The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We can do both without any of this climate change nonsense.

MBBF could you cite which science you find nonsense specifically?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll ignore the rest of the post as it was based on this original fallacy. I do not want to let companies do whatever they want to avoid hurting their bottom line. I have no issues with environmental law to clean up the environment. There's a mountain of evidence that shows that the U.S. needs to work on enforcement of environmental laws along with passing a few new ones to close the loopholes. You can do all that with the backing of solid scientific evidence not in any way related to global warming to justify those changes.

Define solid scientific evidence since you don't believe in the scientists who have degrees in the particular field of study. If you don't believe climatologists when it comes to the study of our climate, who do you propose be the people who provide the "solid scientific evidence"?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is what I don't get. You wan't to let companies do whatever they want because it may hurt their bottom line.

It's akin to me crashing my car into your house. Getting out of the car, shrugging my shoulders and telling you that I'd love to pay for the damages, but that would hurt me financially. That financial loss to me would hurt other businesses in the area that I couldn't afford to shop at any longer and cost people jobs and money. So just throw a tarp up on the hole and deal with the consequences because my financial situation is much more important than your life.

The problem right now is that we are asking successful Americans and Europeans to stop ramming their cars into other people's houses...and we are going to ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for less fortunate people to stop ramming into other people's houses...*AND*...while we are at it, let's go ahead and ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for China and India to not run their cars into people's houses. And not just the corrupt Americans and Europeans that have done a great job making America and Europe great, but the hard-working, innovative, and economic leaders of America and Europe as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't it difficult to do both when you don't believe in what scientists who are experts in the field believe? Kind of like saying I think it's great to push healthy lives but I don't believe in doctors.

That's obviously not the argument here. The research is not nearly adequate enough at this point given the many issues with scientist motivations and data collection issues.

I will say that I'm encouraged that the EPA will likely be getting involved soon with CO2 being classified as harmful to the environment by the administration. They require arguments with full data reveals on both side of the issue to be submitted before making any kinds of rulings. That's something that is desparately needed at this point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

MBBF could you cite which science you find nonsense specifically?

As I stated before, gstelmack did a far better job summarizing the argument against global warming than I ever could. I'll see if I can track a few of his posts down if you are unable to find them.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The research is not nearly adequate enough at this point given the many issues with scientist motivations and data collection issues.

What scientist motivations and data collection issues specifically have caused you to believe that the research is not nearly adequate?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's obviously not the argument here. The research is not nearly adequate enough at this point given the many issues with scientist motivations and data collection issues.

I will say that I'm encouraged that the EPA will likely be getting involved soon with CO2 being classified as harmful to the environment by the administration. They require arguments with full data reveals on both side of the issue to be submitted before making any kinds of rulings. That's something that is desparately needed at this point.

It is the argument. You have stated that the science is flimsy while the scientists who are experts in the field state otherwise.

So I'm asking if you don't believe what climatologists have come up with, who is the trusted source in your mind for this science?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

As I stated before, gstelmack did a far better job summarizing the argument against global warming than I ever could. I'll see if I can track a few of his posts down if you are unable to find them.

It's not necessary, I remember the posts. I was just wondering, for someone who blathers on incessantly like you do, if YOU actually believed any of it or if it was just background for your talking points.

[DaddyTorgo]

seems like you're majorly splitting hairs MBBF. you're pro-environment and pro-environmental regulation, but anti "climate change."

if all the results of the "climate change" "nonsense" or whatever you want to call it, results in a net-positive for the environment though then isn't that a good thing? if so maybe you should spend less time railing against "climate change" and coming off as "anti-environment" and move on to other things?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The problem right now is that we are asking successful Americans and Europeans to stop ramming their cars into other people's houses...and we are going to ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for less fortunate people to stop ramming into other people's houses...*AND*...while we are at it, let's go ahead and ask successful Americans and Europeans to pay for China and India to not run their cars into people's houses. And not just the corrupt Americans and Europeans that have done a great job making America and Europe great, but the hard-working, innovative, and economic leaders of America and Europe as well.

Unfortunately though, the cars in China and India that are running into homes have an effect on us. The same for the less fortunate.

