Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

But you have to ask: who actually benefits from this screwed-up state of affairs? The only people who benefit are those who have concrete interests in opposing any changes to the status quo. Who don't want any part of a genuine debate. That's why, to me, this isn't a Jon Stewart-esque case of "a pox on both their houses." One 'side' of the debate most definitely benefits from the current state of discourse - and it isn't science.

The other side's game has been reduced to delay, not outright denial -- the more dust they can kick up, the more years they can rake in profits without paying for externalities. They are at about 1975, "nobody can prove smoking causes cancer." They've got another 5-10 years before the gig is up.

The evolution is:

10 years research, 01-29% evidence against: (no argument at all)
20 years research, 30-69% evidence against: "There are radical theorists but they are a tiny minority."
30 years research, 70-99% evidence against: "Let's not rush to judgment."

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

]...to a greater extent, New England, views, is quite silly and potentially offensive.

Not many views I find offensive...except maybe the KKK or Westboro.

What about New Englands viewpoint do you find offensive?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, then there's this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

Where the person who came up with that study admitted he was wrong on missing some people, and flat out saying that certain kind of private sector experience doesn't count (like being a Nobel Laureate who ran a lab for a major private research firm).

Shenanigans! You aren't allowed to refute talking points with facts!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

This is part of the problem. The public debate is pretty much a wasteland. Sure, there is overheated rhetoric on the "pro" side of the debate. But the hard core deniers (not the skeptics or the intellectually curious, but the people who know, going in, that climate change shouldn't be true because policy reform hurts their interests) make such vacuous claims and such stupid arguments that it's really difficult NOT to associate genuine skepticism with self-interested denial. The result is that both deniers and skeptics get painted with the same brush by proponents. If anything, this pushes fence-sitters closer to the deniers' position.

But you have to ask: who actually benefits from this screwed-up state of affairs? The only people who benefit are those who have concrete interests in opposing any changes to the status quo. Who don't want any part of a genuine debate. That's why, to me, this isn't a Jon Stewart-esque case of "a pox on both their houses." One 'side' of the debate most definitely benefits from the current state of discourse - and it isn't science.

Well, Al Gore is making a killing financially. There are enormous benefits being reaped by both the scientists who research this, and the investors/businessmen who are involved in green products that are supposed to help the situation. There are massive financial interests on both sides. A lot of people just don't realize it because the media focuses almost exclusively on big bad industry.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Not many views I find offensive...except maybe the KKK or Westboro.

What about New Englands viewpoint do you find offensive?

That's not what he wrote.

Really, the whole idea of considering that the South shouldn't be a part of the U.S. because it doesn't match midwest, and to a greater extent, New England, views, is quite silly and potentially offensive.

He's offended by us wanting to hack away the south. He doesn't seem to understand we are joking, unlike the dunderheaded demagogues of Dixie who monotonously "threaten" secession.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Not many views I find offensive...except maybe the KKK or Westboro.

What about New Englands viewpoint do you find offensive?

I think you are misreading what I wrote. I'm saying it's silly and potentially offensive to talk about getting rid of the south because they don't match viewpoints, such as those from New England, when you could just as easily turn the tables 180 degrees and say we should get rid of New England and keep the south.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

That's not what he wrote.



He's offended by us wanting to hack off the rotten limb. He doesn't seem to understand we are joking, unlike the thundering demogogues of Dixie who monotonously threaten secession.

You also missed what I wrote about understanding this is fun to joke about, but if people are really serious it's ridiculous. If I was being real serious, I wouldn't have thrown in an SEC reference, as that hardly helps anyone's case in arguing to keep the South!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You also missed what I wrote about understanding this is fun to joke about, but if people are really serious it's ridiculous. If I was being real serious, I wouldn't have thrown in an SEC reference, as that hardly helps anyone's case in arguing to keep the South!

Oh yeah? Well, you quoted me too quickly before I fixed my alliteration.

This should end any debate about whether we should keep the South:

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

He doesn't seem to understand we are joking, unlike the thundering demogogues of Dixie who monotonously threaten secession.

Well, some of you are joking. A handful of us would really like to see the South secede (again) and then the United States can make them a protectorate in five years when their economy goes completely to ****.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Oh yeah? Well, you quoted me too quickly before I completed my alliteration.

