RE: Tea Party and Science

RE: Tea Party and Science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/20/2013 5:18:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen People hate them because they just tried to destroy the world economy not because they are not beholden to Wall or K streets. Well that's your view. Another view is that Obama could have ended the shutdown any time he wanted by accepting one of the various compromises the House offered. K. So in your opinion half of one branch of government should dictate policy to the rest of government. Do you think that is how the government is supposed to function? No - but it seems to be the dimocrats point of view. Ie., the Senate dictated obamacare must be funded. The republicans made several unforced errors. a). They chose a fight without committing to win. b). They chose a losing fight. c). They chose a fight without measuring the commitment to win. Mcconnel, McCain, graham, - too many others were never going to see it through. Therefore, stupid to fight. However, even worse, this was a deliberate move by the statists. They wanted to destroy the teaparty. And they have more or less succeeded. The internecine warfare between the republicans and the tea party gives the statists pretty much a free reign. And since the dimocrats are a disaster I expect further disaster for our country. Raise taxes. Raise benefits. Require unions, admit Puerto Rico. Increase the power of the state. Borrow more money. Continue the polarization.... Continue funding democrat cronies. Congrats, dims. You won.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/20/2013 9:12:05 PM)
Kate Ellis is CRINNNNNNNNNNGING in well deserved shame... bewah haw haw!

DesideriScuri -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 6:40:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The tea party, along with most extreme Right wing groups, profess a disdain for Wall St, which is commendable. Unfortunately that disdain is not evident in the tea party' s solutions - lower taxes for the rich, abolishing services to assist the marginalised, opposition to universal healthcare, abolishing environmental protections, promotion of a kind of lassez-faire capitalism etc. - are all policies designed to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. What else might one expect from a movement created and funded by extreme right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers? There's no need for Wall St to purchase such groups, they already sup willingly, enthusiastically at the altar of laissez-faire capitalism, and are there of their own accord. In general, the Tea Party supports lower taxes for everyone. While that certainly does include "the rich," it also includes everyone else. And, it should also be pointed out that the Tea Party also supports less government intrusion into daily life, and less of a presence in the Markets. The idea that the Federal Government shouldn't have the breadth and depth in everything is the key to reducing Wall Street's power in government. Reduce the scope of government and you'll reduce the incentive for business to buy government. Occupy Wall Street wanted to prevent Wall Street from buying Congress. The Tea Party wants to prevent Congress from being "buyable." Both want to reduce the strength in the relationship between Big Biz and Big Gov, but both are going after it in different ways. If Government can be bought, Wall Street will buy it. That's where the OWS movement failed, imo.

RacerJim -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 6:58:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen People hate them because they just tried to destroy the world economy not because they are not beholden to Wall or K streets. Well that's your view. Another view is that Obama could have ended the shutdown any time he wanted by accepting one of the various compromises the House offered. K. So in your opinion half of one branch of government should dictate policy to the rest of government. Do you think that is how the government is supposed to function? So in your opinion one person in one of the three branches of the Federal government should DICTATE policy to the rest of the Federal government by adamantly and repeatedly telling the other two branches it's his way or no way? Do you think that is how a Democratic Republic is supposed to function? BTW: The half of one branch of the Federal government, the House half of Congress, is specifically designated by the U.S. Constitution as the "holder of the purse strings" and, therefore, Constitutionally-speaking it's incumbent upon the POTUS to compromise with the House on budget matters not the other way around.

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 7:55:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim So in your opinion one person in one of the three branches of the Federal government should DICTATE policy to the rest of the Federal government by adamantly and repeatedly telling the other two branches it's his way or no way? Do you think that is how a Democratic Republic is supposed to function? BTW: The half of one branch of the Federal government, the House half of Congress, is specifically designated by the U.S. Constitution as the "holder of the purse strings" and, therefore, Constitutionally-speaking it's incumbent upon the POTUS to compromise with the House on budget matters not the other way around. This is such a stupid argument. Obama was elected on a platform that highlighted the introduction of broad based health care system. The US electorate gave Obama a mandate to introduce his healthcare system, it has passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the President, all in accordance with the Constitution as determined by SCOTUS. For any one to claim that introducing Obamacare is dictatorial is utter nonsense. The American people mandated its introduction democratically.