Isn't this similar to the wars going on that you and MBBF support? We are spending money and sacrificing lives in these countries because what is going on there has an effect on what happens here. It may not be fair, but it's part of life. We often have to do things in other countries or for the less fortunate because the consequences of doing nothing will have an impact on our quality of life.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It's not necessary, I remember the posts. I was just wondering, for someone who blathers on incessantly like you do, if YOU actually believed any of it or if it was just background for your talking points.

I do believe that more research and release of data needs to be done. If it's an open and shut case, it should be relatively easy to produce all raw data and allow everyone to draw their own conclusions. Additional research shouldn't be that difficult, agreed?

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

seems like you're majorly splitting hairs MBBF. you're pro-environment and pro-environmental regulation, but anti "climate change."

if all the results of the "climate change" "nonsense" or whatever you want to call it, results in a net-positive for the environment though then isn't that a good thing? if so maybe you should spend less time railing against "climate change" and coming off as "anti-environment" and move on to other things?

I'm against passing laws and policies that may or may not be justified. That's much different than what you've implied here.

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that the polar bear population is in good standing.

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' - Telegraph

[Flasch186]

the best part of the article you cite is in paragraph two where they make the assumption that humans are having an effect on the global warming:

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.


A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

later and probably more importantly

While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.

Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.

In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.

Just put simply. MBBF is not to be believed on anything. The man is a spinster, a regurgitator, and usually wrong in his predictions (see the iran thread for a most recent one)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the best part of the article you cite is in paragraph two where they make the assumption that humans are having an effect on the global warming:

later and probably more importantly

Just put simply. MBBF is not to be believed on anything. The man is a spinster, a regurgitator, and usually wrong in his predictions (see the iran thread for a most recent one)

Here's where you and I differ. I don't think it's a misstep to post an article that presents both sides of the discussion in an article. I post it to allow people to draw their own conclusions based on what they read in the article. I knew exactly what I was posting when I put it up.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Here's where you and I differ. I don't think it's a misstep to post an article that presents both sides of the discussion in an article. I post it to allow people to draw their own conclusions based on what they read in the article. I knew exactly what I was posting when I put it up.

THE ISSUE is that you don't summarize both sides of the article, or reference that there are two sides, in your lead-in. you simply summarize the side that supports your position.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

THE ISSUE is that you don't summarize both sides of the article, or reference that there are two sides, in your lead-in. you simply summarize the side that supports your position.

The basis of the article was not the critical side, but the side supporting an increase in population. Given that was the main context of the article, it's not a problem to summarize it as such. Perhaps a better point is that you should read the entire article posted, rather than assuming that the lead-in produced by the author of the article is the only one being presented in that article.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that the polar bear population is in good standing.

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' - Telegraph

That's one area and a rather small one in regards to polar bear population. There are other areas with larger populations that have seen major declines like West Hudson Bay. A lot of the talk of declining population is based on future estimates by scientists (those evil people who make up stuff).

There is a bit of irony as you've railed against scientists for having agendas. You then post a news article from a conservative news outlet that cites a study paid for by a group of people who have a vested interest in it showing polar bears not being protected.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is a bit of irony as you've railed against scientists for having agendas. You then post a news article from a conservative news outlet that cites a study paid for by a group of people who have a vested interest in it showing polar bears not being protected.

I don't disagree with your assessment. I'm glad that they represented it as such. It's a far more honest understanding of the situation when it's presented in this way. I posted an article that presented both sides of the argument and that's how the rest of this climate change debate should be handled. Open and honest representation of the situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The basis of the article was not the critical side, but the side supporting an increase in population. Given that was the main context of the article, it's not a problem to summarize it as such. Perhaps a better point is that you should read the entire article posted, rather than assuming that the lead-in produced by the author of the article is the only one being presented in that article.

I...I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm speechless. You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for the impartiality of the "lead in" that you compose before you post the link.

I guess it makes sense on some level though, you can find an article, determine what the "critical side" or "main context" of the article is that supports what you want to prove and then post it with that as the lead in.

That's intellectual laziness to the Nth degree.

You can't take any news article or report or study in a vacuum. You have to consider (or at least be clear about up-fronting) the bias and the way in which that skews things.

Then again, that's my history-major self speaking, and I suppose it is an awfully high standard to hold someone to when posting links on a messageboard on the internet.

Still, my point stands about you not being able to absolve yourself of responsibility for the lead-up to the link that you post stands though.

