The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Giant sucking sounds trump mathematical models and proven observations, got it. The problem is that you seem to willfully ignore that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. Most of those jobs were going away with or without NAFTA.

One of my all time favorite fictional characters, Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long, put it something along the lines of "1000 reasoned opinions are never equal to 1 case of diving in and finding out"
Well, despite all the high-minded theoretical discussions, the real life results of diving in have been a disaster for the US lower-middle classes.
Reality trumps theory.

[aretood2]

One of my all time favorite fictional characters, Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long, put it something along the lines of "1000 reasoned opinions are never equal to 1 case of diving in and finding out"
Well, despite all the high-minded theoretical discussions, the real life results of diving in have been a disaster for the US lower-middle classes.
Reality trumps theory.

This isn't philosophy. It's history, it's facts. Things people can see. You can't get anymore "real life" than that. It's not a guessing game, we know because we've seen it. There's actual math, not supposition, that backs it up.

There is no disaster for the lower middle class in the manner that you talk about. I didn't grow up in a disaster and I did grow up in a lower middle class (also known as working class btw) family. The numbers just don't back up your assertions. And that's because you simply base it out of feelings. This is a capitalist society, there will be by default poor and people who become poor which allows for people who are poor to become not poor, or at least for their kids to become not poor.

What you want is some sort of communist country where the poor stop being poor out of magic, not some socialist endeavour which you seem support minus the welfare. You operate so hard core emotionally which belittles your claims that your views are based on cold pragmatic logic. Guess what? Logic requires facts. You can't have logic without facts otherwise you really are dealing in purely academic exercises. And facts are something that are in severe short supply in your arguments and opinions which happen to be rich with feelings.

This is what leads to, and let's be honest here, stupid comments like 0% unemployment and the incredibly dumb belief that economics and international trade is a zero sum game. Or thinking that free trade and migration stem from Marxism when really it originally comes from Adam Smith, who pretty much was the first to outline capitalism as we know it.

[SGalisa]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...s-legislature/ - WTF?

hot air :/

. . . . . . pretty much ~~ exactly that!

That's all part of Al Gore's *pet project* covered under what is now termed as
"Climate Change".. and potentially charging future CARBON FOOTPRINT tax on people AND animals (eventually limiting how many farm critters a person should be allowed to have??!).

It's also being snuck into the regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 98.
I've mentioned about this before. . . .

[Gatefan1976]

To which I respond that I didn't go whining to the "government", meaning the board moderators about this, I simply said my piece directly to GF

Prove to me that you can look outside your bubble, and I will gladly "lay off"
You are given links to information, studies, journals, newspapers, scientific reviewed articles and more. So much so that it is all but being spoon fed to you and (and this is important) not singular, outlier cases. You can take those articles as a starting point, dig deeper and -educate- yourself, but at EVERY turn, your response tends to be "I feel differently, and my feelings on things are more accurate", and move on to the next shinny article you find about 1 person or 1 group that re-enforces your views about whole groups that you "feel" you don't like, and hold it as proof that the entire group is "flawed" or "dangerous".

You don't want to grow or evolve, you want re-enforcement of your opinions, and to me, that is idiotic. You are not unique in this, nor are Republicans unique in this. All kinds of people want that "comfort", on all sides of not just the political spectrum, but humanity.

So, I will apologize for calling you an Idiot, but I will not apologize for calling you on idiotic behaviour, or calling it idiotic.

[Coco Pops]

OK what about things like "unemployment statistics?"

Every country has them. But here's the thing, it doesn't seem to matter so much which country you live in usually they are used by governments here and there to often attack the poor and such.

Now how is it possible to get full employment if there's more people then actual available jobs and you have like 20 people competing for one or two jobs in the same area or field?

Do governments think these things pop out of thin air?

[Womble]

FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification

Several dozen pages of documents released Friday from the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email probe show the former secretary of state repeatedly claimed to have little training or understanding about the classification process – despite leading the department that handled such information on a regular basis and having a security clearance.

The document dump also revealed the gaps that remain in the record. Not only were numerous sections – and entire pages – redacted, but the files showed the FBI could not obtain 13 Clinton mobile devices that may have been used to send emails from her personal email address, in addition to two iPads. And they showed Clinton claiming she could not recall numerous details.

But perhaps most striking were Clinton’s repeated statements regarding her grasp of the classification process...

According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators -- when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”

She claims that she didn't know how to identify classified information AND that she took all classified information seriously regardless of classification level. In the same breath.

[Falcon Horus]

I better secure my honey too before it's gone

(proceeds to secure FH)

That's all part of Al Gore's *pet project* covered under what is now termed as
"Climate Change"..