Yachtie -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 9:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The American people mandated its introduction democratically. Two wolves, one sheep. It's the minority being dictated to by the majority. Not dictatorial by definition, but, well, that's democracy for you.[:D]

tweakabelle -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 12:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The American people mandated its introduction democratically. Two wolves, one sheep. It's the minority being dictated to by the majority. Not dictatorial by definition, but, well, that's democracy for you.[:D] Yes, that's democracy for you. And there's your problem in a single word. "You don't like a particular policy or a particular president?" taunted Obama last week. "Go out there and win an election." The trouble is Republicans can't because their racially charged rhetoric alienates minorities, leaving them more electorally isolated, prompting defeat – which leaves them ever more divided. Meanwhile, their reckless obstruction in Congress, which nearly triggered a default, makes the nation's descent into chaos more likely. Unable to come to terms with the country in which they live, they are complicit in creating the very future they most fear." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/20/race-central-fear-angst-us-right

kdsub -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 12:25:02 PM)
It also wants to abandon the sick, disabled, uneducated, and poor...for what... A strong military and lower taxes. And they have the audacity to call themselves Christians. Butch

Yachtie -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 1:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Yes, that's democracy for you. And there's your problem in a single word. If the majority of people in this country wish to vote and spend themselves and the country into irrelevance, who is anyone to stop them? My only request is to those who do, that they not cry when what they get is far from what they thought they would. [;)]

leonine -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 1:51:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Disputing science is not a bad thing. It is when the dispute comes from a place of ignorance. The place of ignorance is believing in human caused global warming when the fact of the matter is that humans weren't around to end the last ice-age. If you really believe that scientists do not take stuff like that into account, then it demonstrates clearly your ignorance on the science. One of the very first questions asked about twenty years ago, was whether the effects of climate change were not simply just the normal 'heat/cooling' cycle the planet has gone through previously. The evidence then and more importantly now, show this is not a normal cycle but something else entirely. Scientists did not come out and just say "oh, its all the humans fault". They had to remove variables from the equation, and test the concept a multitude times over. Its all there in the hundreds of thousands of journals to be had in any decent scientifically accredited college or university. Go have a read. Actually, you are completely, factually wrong. The 2007 IPCC report did not do that. Quite the opposite. It said, in effect - we can't imagine any other cause for global warming - so it must be AGW. Rather than read "hundreds of thousands" of journals - why don't you just go read the 2007 IPCC. I particularly liked the part about the melting himalayans - based on not a single scientific journal. Or how about the multiple sections that quoted unpublished, un peer reviewed - science. But of course, since you only listen to your echo chamber you don't know anything about that. The reason it wasn't considered twenty years ago is that it had already been considered FORTY years ago and dealt with to the satisfaction of everyone but the professional deniers. One of the reasons you don't understand climate change is that you imagine the theory was created out of nowhere by some room full of eggheads the week before it first hit the popular press. AGW was first formulated in the 1970s, and back then it was a crazy crank theory, because the orthodox theory said (just like your friends say now) that climate is way too massive a system to possibly be affected by human activity. But the truth of scientific theories is not measured by how well they fit some political orthodoxy: it's measured by whether they make predictions that come true. And the predictions that the AGW theory made kept on coming true, while the predictions that the old orthodoxy made kept on going wrong, until everyone in the field who wasn't paid to believe otherwise was convinced it must be true. At which point the scientists started telling the governments that something had to be done or we were all fucked, and the governments realised that if they did what the scientists said was needful then their big corporate donors would be fucked, and it suddenly changed from being a scientific issue into being a political one. But before that, while the scientists were still free to do their research and write their peer reviewed papers without being fired or getting death threats from the denier brigade, they had exhaustively explored all these issues like solar activity and historical climate cycles, because most experts don't abandon the theory they believed all their lives without checking really carefully. Which is why they tend to roll their eyes when people say things like "But couldn't it be part of the natural cycle?" because that's like asking a doctor if he thought to check the patient's pulse.