[rowech]

I might have missed it but is nobody talking about the fact that Nebraska's senator was bribed ,or held the government hostage depending on which way you look at it, in order to pass the health care bill? I'm just amazed that this is even possible. 100% of it's cost to Nebraska? Forever? Are you kidding?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Unfortunately though, the cars in China and India that are running into homes have an effect on us. The same for the less fortunate.

Those "less fortunate" will become only "more fortunate" while there is still money to be freely taken. The problem though, is eventually we run out of money. I'd say we have an issue that can be solved with capitalism, not in spite of capitalism.

Isn't this similar to the wars going on that you and MBBF support? We are spending money and sacrificing lives in these countries because what is going on there has an effect on what happens here. It may not be fair, but it's part of life. We often have to do things in other countries or for the less fortunate because the consequences of doing nothing will have an impact on our quality of life.

Iraq and Afghanistan were primarily Americas problem and we primarily paid for it. The Europeans are already paying ungodly ammounts for gasoline and their economies have suffered greatly from it.

The Green movement is not simply an American problem. It's global. I'm finding that the "global" part of this effort generally finds itself just sitting around smoking their cigars and pointing their fingers at America. Basically, they ain't doing anything of significance...that's on us. I'm surprised that you honestly think this sounds like the right approach for a global issue.

[panerd]

The Earth was once covered with about a mile thick layer of ice. Did me and MBBF's carbon emissions cause that to melt? I am pretty sure there were no human beings around during the "de-icing"

There is no doubt that human beings are doing some damage to the environment, the question is why this is another "I’m fine with it being passed to me. you should be too. the earth has given you plenty throughout your life...time for you to give a little back. and all it's asking for is a few bucks." The same with health care "I'm fine paying a few more dollars so that everyone can have health care. We don't want everyone to die do we?”

How about I offer a solution of where this money comes from? The war in the middle East, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are absolute failures. More people are dying from these three wars than lack of health insurance. How about ending these and using that money to pay for health insurance and environmental measures? The democrats were critics of all of these until they got power, right?

Why do we have to keep adding programs while never eliminating the ones that either don't work at all (war on drugs) or are no longer effective or worth the money (war in Afghanistan)? Instead we get the same bullshit. Government getting larger, predictions about the new programs not costing anything (anyone without partisan blinders can see right through this line of bullshit), and nothing ever getting removed. That’s the problem.

[panerd]

And thats not even a Libertarian solution. It is just a common sense solution.

Wife: "I want a new car"
Husband: "Okay, well let's cut back on something and we can do it"

Government: "I want a new car"
Government: "Go ahead and buy it. We might make more money in a couple of years so we can pay for it then"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by rowech

I might have missed it but is nobody talking about the fact that Nebraska's senator was bribed ,or held the government hostage depending on which way you look at it, in order to pass the health care bill? I'm just amazed that this is even possible. 100% of it's cost to Nebraska? Forever? Are you kidding?

Thats okay. There aren't any corporate fat cats in Nebraska so them being treated differently isn't a big deal to this administration. Now if Texas wanted the same deal, can't do it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

I might have missed it but is nobody talking about the fact that Nebraska's senator was bribed ,or held the government hostage depending on which way you look at it, in order to pass the health care bill? I'm just amazed that this is even possible. 100% of it's cost to Nebraska? Forever? Are you kidding?

Nope. Fucking redonkulous.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Thats okay. There aren't any corporate fat cats in Nebraska so them being treated differently isn't a big deal to this administration. Now if Texas wanted the same deal, can't do it.

Nelson isn't even close to the only one using this bill to pad his state's coffers. Dodd and Landrieu are a couple others who are using the bill to land pork for their states. I'm sure I've missed some.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

The Earth was once covered with about a mile thick layer of ice. Did me and MBBF's carbon emissions cause that to melt? I am pretty sure there were no human beings around during the "de-icing"

There is no doubt that human beings are doing some damage to the environment, the question is why this is another "I’m fine with it being passed to me. you should be too. the earth has given you plenty throughout your life...time for you to give a little back. and all it's asking for is a few bucks." The same with health care "I'm fine paying a few more dollars so that everyone can have health care. We don't want everyone to die do we?”