Sorry. I'll try to be like those slow southerners you all are a might bit fond of.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Sorry. I'll try to be like those slow southerners you all are a might bit fond of.

You're already eliminated. You turned the Google Machine on.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I think you are misreading what I wrote. I'm saying it's silly and potentially offensive to talk about getting rid of the south because they don't match viewpoints, such as those from New England, when you could just as easily turn the tables 180 degrees and say we should get rid of New England and keep the south.

Potentially offensive? Since when did you turn into the P.C. police?

Besides, most Southerners still call it the War of Northern Aggression and wish they could secede.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, some of you are joking. A handful of us would really like to see the South secede (again) and then the United States can make them a protectorate in five years when their economy goes completely to ****.

Well, they're already a failed state. I'd say they pretty much are a Protectorate. It's as if the teens in your house -- low education, no jobs, no income, only thinking about sex and drinking -- were considered legal equals in ownership of the house.

It makes sense that the places hard core fundamentalism flourishes are the places with the worst self-inflicted problems and the most pressing need for an external, authoritarian source of social control. The rest of us have figured out how to set our own goals and boundaries.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You're already eliminated. You turned the Google Machine on.

Don't know what this is.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Potentially offensive? Since when did you turn into the P.C. police?

Besides, most Southerners still call it the War of Northern Aggression and wish they could secede.

Don't worry. I won't take that job from you. And don't tell me you don't understand what I meant by potentially offensive. Although we don't agree sometimes, I know you're smarter than that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, they're already a failed state. I'd say they pretty much are a Protectorate. It's as if the teens in your house -- low education, no jobs, no income, only thinking about sex and drinking -- were considered legal equals in ownership of the house.

It makes sense that the places hard core fundamentalism flourishes are the places with the worst self-inflicted problems and the most pressing need for an external, authoritarian source of social control. The rest of us have figured out how to set our own goals and boundaries.

I chuckled, and then realized that there are people out there who actually believe this sort of bollocks.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Don't know what this is.

Tony Kornheiser makes fun of his own techno-illiteracy by calling his computer "the Google Machine." It is actually a malaprop because it connotes "old people" more than "slow people." Of course, there are those of us who are both.

On the subject of southern slowness, there is actually a great expression used by southerners that roughly means, "playing it slow so that the yankees will underestimate you," Often used in business dealings to devastating effect.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I chuckled, and then realized that there are people out there who actually believe this sort of bollocks.

Well, you know what they say about stereotypes...

There is a true correlation between the more uncompromising fundamentalist religious extremes and bad social and economic conditions, but correlation is not, of course, causality. All kidding aside, I don't think it's a reach to hypothesize that if you are already religious traumatic circumstances can make you far more religious -- this seems to happen all the time with survivors of tragedies. There is also a "Savior Effect," where people who come from highly tempestuous circumstances often find the structure to get their life together through religious observance. "There but for the grace of God go I" is meant quite literally by many people who have stared down very nasty demons.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, some of you are joking. A handful of us would really like to see the South secede (again) and then the United States can make them a protectorate in five years when their economy goes completely to ****.

Generally speaking, the South has stronger economies than the North. There is a net migration south in the country right now. Just look at how many congressional seats they will be gaining. If it wasn't for TX and LA the unemployment rate in the country would be even worse. I'm not saying that either north or south is better, but the smugness here is pretty amazing.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Well, they're already a failed state. I'd say they pretty much are a Protectorate. It's as if the teens in your house -- low education, no jobs, no income, only thinking about sex and drinking -- were considered legal equals in ownership of the house.

It makes sense that the places hard core fundamentalism flourishes are the places with the worst self-inflicted problems and the most pressing need for an external, authoritarian source of social control. The rest of us have figured out how to set our own goals and boundaries.

In my system they wouldn't be allowed in the government. After all, they committed treason against this country once and are likely to again. The Germans at least benefited from the Marshall Plan; Reconstruction was canceled before it could take effect. It's against the law to be a Holocaust-denier in Germany; we had to send in federal troops (again) so little black kids could drink from the same water fountain as the little white kids.

Don't know what this is.

A computer.