thompsonx -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 5:28:15 PM)
I cannot begin to elucidate the depths of sheer loathing I have for that repulsive worldview. You could try[8\|]

deathtothepixies -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 5:30:53 PM)
soon tommo, soon

thompsonx -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 5:33:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Two wolves, one sheep. It's the minority being dictated to by the majority. Would it be preferable for the minority to dictate to the majority?

deathtothepixies -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 5:37:26 PM)
not that soon

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/21/2013 6:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim So in your opinion one person in one of the three branches of the Federal government should DICTATE policy to the rest of the Federal government by adamantly and repeatedly telling the other two branches it's his way or no way? Do you think that is how a Democratic Republic is supposed to function? BTW: The half of one branch of the Federal government, the House half of Congress, is specifically designated by the U.S. Constitution as the "holder of the purse strings" and, therefore, Constitutionally-speaking it's incumbent upon the POTUS to compromise with the House on budget matters not the other way around. This is such a stupid argument. Obama was elected on a platform that highlighted the introduction of broad based health care system. The US electorate gave Obama a mandate to introduce his healthcare system, it has passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the President, all in accordance with the Constitution as determined by SCOTUS. For any one to claim that introducing Obamacare is dictatorial is utter nonsense. The American people mandated its introduction democratically. Hey, Racer Jim? before worrying too much about the above lambast towards your point, take into account this news: http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/lifelong-alp-mans-exit-an-indictment-of-his-party/story-e6frg75f-1226653288685&sa=U&ei=_dZlUuHqIYmCkQXl0oGgBw&ved=0CCgQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNFDBSqrgu1q3EEEdz0SjaCMIM3mkg I am not at all against a socialized medical system, but the fact is that whingeling pol-correct folks tend to vote more for scenarios which are good for their wannabe-foodie middleclass pals, while hypocritically launching polemics against fiscal conservatives for doing the same thing, and in both cases, tax dollars are abused. Luckily for you, racer, you don't live in Leichardt, where elderly people who put money into the system their entire lives can't have proper respect, medically, after the last 5 years of government. Neither can they even push their shopping trolleys home, as they need to, with what food they can afford. Because the mayor has said that shopping trolleys trundling down the street are an eyesore. Well, not to people who need to budget their food after fiscal mis-management, they're not. But to people that sneer at what colour shoes you wear before or after labour day, or can wank-tastically pretend to be "green" by having their own cow butchered privately, yes, those nasty old people and their trollies are an eye-sore. you might like this satirical piece, thankfully tax-payer funded, Racer Jim : http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/october/1380549600/benjamin-law/eddie-perfect-unleashes-beast&sa=U&ei=X9llUpaEAYuKkwWSlYHIDQ&ved=0CB0QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGCph9kYUe1a_eqo28CcGdEAv55OQ it's very much a piss-take on people who mistakenly think they do good in the world by turning off a light for an hour on Earth Day while pumping a gazillion units of carbon into the atmosphere by being pseudo-sophisticated "foodie-wanks".

thishereboi -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/22/2013 8:35:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub It also wants to abandon the sick, disabled, uneducated, and poor...for what... A strong military and lower taxes. And they have the audacity to call themselves Christians. Butch Well according the some on the left, that is all they want to do. But I haven't seen any actual facts to back up that bullshit lie. I also haven't heard them call themselves Christians though I would assume that many of them are. Not sure why you even brought that up [8\|]

Owner59 -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/22/2013 8:44:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The tea party, along with most extreme Right wing groups, profess a disdain for Wall St, which is commendable. Unfortunately that disdain is not evident in the tea party' s solutions - lower taxes for the rich, abolishing services to assist the marginalised, opposition to universal healthcare, abolishing environmental protections, promotion of a kind of lassez-faire capitalism etc. - are all policies designed to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. What else might one expect from a movement created and funded by extreme right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers? There's no need for Wall St to purchase such groups, they already sup willingly, enthusiastically at the altar of laissez-faire capitalism, and are there of their own accord. In general, the Tea Party supports lower taxes for everyone. While that certainly does include "the rich," it also includes everyone else. And, it should also be pointed out that the Tea Party also supports less government intrusion into daily life, and less of a presence in the Markets. The idea that the Federal Government shouldn't have the breadth and depth in everything is the key to reducing Wall Street's power in government. Reduce the scope of government and you'll reduce the incentive for business to buy government. Occupy Wall Street wanted to prevent Wall Street from buying Congress. The Tea Party wants to prevent Congress from being "buyable." Both want to reduce the strength in the relationship between Big Biz and Big Gov, but both are going after it in different ways. If Government can be bought, Wall Street will buy it. That's where the OWS movement failed, imo. Not true....the "tea party" are the republicans farthest to the right and support/vote for higher taxes on middle income earned by labor while supporting lower taxes on high income earners.....in spite of the fact that most teabaggers are middle income earners. The wanting "lower taxes for all Americans" is just the standard boiler-plate gop bullshit that they religiously regurgitate.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/22/2013 9:14:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The tea party, along with most extreme Right wing groups, profess a disdain for Wall St, which is commendable. Unfortunately that disdain is not evident in the tea party' s solutions - lower taxes for the rich, abolishing services to assist the marginalised, opposition to universal healthcare, abolishing environmental protections, promotion of a kind of lassez-faire capitalism etc. - are all policies designed to further the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. What else might one expect from a movement created and funded by extreme right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers? There's no need for Wall St to purchase such groups, they already sup willingly, enthusiastically at the altar of laissez-faire capitalism, and are there of their own accord. In general, the Tea Party supports lower taxes for everyone. While that certainly does include "the rich," it also includes everyone else. And, it should also be pointed out that the Tea Party also supports less government intrusion into daily life, and less of a presence in the Markets. The idea that the Federal Government shouldn't have the breadth and depth in everything is the key to reducing Wall Street's power in government. Reduce the scope of government and you'll reduce the incentive for business to buy government. Occupy Wall Street wanted to prevent Wall Street from buying Congress. The Tea Party wants to prevent Congress from being "buyable." Both want to reduce the strength in the relationship between Big Biz and Big Gov, but both are going after it in different ways. If Government can be bought, Wall Street will buy it. That's where the OWS movement failed, imo. Not true....the "tea party" are the republicans farthest to the right and support/vote for higher taxes on middle income earned by labor while supporting lower taxes on high income earners.....in spite of the fact that most teabaggers are middle income earners. The wanting "lower taxes for all Americans" is just the standard boiler-plate gop bullshit that they religiously regurgitate. Any proof for this swill?

Kirata -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/22/2013 9:26:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Not true....the "tea party" are the republicans farthest to the right... And, don't forget, they're all racists. Racists! [image]local://upfiles/235229/75FF0E449425456CB1C0968F58840A17.jpg[/image] Now you know that the "T" stands for. K.

kdsub -> RE: Tea Party and Science (10/22/2013 10:20:23 AM)
quote: Well according the some on the left, that is all they want to do. But I haven't seen any actual facts to back up that bullshit lie. I also haven't heard them call themselves Christians though I would assume that many of them are. Not sure why you even brought that up Why, may I ask, thishereboi can we not do both? You see in my opinion this is the only problem with the Tea party mentality. I am all for reexamining every taxpayer supported program and eliminating those that are not needed and trimming the fat from those that are. But... to ignore ...or exclude...or forsake those in need just to lower personal obligations in taxes is selfish and anti-Christian. I also want to keep a strong military but I expect to pay for it. We cannot have both with no tax increases. As to religion... I can only go by my experience in the area I live in. In my area Tea Party political representatives are boasting of their Christian heritage and support for no tax increases...gun ownership rights... opposition to Obamacare...and opposition to gay marriage. At the same time they have eliminated or reduced aid to the severely ill and disabled on a state level. As a Christian it sickens me to here them boast of their Christianity when they have no mercy in their greedy souls. Butch

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875