How about I offer a solution of where this money comes from? The war in the middle East, the war on terror, and the war on drugs are absolute failures. More people are dying from these three wars than lack of health insurance. How about ending these and using that money to pay for health insurance and environmental measures? The democrats were critics of all of these until they got power, right?

Why do we have to keep adding programs while never eliminating the ones that either don't work at all (war on drugs) or are no longer effective or worth the money (war in Afghanistan)? Instead we get the same bullshit. Government getting larger, predictions about the new programs not costing anything (anyone without partisan blinders can see right through this line of bullshit), and nothing ever getting removed. That’s the problem.

Your first paragraph is just crap and clearly ignores the broader (expected) climactic changes that the Earth has undergone through the years. Those changes were relatively normalized and expected due to other factors and are separate and distinct from the "global warming" issues that are manmade. You seem like an intelligent person - I honestly thought you were.

Your second paragraph I left out because it's just buildup.

I agree 100% with your third and fourth paragraphs (bolded). 100%. The reason we never end failing programs or policies is because there is too much federal $$ wrapped up in them. Those $$ provide jobs in Senator's home states, or Representative's home districts, they fund lobbyists to keep things going, etc.

But it is ridiculous. I agree with you there.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Your first paragraph is just crap and clearly ignores the broader (expected) climactic changes that the Earth has undergone through the years. Those changes were relatively normalized and expected due to other factors and are separate and distinct from the "global warming" issues that are manmade. You seem like an intelligent person - I honestly thought you were.

Your second paragraph I left out because it's just buildup.

I agree 100% with your third and fourth paragraphs (bolded). 100%. The reason we never end failing programs or policies is because there is too much federal $$ wrapped up in them. Those $$ provide jobs in Senator's home states, or Representative's home districts, they fund lobbyists to keep things going, etc.

But it is ridiculous. I agree with you there.

I am not a global warming doubter at all. I am just a realist about human nature and know that more taxes on me are not going to change what a guy does in India or China (or our own federal government!!!) and there are better ways of tackling the problem than the standard "tax the corporations". I was mocked (due to a paragraph about elephant tusks, of course ignoring the point of the article) when I presented a Libertarian viewpoint that the federal government is responsible for over 50% of the pollution. How about they clean up their act first and then ask the private industry to follow suit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I am not a global warming doubter at all. I am just a realist about human nature and know that more taxes on me are not going to change what a guy does in India or China (or our own federal government!!!) and there are better ways of tackling the problem than the standard "tax the corporations". I was mocked (due to a paragraph about elephant tusks, of course ignoring the point of the article) when I presented a Libertarian viewpoint that the federal government is responsible for over 50% of the pollution. How about they clean up their act first and then ask the private industry to follow suit.

like i said - i agree with you 100% on the financial aspects of it.

as far as govt. responsibility - i don't see why they should have to clean up their act FIRST...they could clean it up at the same time I think.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

like i said - i agree with you 100% on the financial aspects of it.

as far as govt. responsibility - i don't see why they should have to clean up their act FIRST...they could clean it up at the same time I think.

Analogy (sometimes these work, sometimes they don't)...

My city decides to tax ALL of the homeowners (including those who take care of their houses) for not taking care of their property. (weeds, shutters falling off, cracks in driveways) The money will be used to fix up everyones houses. What I left out is that the city's property is worse than any of the homeowners and they won't even use most of this money to fix up the houses but waste it on some other project.

[DaddyTorgo]

it sickens me that people in this country in this day & age can go bankrupt because somebody in their family falls sick...all in the name of protecting profits for somebody else.

it's fucking shameful.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Those "less fortunate" will become only "more fortunate" while there is still money to be freely taken. The problem though, is eventually we run out of money. I'd say we have an issue that can be solved with capitalism, not in spite of capitalism.

Money can be cut from other areas. Some pointless wars is a good place to start. War on Drugs would be another. Then maybe legalizing something that people do regardless (online gambling) and making a few bucks off that.

Capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages. The problem with using capitalism to solve an issue for the world is that pollution isn't a problem for capitalism. Businesses work in their own best interests and nothing else. They would pump poison into your house if they legally could and it made them money. It is businesses job to look after the best interests of themselves and government to look after the best interests of their citizens. They work in conjunction and there is give and take.