So, I take it you're a firm occupant of the deny-camp then?

Perhaps this might show you some scientific evidence of cows pushing methane into the air, cause they do, you know.

A New-Zealand study on methane emissions in agriculture, emitted by sheep and cows.

But let's learn about Carbon, Methane Emissions and the Dairy Cow first.

Agriculture contributes approximately 6 to 7% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Methane from enteric (microbial) fermentation represents 20% and manure management 7% of the total methane emitted. Some dietary practices that have been shown to reduce methane include addition of ionophores, fats, use of high quality forages, and increased use of grains.

Sources of Naturally Occurring Greenhouse Gases

In the United States, carbon dioxide makes up 84.6% of all emissions. The major sources of CO2 emissions are fossil fuel combustion, iron and steel production, cement manufacturing, and municipal solid waste combustion. In the United States in 2004, fuel combustion accounted for 95% of CO2 emissions.

Methane makes up 7.9% of all emissions. The major sources include landfills, natural gas systems, enteric fermentation (dairy and beef cattle primarily), and coal mining. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere the past two centuries has increased by 143%.

Nitrous oxide makes up 5.5% of all emissions and is produced primarily by biological processes that occur in soil and water. Major contributors to this gas include agricultural soil management, fuel combustion from motor vehicles, manure management, nitric acid production, human sewage, and stationary fuel combustion.

And then we proceed onwards how dairy farms, or animal farms can deal in better ways with how they deal with their animals farting methane into the atmosphere, but more importantly manure waste management:
Farm Methane Reduction

To reduce these greenhouse gas emissions, NativeEnergy helps build two types of projects on farms.

Anaerobic Manure Digesters
In the 1980s, after the first energy crisis, a few hundred manure waste-to-energy digester systems were built in the U.S. These utilized captured biogas to generate electrical power. Like solar and wind systems at the time, the digester technology was not mature and falling electricity prices halted their expansion.

Today, rising energy costs and multiple environmental concerns—especially methane pollution—are demanding their return. With a digester, farmers can use less fossil fuel for heating and displace electricity on the power grid, keeping many tons of CO2 out of the air. Digesters also help control local odor problems and improve nutrient management, which reduces water pollution in local waterways.

Manure Separation Equipment
Manure separation technology removes the solids from manure slurry stored in lagoons. Keeping organic matter from entering the slurry prevents the anaerobic decomposition that produces methane.

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the separation process offers several other benefits for farmers. It provides a source of cow bedding material for the farm, which is cheaper than sawdust and more comfortable for the animals. It also cuts nutrient management costs and reduces the potential for runoff pollution in vulnerable watersheds

OK what about things like "unemployment statistics?"

Every country has them. But here's the thing, it doesn't seem to matter so much which country you live in usually they are used by governments here and there to often attack the poor and such.

What do you mean attack the poor and such?

Now how is it possible to get full employment if there's more people then actual available jobs and you have like 20 people competing for one or two jobs in the same area or field?

Unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force, where the latter consists of the unemployed plus those in paid or self-employment. Unemployed people are those who report that they are without work, that they are available for work and that they have taken active steps to find work in the last four weeks. When unemployment is high, some people become discouraged and stop looking for work; they are then excluded from the labour force. This implies that the unemployment rate may fall, or stop rising, even though there has been no underlying improvement in the labour market.

[Coco Pops]

What do you mean attack the poor and such?



Unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force, where the latter consists of the unemployed plus those in paid or self-employment. Unemployed people are those who report that they are without work, that they are available for work and that they have taken active steps to find work in the last four weeks. When unemployment is high, some people become discouraged and stop looking for work; they are then excluded from the labour force. This implies that the unemployment rate may fall, or stop rising, even though there has been no underlying improvement in the labour market.

What I meant was that in some countries like mine for example sometimes a high unemployment rate is fodder for the right wingers to label the unemployed as bludgers and cut their dole payments to be even smaller, and smaller. They expect every single person to find work, never mind the fact that there are and never have been enough jobs that you would eliminate unemployment.........

[SoulReaver]

Me thinks that will be bitter

it's for her own good

I knew you'd understand

[Annoyed]

OK what about things like "unemployment statistics?"

Every country has them. But here's the thing, it doesn't seem to matter so much which country you live in usually they are used by governments here and there to often attack the poor and such.

Now how is it possible to get full employment if there's more people then actual available jobs and you have like 20 people competing for one or two jobs in the same area or field?

Do governments think these things pop out of thin air?

