The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

That is beyond our ability. We're not the "Beings of Light" from Galactica TOS.

BSG TOS isn't worth mentioning. I like to pretend it never existed.

[Annoyed]

BSG TOS isn't worth mentioning. I like to pretend it never existed.

You like to pretend a lot of things. After all, you are a liberal.

[Chaka-Z0]

TOS is laughable at best

[mad_gater]

TOS is laughable at best

or you might be thinking of Galactica 1980 where they finally do find earth only to find it's not all that advanced (although I like to think that the only difference was that we didn't have weaponized laser weaponry and no battlestar-level spaceships....we had nuclear missiles which is pretty much what the Galactica used against the Cylon base stars and while crude...bullets would've been as effective against the fighters as lasers....from what I could see our computing technology in the 80's would've been roughly on par with the Galactica as well since it seemed like the Galactica was full of what looked like Apple 2 series computers )

Galactica 1980 was the one that was extremely short-lived and ended with that weird story of Starbuck somehow having a child with a female Being of Light and having reprogrammed that one Cylon drone into a passable friend...so not really worth mentioning

[Annoyed]

TOS is laughable at best

Sure, if you stack it up against modern TV.

But this was 1978, B.C. (Before Cable)

There were only 3 networks, ABC, CBS & NBC, and maybe a PBS outlet, which was mostly govt. propaganda & children's programming.

Some very few individuals had an independent / syndication station which carried re-runs. So, if you were lucky, you had a total of 5 stations, all of which were broadcast TV, and the network censors had to toe the line of govt. dictates or the stations could lose their license to broadcast.

Add to that ABC's bean counters hated the show due to it's production costs, and wanted it dead. To their eyes, they could turn a higher profit on a lower rated show that was cheaper to produce. (And yes, Galactica was successful in the ratings.)

Try comparing it to it's contemporaries. Oh, wait, you can't. There were none. It was a good show for its era.

Even its red-headed stepchild, "Galactica 1980", which was the result of a fan-based letter writing campaign which arose after Galactica was cancelled after 1 season had value; the first 3 hours was a time travel story about a renegade Galactican going back in time to give the Nazis advanced weapons in hopes of advancing present day Earth's technology to the point where they could fight the Cylons. Yes, it had some corny elements, but over all that story was good.

[Annoyed]

Climate report makes agri-business a target

Ok, looks like the idiots from the UN are trying to tell us how to eat now.

A new climate report by the United Nations calls for a massive transition in land management and food consumption, putting the brunt of those changes primarily on the back of one group — farmers.

The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for overhauling land use and even diets, with a shift away from meat-heavy meals toward ones that incorporate more plants, grains and nuts.

Getting most Americans to give up meat seems unlikely, but agriculture has been identified as an industry where the U.S. can reduce and store its carbon pollution. Several Democratic presidential candidates have rolled out proposals that shine a spotlight on agriculture’s role in fighting climate change.

Notice the phrasing. Starts out with generic suggestions, but then by the second paragraph they're deliberately targeting the U.S.

When are we going to tell them to mind their own business?

[DigiFluid]

An American author writing for an American news outlet is writing with Americans in mind? I, for one, am shocked. SHOCKED, I say.

[Chaka-Z0]

[Annoyed]

An American author writing for an American news outlet is writing with Americans in mind? I, for one, am shocked. SHOCKED, I say.

Reporting on what? More idiocy from the UN, telling us what they think we ought to do.

[DigiFluid]

Since you're obviously unclear on the even basics: the United Nations doesn't tell you (or anyone else) what to do. The only time it ever even approaches "telling" someone what to do is in Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force or condemning a domestic action -- the Council upon which the US is one of only five nations with a permanent seat and veto power, so those resolutions don't happen unless the United States agrees to it.

Furthermore, the IPCC doesn't "tell" anyone what to do. The IPCC doesn't even do original research. It's a body of international scientists who collate research conducted across the world to produce reports on how things found in existing research reports done in countries around the world, affects climate globally. It doesn't propose legislation. It doesn't have legislative authority. It doesn't even have the authority to propose that the United Nations itself make resolutions. It just...collates worldwide studies into a global impact report. That's it, that's all.

As to the report itself - the United States is barely even mentioned. Outside of parentheses (identifying where a number of the authors are from) and endnotes (identifying the origin countries of the studies being cited) the United States is mentioned fewer than 20 times in a report spanning well over 1000 pages. Those handful of times it's mentioned? Discussing desertification and the encroachment of invasive plants, and citing the USDA's own published numbers on food scarcity. In the entire document: that's it.

Which brings us back to where I started. An American writer, writing at an American news outlet, drawing the conclusions she thinks she sees that are relevant to her American audience. Never mind that the report itself says nothing of the kind.

But you go ahead and keep tilting at windmills, it's a great and not at all foolish look.

[SoulReaver]

Reporting on what? More idiocy from the UN, telling us what they think we ought to do.

yeah man better let Koch Indu$tries & Mon$anto tell you what to do
cause they're killing americans but at least they're american right?

Spoiler:

hey ever wonder why even CNN CBS MSNBC etc. never mention Koch? it's because all those "fake news" outlets, work for Trump (Fox too but at least Fox is open about it)

[Gatefan1976]

Since you're obviously unclear on the even basics: the United Nations doesn't tell you (or anyone else) what to do. The only time it ever even approaches "telling" someone what to do is in Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force or condemning a domestic action -- the Council upon which the US is one of only five nations with a permanent seat and veto power, so those resolutions don't happen unless the United States agrees to it.