We've had a capitalistic system for energy and automobiles. Over the last 25 years, cars haven't really improved much in terms of MPG. We haven't seen much advance at all in energy. When industries fail to innovate and advance our society technologically, sometimes the government has to step in and give them a nudge. No one is killing capitalism, just saying they have to play by a set of rules. If the companies out there can't make it happen under those rules, some others will come forward and do it.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Iraq and Afghanistan were primarily Americas problem and we primarily paid for it. The Europeans are already paying ungodly ammounts for gasoline and their economies have suffered greatly from it.

The Green movement is not simply an American problem. It's global. I'm finding that the "global" part of this effort generally finds itself just sitting around smoking their cigars and pointing their fingers at America. Basically, they ain't doing anything of significance...that's on us. I'm surprised that you honestly think this sounds like the right approach for a global issue.

It sucks that we won't get much help from other nations. I do think we should put pressure on in any way we can and use our power as leverage. Many of these countries are heavily invested in the United States and we can make those investments less profitable rather quickly. When you've got the most chips at the table, you've got control of the game. Obama has made the mistake of trying to appease these countries and beg for their help instead of dictating what's going to happen from here on out.

Regardless, sometimes you have to foot the bill when other countries can't or won't if it's in the best interest of your citizens. We frequently get involved in health matters in other countries when there is an outbreak of disease. We don't sit around and say "well if they won't pay for it themselves, why should we have to?". Reason being of course that the outbreak over there can spread over here and do us damage. Their disinterest is not a reason for us to be passive in doing what's best for our country.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Money can be cut from other areas. Some pointless wars is a good place to start.

I guess Obama is a capitalist now. In any event, call him what you want, but as long as American soldiers are in those places, I'd say the President of the United States doesn't think the reasons are pointless. So go talk to him about it. I think for the most part, the dreamer in Obama has been tempered by the reality of our foreign policy. So far I think he's making the right choices here.

War on Drugs would be another. Then maybe legalizing something that people do regardless (online gambling) and making a few bucks off that.

This sounds more like your anger with politicians in general than with capitalism.

Capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages. The problem with using capitalism to solve an issue for the world is that pollution isn't a problem for capitalism. Businesses work in their own best interests and nothing else. They would pump poison into your house if they legally could and it made them money. It is businesses job to look after the best interests of themselves and government to look after the best interests of their citizens. They work in conjunction and there is give and take.

Which form of government does solve issues for the world?

We've had a capitalistic system for energy and automobiles. Over the last 25 years, cars haven't really improved much in terms of MPG. We haven't seen much advance at all in energy. When industries fail to innovate and advance our society technologically, sometimes the government has to step in and give them a nudge. No one is killing capitalism, just saying they have to play by a set of rules. If the companies out there can't make it happen under those rules, some others will come forward and do it.

Capitalism has actually been in charge of energy and automobiles for 100 years and it's worked out pretty well so far. I'd say that over-regulation, monopolies, and labor unions have fucked both industries. Those are not really capitalistic ideals. Perhaps we should reform but for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.

It sucks that we won't get much help from other nations. I do think we should put pressure on in any way we can and use our power as leverage. Many of these countries are heavily invested in the United States and we can make those investments less profitable rather quickly. When you've got the most chips at the table, you've got control of the game. Obama has made the mistake of trying to appease these countries and beg for their help instead of dictating what's going to happen from here on out.

Welcome to what we should already know. The USA is #1 and the rest of the world (in some way or another) wants to be #1. That simple logic really. They won't just "be helpful". Ever, not unless something's in it for them. They have elections to win too, afterall.

Regardless, sometimes you have to foot the bill when other countries can't or won't if it's in the best interest of your citizens. We frequently get involved in health matters in other countries when there is an outbreak of disease. We don't sit around and say "well if they won't pay for it themselves, why should we have to?". Reason being of course that the outbreak over there can spread over here and do us damage. Their disinterest is not a reason for us to be passive in doing what's best for our country.