First, you have to realize that the US doctors its unemployment statistics to make the picture look better than it is.
Suppose a guy loses his job. He begins to draw unemployment insurance.. At this point, he is counted as employed. However, his benefits run out after 26 weeks (or whatever the exact number is with extensions and whatnot) Once his benefits run out, regardless of whether has has found a job or not, he is no longer counted as unemployed.
Even if he takes a part time job as a dishwasher, he is no longer counted as unemployed.
Depending upon the source you cite, the "real" unemployment rate is roughly twice what the official rate is.

We have the Carter administration in the late 70's to thank for this fraud, along with other financial tricks such as excluding the costs of food and energy from the cost of living statistics, which social security and various other benefit levels are tied to.

[thekillman]

First, you have to realize that the US doctors its unemployment statistics to make the picture look better than it is.

The unemployment rate is 5% and under your doubling rule 10%. Not that bad. and it's even going down! in fact it's been going down since 2010. It's comparable to many other EU nations. Well, greece is at 25%. But the US is comparable to, say, the UK and Germany.

[Annoyed]

Prove to me that you can look outside your bubble, and I will gladly "lay off"
You are given links to information, studies, journals, newspapers, scientific reviewed articles and more. So much so that it is all but being spoon fed to you and (and this is important) not singular, outlier cases. You can take those articles as a starting point, dig deeper and -educate- yourself, but at EVERY turn, your response tends to be "I feel differently, and my feelings on things are more accurate", and move on to the next shinny article you find about 1 person or 1 group that re-enforces your views about whole groups that you "feel" you don't like, and hold it as proof that the entire group is "flawed" or "dangerous".

You don't want to grow or evolve, you want re-enforcement of your opinions, and to me, that is idiotic. You are not unique in this, nor are Republicans unique in this. All kinds of people want that "comfort", on all sides of not just the political spectrum, but humanity.

So, I will apologize for calling you an Idiot, but I will not apologize for calling you on idiotic behaviour, or calling it idiotic.

You are quite correct, there are topics I've already made my mind up about, having looked at them long ago and did my best to figure out what the real situation is. Unless I see some compelling reason to re-examine the situation, I'm not about to waste time thinking about something that is already settled in my mind.

Global cooling/warming/whatever they're claiming this week is a good example of this. Long ago, it became clear to me that the real agenda of the enviros has nothing to do with concern for the environment and everything to do with wealth redistribution and damaging the U.S. economy. This conclusion was based upon the actions and behavior of those folks, not what they say. There are approximately as many liars on earth as there are people. So whatever is claimed can't be taken at face value. I must look at the behavior and actions of whoever it is and make my judgement based upon that, not their claims. More than 25 years ago, it was very clear to me, by the behavior and actions of the enviros what their true goals were. And sure enough, in 2010?, this stance was validated by one of their own, a member of the UN committee on this stuff publicly stated that that true goal was in fact wealth redistribution.

So, yes, if it's a matter I've already made my mind up about, in the absence of new behavior that says the situation might have changed, you have less chance of changing my mind than an ice cube has of keeping my whiskey cold in hell.

[thekillman]

Does that mean you believe there's no effect whatsoever we can have on the environment and should pollute like china does?

Just curious how far this goes or whether it's just climate change.

[Annoyed]

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that Earth's climate is changing, just as it has for thousands of years, before the rise of mankind.

But, short of all out thermonuclear warfare between all or most of the the nuclear powers, I don't believe that mankind even has the ability to cause change of this nature/magnitude, let alone is actually doing so.

Yes, for example, a disaster such as Exxon Valdez can have extremely negative local effects, but as far a global climate change overall? I ain't buyin'.

[aretood2]

On unemployment, it's supposed to be used as an indicator or an index, not an accurate account of how many people are without jobs. Otherwise percentages really would be meaningless. It's supposed to help measure the ability of finding a job when one looks for it. Which is why those who don't look for jobs aren't counted. But this is why we shouldn't simply rely on government numbers and why there should be access to that data by 3rd parties.

As for climate change, If I cut down all the trees it takes an idiot to think it won't impact the entire biosphere. I'm sorry, there is more than just nuking the world that can effect it. The Earth doesn't operate on infinities. There is only so much an ecosystem can take before it breaks down. And ecosystems are interconnected and impact each other. It's not that hard to cause a chain reaction, a domino affect.

The question is are we witnessing that on a global scale after two hundred years of dumping waste into multiple ecosystems at a rate faster than they can clean it up? Where's the science that says no? I'd find it easier to agree with "climate change deniers" if they actually had science instead of "It's communists!!!" as an argument.