Furthermore, the IPCC doesn't "tell" anyone what to do. The IPCC doesn't even do original research. It's a body of international scientists who collate research conducted across the world to produce reports on how things found in existing research reports done in countries around the world, affects climate globally. It doesn't propose legislation. It doesn't have legislative authority. It doesn't even have the authority to propose that the United Nations itself make resolutions. It just...collates worldwide studies into a global impact report. That's it, that's all.

As to the report itself - the United States is barely even mentioned. Outside of parentheses (identifying where a number of the authors are from) and endnotes (identifying the origin countries of the studies being cited) the United States is mentioned fewer than 20 times in a report spanning well over 1000 pages. Those handful of times it's mentioned? Discussing desertification and the encroachment of invasive plants, and citing the USDA's own published numbers on food scarcity. In the entire document: that's it.

Which brings us back to where I started. An American writer, writing at an American news outlet, drawing the conclusions she thinks she sees that are relevant to her American audience. Never mind that the report itself says nothing of the kind.

But you go ahead and keep tilting at windmills, it's a great and not at all foolish look.

Could this be the elusive media bias beast?
We all know it exists, but the reports are sketchy on what colour it is, and what it wants...…….

[Annoyed]

Since you're obviously unclear on the even basics: the United Nations doesn't tell you (or anyone else) what to do. The only time it ever even approaches "telling" someone what to do is in Security Council resolutions authorizing use of force or condemning a domestic action -- the Council upon which the US is one of only five nations with a permanent seat and veto power, so those resolutions don't happen unless the United States agrees to it.

Furthermore, the IPCC doesn't "tell" anyone what to do. The IPCC doesn't even do original research. It's a body of international scientists who collate research conducted across the world to produce reports on how things found in existing research reports done in countries around the world, affects climate globally. It doesn't propose legislation. It doesn't have legislative authority. It doesn't even have the authority to propose that the United Nations itself make resolutions. It just...collates worldwide studies into a global impact report. That's it, that's all.

As to the report itself - the United States is barely even mentioned. Outside of parentheses (identifying where a number of the authors are from) and endnotes (identifying the origin countries of the studies being cited) the United States is mentioned fewer than 20 times in a report spanning well over 1000 pages. Those handful of times it's mentioned? Discussing desertification and the encroachment of invasive plants, and citing the USDA's own published numbers on food scarcity. In the entire document: that's it.

Which brings us back to where I started. An American writer, writing at an American news outlet, drawing the conclusions she thinks she sees that are relevant to her American audience. Never mind that the report itself says nothing of the kind.

But you go ahead and keep tilting at windmills, it's a great and not at all foolish look.

I never said they had the power to order changes. I used phrases like "telling the US what they think we should do".

They point is they are suggesting we change our basic diet according to their desires. Overstepping their bounds.

[Annoyed]

You've heard and disregarded my comments regarding Gun control and the "slippery slope".

That slope is getting steeper.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ate-body-armor

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday he intends to introduce a bill restricting the sale of body armor when the Senate reconvenes in September, according to the New York Post.

The bill would require the FBI to establish standards for who is allowed to buy body armor such as bullet-resistant vests after a series of mass shootings in which the gunmen wore body armor, most recently the suspect in the killing of nine people last weekend in Dayton, Ohio.

So, this yutz want to restrict sales of hardware that cannot possibly be used for attack, it's a defense, pure and simple.

There's an old saying "Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile."

See why you can't give them the first inch? ANY form of gun control should be opposed.

Oh, and only public officials should be able to protect themselves?

[mad_gater]

Sure, if you stack it up against modern TV.

But this was 1978, B.C. (Before Cable)

There were only 3 networks, ABC, CBS & NBC, and maybe a PBS outlet, which was mostly govt. propaganda & children's programming.

Some very few individuals had an independent / syndication station which carried re-runs. So, if you were lucky, you had a total of 5 stations, all of which were broadcast TV, and the network censors had to toe the line of govt. dictates or the stations could lose their license to broadcast.

Add to that ABC's bean counters hated the show due to it's production costs, and wanted it dead. To their eyes, they could turn a higher profit on a lower rated show that was cheaper to produce. (And yes, Galactica was successful in the ratings.)

Try comparing it to it's contemporaries. Oh, wait, you can't. There were none. It was a good show for its era.

Even its red-headed stepchild, "Galactica 1980", which was the result of a fan-based letter writing campaign which arose after Galactica was cancelled after 1 season had value; the first 3 hours was a time travel story about a renegade Galactican going back in time to give the Nazis advanced weapons in hopes of advancing present day Earth's technology to the point where they could fight the Cylons. Yes, it had some corny elements, but over all that story was good.

and as I said in "Galactica 1980" I don't think there was really much difference in technology aside from the fact that we had no lasers and no battlestar-sized space ships....against the Cylon base stars they used nukes....which we had in 1980 although pretty sure they touched on the fly in the ointment that ,being a time of tense relations with Russia, that 2 of the world's superpowers (US and Russia) had these nukes pointed at each other instead of the incoming Cylon threat

and while not as cool-looking as a hail of pulse laser beams....a hail of bullets could do a passable job of providing point defense against Cylon fighters had we the battlestars and vipers of our own to deploy them on and in fact would've been a better weapon to have on vipers to take out that thick-armored Cylon scout ship with (armor-piercing rounds specifically)

and our computing technology in 1980 seemed to be roughly on par with what they had on the Galactica...so with the kind of technology available to us in 1980 we probably could've started building some crude battlestars (that had projectile weaponry instead of laser-based weaponry for point defense) or at least some orbital defense platforms