Agreed. Sometimes we do have to go it alone. But if the only thing we end up doing is shooting ourselves in the head, I'm not going to support it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

The Earth was once covered with about a mile thick layer of ice. Did me and MBBF's carbon emissions cause that to melt? I am pretty sure there were no human beings around during the "de-icing"

Which ice age are you refering to? If you are refering to the last ice age, you would be wrong about no humans being around. If you are refering to 'snowball' earth, then I would have to say you would be correct.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I guess Obama is a capitalist now. In any event, call him what you want, but as long as American soldiers are in those places, I'd say the President of the United States doesn't think the reasons are pointless. So go talk to him about it. I think for the most part, the dreamer in Obama has been tempered by the reality of our foreign policy. So far I think he's making the right choices here.

The reality is more domestic than foreign. I really don't believe he feels the war in Afghanistan is necessary or doing much. But he also realizes there is a large percent of the population who wants to be fighting in wars they are too pussy to fight in themselves.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Which form of government does solve issues for the world?

I think one that weighs the economic effects with those of the well-being of its citizens.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Capitalism has actually been in charge of energy and automobiles for 100 years and it's worked out pretty well so far. I'd say that over-regulation, monopolies, and labor unions have fucked both industries. Those are not really capitalistic ideals. Perhaps we should reform but for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.

It has? We're 100 years in and still can't find a way to offer a car to the public not powered by fossil fuels and combustible engines. We haven't seen a MPG advance in 25 years and cars really haven't added much but some luxury features since the 50's. The biggest advance we've seen has been in the area of safety, which actually has more to do with the government forcing car companies into it than them doing it on their own.

Now take a look at the industry of air transportation. Look at the advances we've had in the last 100 years. It's quite embarassing to see the difference in innovation in the two.

And I wouldn't say a union or monopoly doesn't have capitalistic ideals. If a business achieved it's monopoly status by dominating its competition in the marketplace, that's as capatalistic as it gets. If a union is using its workers skills to negotiate a higher pay in a free market, how is that not capitalism? Unions and monopolies are negative aspects of capitalism that you are trying to pawn off as something else because you want the word to be pure.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article about the Husker payoff included in the health care bill.

How Nebraska's Insurance Companies Stand To Profit From Ben Nelson's Compromises In Health Care Bill

Claim that White House is texting MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' hosts while they are on the air.........

The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: MSNBC Libtalker: 'Morning Joe' Team Takes Direction From WH

[Flasch186]

You said there was no deal. That was a lie. You may not have been happy with the deal, as I am not happy with the deal but you lied. I didnt.

Now everyone please read the second link he posted in full. Schultz, surmises and suspects what MBBF 'claims', in the article, but it isn't proven it's just his speculation. Even so why should a PR person from the WH be able to email or text Journalists to give their opinion on something?

MBBF is as bad or worse than I think he's ever been on here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You said there was no deal. That was a lie. You may not have been happy with the deal, as I am not happy with the deal but you lied. I didnt.

Now everyone please read the second link he posted in full. Schultz, surmises and suspects what MBBF 'claims', in the article, but it isn't proven it's just his speculation. Even so why should a PR person from the WH be able to email or text Journalists to give their opinion on something?

MBBF is as bad or worse than I think he's ever been on here.

I disagree. I'd actually like to give credit where credit is due - notice in the second link he prefaces it by saying "claim" and in the first one there's no editorializing.

KUDOS TO MBBF

I think it will be much more productive and lead to potentially better discussino about the substance of the links rather than the poster. At least I hope.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Article about the Husker payoff included in the health care bill.

How Nebraska's Insurance Companies Stand To Profit From Ben Nelson's Compromises In Health Care Bill

Claim that White House is texting MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' hosts while they are on the air.........

The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney: MSNBC Libtalker: 'Morning Joe' Team Takes Direction From WH

#1 is despicable. I don't think you'll find much disagreement that that was a straight-payoff. Then again, with the (R)'s becoming the "Party of No" and there being no attempt made by them to negotiate or reach a workable bipartisan solution, hands got forced. Not saying that makes it "okay" or anything, but I'm not sure you can place the entirety of the blame soley on the one party trying to get stuff done.

#2 is absolute 100% speculation. There's no basis in fact or anything. It's just complete conjecture. Complete non-story.

