Here is there DNC's schedule of debateshttp://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/ Definitely a lot less and a lot less definition (thus far) then the RNC schedule http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-republican-primary-debate-schedule/ Tonight's debate is a joke. It is so early in the process all you have is name recognition. But really a good business model on FoxNews part. Limit the field to 10 candidates. Make the "bubble candidates" spend money on ads (mostly on your network, because that is all that conservatives watch) to try to break the top ten. Basically they are paying FoxNews to be in the debate. Good for them. Here will be the thing to watch. Will any candidate actually say anything different policy wise to the the other 9 on stage. Sure Trump will probably be a bit more crass and say something stupid and or racist. But will his answers be any different from say Scott Walker or Marco Rubio? Here is the run down of what they will say, Obamacare sucks, the Iran deal sucks, Hillary Clinton sucks, Obama sucks, the EPA sucks, and GOP candidate X sucks. Also thrown in for good measure is some Benghazi shout outs and an Clinton email blast. What will be missing from this debate is any substance, any type of plan, really any type of positive note whatsoever. A majority of people tonight will not be tuning in to the debates to get information about these people running for president. They will be tuning in to see what stupid shit Trump says, or how many zingers their favorite candidate can get off. Or to just solidify their world view that Obama is the worst president in history and everything he has ever done is bad and any democrat will just continue his policies of destroying 'Merica. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 It will be great theater for sure. I was going to say political theater but changed my mind. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Ahhh Mad Magazine. I haven't thought of you since I was 9. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Here is there DNC's schedule of debateshttp://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/CNN Breaking News Alert: CNN will host the first Democratic presidential debate in Nevada on October 13, with the exact location to be unveiled in the coming weeks. CNN's first GOP debate airs on September 16 in California. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts