Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Tea Party and Science


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Tea Party and Science Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/20/2013 5:18:29 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/20/2013 9:12:05 PM   
NoBimbosAllowed


Posts: 1450
Joined: 9/19/2013
Status: offline 		Kate Ellis is CRINNNNNNNNNNGING

in well deserved shame...

bewah haw haw!

_____________________________

It's all about the curvature of the female azzzzzzzzzzz, meaning Niki Minaj and Serena Williams and Kate Cerebrano, NEVER Kylie Minogue! Wooden Spoons and Ottoman scenes from Story of O, baby dolls!

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 6:40:10 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 6:58:40 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 7:55:21 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/21/2013 7:57:19 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 9:11:20 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 12:19:19 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
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.


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

_____________________________



(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 12:25:02 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 1:19:10 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 1:51:43 PM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by leonine -- 10/21/2013 1:52:28 PM >

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 5:28:15 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		I cannot begin to elucidate the depths of sheer loathing I have for that repulsive worldview.

You could try

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 5:30:53 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline 		soon tommo, soon

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 5:33:24 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 5:37:26 PM   
deathtothepixies


Posts: 683
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline 		not that soon

(in reply to deathtothepixies)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/21/2013 6:50:46 PM   
NoBimbosAllowed


Posts: 1450
Joined: 9/19/2013
Status: offline
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".





_____________________________

It's all about the curvature of the female azzzzzzzzzzz, meaning Niki Minaj and Serena Williams and Kate Cerebrano, NEVER Kylie Minogue! Wooden Spoons and Ottoman scenes from Story of O, baby dolls!

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/22/2013 8:35:42 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/22/2013 8:44:23 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/22/2013 9:14:21 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/22/2013 9:26:05 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Not true....the "tea party" are the republicans farthest to the right...

And, don't forget, they're all racists. Racists!


Now you know that the "T" stands for.

K.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Tea Party and Science - 10/22/2013 10:20:23 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by kdsub -- 10/22/2013 10:21:36 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Tea Party and Science Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125