[Flasch186]

hmmm, maybe DT's right. I blew past Claim and attributed more weight to the word than perhaps I shouldve. Ill retract my vomit since the word "claim" was used. And here I am the word parser...missing out on that. Apologies.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting Poll Results on the new Healthcare Bill (note the source of the poll please)

The poll by the nonpartisan Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, to be released today, finds that more Americans are skeptical of the mandate when they are told that 30 million people will be required to get coverage while only some receive subsidies. The question:

If the government requires 30 million uninsured Americans to buy health insurance, and gives subsidies to some Americans to help them afford this insurance, would it be accurate to say this plan, quote, "PROVIDES" 30 million Americans with health insurance?

Yes: 36%

No: 48%

"This poll confirms that voters get it," Jim Dean, the head of DFA and the brother of Howard "kill the bill" Dean, emails. "The Senate bill doesn’t actually ‘provide’ 30 million Americans with coverage — instead it makes them criminals if they don’t buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess."

"Providing" and "forcing people to buy" insurance, subsidized or not, is not the same thing in the majority of people's minds. And it's not a particularly popular idea. When Research 2000 asked "Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance -- the so-called mandate -- even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it," 51% oppose, 38% favor.

When asked "Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare, but DOES require all Americans to get health insurance," 58% oppose, 33% favor.

I happen to agree FWIW. It's not currently "healthcare reform" it's "health insurance mandate."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

#1 is despicable. I don't think you'll find much disagreement that that was a straight-payoff. Then again, with the (R)'s becoming the "Party of No" and there being no attempt made by them to negotiate or reach a workable bipartisan solution, hands got forced. Not saying that makes it "okay" or anything, but I'm not sure you can place the entirety of the blame soley on the one party trying to get stuff done.

It's hard to dismiss the stance by the Republican party when they are the ones currently siding with the majority of Americans on this current bill. There's nothing wrong with saying 'No'. And we have a big difference of opinion on what constitutes 'trying to get stuff done'. Doing things for the sake of doing them isn't accomplishing anything. We also differ on what should be done when 'hands are forced'. I don't believe that the best way to resolve that is to give away billions in taxpayer dollars to secure votes. That's extremely counter-productive and doesn't "change" anything.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I disagree. I'd actually like to give credit where credit is due - notice in the second link he prefaces it by saying "claim" and in the first one there's no editorializing.

KUDOS TO MBBF

Claim that George Bush was involved in 9/11 planning.........

Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack -- HIGH TREASON

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's hard to dismiss the stance by the Republican party when they are the ones currently siding with the majority of Americans on this current bill. There's nothing wrong with saying 'No'. And we have a big difference of opinion on what constitutes 'trying to get stuff done'. Doing things for the sake of doing them isn't accomplishing anything. We also differ on what should be done when 'hands are forced'. I don't believe that the best way to resolve that is to give away billions in taxpayer dollars to secure votes. That's extremely counter-productive and doesn't "change" anything.

We disagree that the Republican party is siding with the majority of Americans on the need for healthcare reform. As far as this current bill - it's certainly very flawed. But the way to fix that and make it a better bill is not through a straight yes/no vote, but through submitting ideas and working to craft a better bill (something you admitted earlier that you were frustrated the Republicans hadn't done in this very case).

It's not "doing something for the sake of doing something." It's "doing something because the healthcare system in this country is broken - too many medical bankruptcies, too many people without coverage, too many people with coverage paying too high a % of their wages."

We don't differ on what should be done when hands are forced - I agree it's despicable. Not sure what the alternative was though given the situation. And it's disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't happen with every bill that goes through Congress to a degree. It's also disingenuous to say "billions" as if it was billions of dollars in one year.

That being said - if Republicans were willing to work with Democrats and actually engage in constructive dialogue and work to try to make a bipartisan bill then there wouldn't have had to be this massive giveaway to Nebraska.

Of course you'll say "they didn't want to work with them because they don't think there's a need for reform."

And that's where the majority of Americans disagree. And we can both cite polls till we're blue in the face that are slanted by their questions either way to show that.

Above and beyond that though, the number of uninsured, and the number of medical bankruptcies in this country, and the rising cost of health-insurance on the middle-class (which you are a member of let's not forget), seem to offer fairly ironclad proof that healthcare reform is long overdue.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It has? We're 100 years in and still can't find a way to offer a car to the public not powered by fossil fuels and combustible engines. We haven't seen a MPG advance in 25 years and cars really haven't added much but some luxury features since the 50's. The biggest advance we've seen has been in the area of safety, which actually has more to do with the government forcing car companies into it than them doing it on their own.

Actually, the reason MPG hasn't improved is because the size of our cars and our "need" for high horsepower engines. Capitalists only give you what you want, so if you want an SUV or a mini-van with 300 horsepower so Mom can feel "safe" when she's trying to to yield into oncoming traffic on the highway, well, that's what you get. Seems that no one really wants a 45 MPG, 70 horsepower Volkswagen Rabbit anymore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

We disagree that the Republican party is siding with the majority of Americans on the need for healthcare reform.

Well, that's somewhat of a "duh" statement. I'm for healthcare reform if that's the only stipulation in your question. When you start mentioning the specifics, that's where the support plummets.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And it's disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't happen with every bill that goes through Congress to a degree. It's also disingenuous to say "billions" as if it was billions of dollars in one year.

I don't care what happens. I'm opposed to ALL palm-greasing on ALL sides and the only way to slow that down is to shame these people when they do it.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That being said - if Republicans were willing to work with Democrats and actually engage in constructive dialogue and work to try to make a bipartisan bill then there wouldn't have had to be this massive giveaway to Nebraska.

There's only so many ways you can be constructive when being handed a lousy bill. That doesn't justify giving away millions to one state to secure a vote. That's not constructive in any way.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Above and beyond that though, the number of uninsured, and the number of medical bankruptcies in this country, and the rising cost of health-insurance on the middle-class (which you are a member of let's not forget), seem to offer fairly ironclad proof that healthcare reform is long overdue.

I've mentioned it before in a previous discussion, but perhaps you missed it. I am not a member of the middle-class. I'm a taxpayer who's family income puts us in the top taxpayer bracket. I'm also soon to be a small business owner and this bill could directly effect how many people I will be hiring this summer when we open in addition to changes in my personal income. I'm Obama's personal piggybank.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't care what happens. I'm opposed to ALL palm-greasing on ALL sides and the only way to slow that down is to shame these people when they do it.


There's only so many ways you can be constructive when being handed a lousy bill. That doesn't justify giving away millions to one state to secure a vote. That's not constructive in any way.



I've mentioned it before in a previous discussion, but perhaps you missed it. I am not a member of the middle-class. I'm a taxpayer who's family income puts us in the top taxpayer bracket. I'm also soon to be a small business owner and this bill could directly effect how many people I will be hiring this summer when we open in addition to changes in my personal income. I'm Obama's personal piggybank.

#1 - We very much agree here.

#2 - Pretty much the same as #1, we agree here. Although I disagree there aren't ways to be constructive if handed a bill you disagree with. At worst though if you refuse to be constructive then you abrogate the right to complain about the outcome.

#3 - Nope, must have missed that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

At worst though if you refuse to be constructive then you abrogate the right to complain about the outcome.

Totally disagree with this. If you call it a shit sandwich and it's passed into law and people find out you were right, you certainly can complain about the outcome. Just because the people forcing through the shit sandwich law refused to believe you doesn't change that you called it a shit sandwich.

Edit: Assuming it actually becomes a shit sandwich of course.

[JPhillips]

The GOP wasn't just handed a bill they couldn't vote for. The Senate bill in particular was open to months of negotiations with the GOP, but they refused to negotiate in good faith. Voting against the final product isn't the problem(although I do wonder where the love of an up or down vote went). The problem is their complete refusal to play any part in the process other than hyperbolic fear mongers.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The problem is their complete refusal to play any part in the process other than hyperbolic fear mongers.

Which simply isn't the case. Even the democrats have mentioned that multiple amendments proposed by GOP members in both sides of the Senate have been accepted into the bill. The GOP as a whole is opposed to several major parts of the bill, but saying that they haven't participated is simply false.

[JPhillips]

From the very beginning the decision was made that obstructing and hopefully killing any health reform was better than compromising on anything.

At the very beginning of the process Obama had GOP leaders over to the White House to ask on what issues they were willing to compromise. Their answer was none.

During the Baucus negotiations Grassley said he could get everything he wanted in the bill and he'd still vote against it.

Seniority and committee assignments were threatened against anyone who voted for the HCR.

But of course this is just replaying the strategy from the nineties when Frank Luntz warned the GOP that a good healthcare reform bill could seriously harm the GOP for a generation or more.