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

[pirate]

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.

Bob - if they get rid of the South then no more SEC...you should be all for that!!!

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Bob - if they get rid of the South then no more SEC...you should be all for that!!!

I previously conceded that that is a positive aspect of getting rid of the south. On the other hand, getting rid of New York and New England means we lose all those obnoxious Yankees and Red Sox fans! Maybe both regions should go!

 

[Priceless]

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

And we don't want to regulate and tax you out of existence.

Which is why in recent decades, a lot of new businesses, or foreign businesses setting up shop in the U.S. have chosen southern locations. The Japanese car companies are one of the most obvious examples.

My previous employer operated a center in Portland, ME as well as one in Wichita. They switched our jobs to a new center in Irving. Why? Because they were stuck paying us $11+/hr and benefits. They could pay the new staff $7.25/hr and no benefits. I know because they were kind enough to let us keep our jobs if we reduced our compensation by half and moved to the middle of nowhere. Great deal! Oh, and it's not about taxes or regulations because five years later they still own the building and have a business presence here.

Auto makers build in the southern states because they can pay their work force considerably less. Rather than drag the rest of the nation (or the world) down to the lowest common standard of living, I'd rather see them elevate their standard of living. If we want to eliminate clean water, clean air, the minimum wage, safety standards, a 40-hour work week and let kids work then we can all have the living conditions of a third-world village. I'd rather see everyone play by the same rules and we all do better. But that's probably Socialism or Communism or some other -ism that people should be afraid of.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

My previous employer operated a center in Portland, ME as well as one in Wichita. They switched our jobs to a new center in Irving. Why? Because they were stuck paying us $11+/hr and benefits. They could pay the new staff $7.25/hr and no benefits. I know because they were kind enough to let us keep our jobs if we reduced our compensation by half and moved to the middle of nowhere. Great deal! Oh, and it's not about taxes or regulations because five years later they still own the building and have a business presence here.

Auto makers build in the southern states because they can pay their work force considerably less. Rather than drag the rest of the nation (or the world) down to the lowest common standard of living, I'd rather see them elevate their standard of living. If we want to eliminate clean water, clean air, the minimum wage, safety standards, a 40-hour work week and let kids work then we can all have the living conditions of a third-world village. I'd rather see everyone play by the same rules and we all do better. But that's probably Socialism or Communism or some other -ism that people should be afraid of.

I can't speak to your personal situation, obviously. With the auto industry, which is a large high profile example, Detroit has been getting its lunch eaten, both due to bad management, but also due to ridiculously high labor costs and high costs overall. Honda or Toyota would have been crazy to locate a plant in Detroit and have to deal with the local problems you'd encounter there. My understanding is that auto workers in the south still earn a good wage, just not the hyperinflated wages the UAW expects based on business conditions 40 years ago. You can complain about jobs shifting to lower cost locations, and that is a concern, but at least some states/communities do little to try to reduce cost burdens on businesses, and then they can't believe when someone moves out of town.

If you think taxes and regulations don't impact the business locations, well, then I guess you probably don't think anything else that impacts their ability to do business and earn a profit impacts business locations.

 

[Kepler]

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

And we don't want to regulate and tax you out of existence.

So, they pay their employees less and have unsafe working conditions.

The northeast used to have a very pro-business climate:

 

[Bob Gray]

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

So, they pay their employees less and have unsafe working conditions.

The northeast used to have a very pro-business climate:

You all are really living in the past, between all the civil war era talk and ancient news articles that have no relation to today's conditions.

I'm not sure how more reasonable tax burdens lead to unsafe working conditions? I guess I don't watch enough MSNBC to understand such theories.

 

[Kepler]

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

On the other hand, getting rid of New York and New England means we lose all those obnoxious Yankees and Red Sox fans!

A salary cap would accomplish the same thing.

 

[Kepler]

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

I'm not sure how more reasonable tax burdens lead to unsafe working conditions? I guess I don't watch enough MSNBC to understand such theories.

The word was "regulate." "Onerous regulation" is corporate speak for child labor laws.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

A salary cap would accomplish the same thing.

Getting rid of New York and New England is probably the more likely thing to happen though.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

The word was "regulate." "Onerous regulation" is corporate speak for child labor laws.

In whose dictionary? You think anytime someone talks about onerous regulation it's only about child labor laws? Oh, please, that's only one of many possibilities when speaking of onerous regulation, and probably not one most people would think of.

 

[Kepler]

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

Getting rid of New York and New England is probably the more likely thing to happen though.

Ahmed is planning it in his cave as we speak.

A few more years of the Boston-New York axis of boredom and A.L. revenue outisde those cities will be $0. At that point, there will be a salary cap.

And yes, I am just bitter because my team has all the unfair benefits of a huge market and STILL SUCKS!

 

[blockski]

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

I'd argue that the atmosphere we currently have is created primarily by those who have dominated the debate, those who will broker little or no questioning or discussion other than that it is fact and people should blindly accept whatever their latest tweek of their global warming model says as gospel truth. The way scientists hold themselves as above questioning or reproach reminds me of how the media claim with a straight face that they don't let their personal biases influence how they report things. To question global warming in today's hyperheated atmosphere is to become an instant pariah and to very possibly lose your job and many prospects of future employment. I instinctively react against people who won't broker questioning of their conclusions, and there are few cases where this has been as prevalent as in the global warming arena. My experience in life is that when there is such a mad rush to suddenly claim something is beyond question, it almost certainly will later be found to be overhyped and badly misrepresented. And I will note that there are some reasonable voices out there that will admit that there is much to learn and that are much more measured in their claims. But sadly, those are the exception, not the rule.

The climate change proponents dominate the debate because, well, the facts are on their side. They dominate the debate in the same way that doctors and scientists dominated the debate over Big Tobacco.

Deniers aren't real skeptics, they're using rhetorical devices to attack the falsifiability and uncertainty of science. They use the very principles that enable science to determine fact against it in the realm of public opinion.

Here's the thing about science, Bob. Science welcomes people to question its conclusions - that's what the whole scientific process is about. But those questions have to logical, they have to be structured, and they have to actually make sense.

And, when all is said and done, the deniers have not yet produced a shred of real evidence that disputes the body of reseearch showing that human-based greenhouse gases are significantly changing our climate. The deniers cannot produce a competing hypothesis to explain the data we've observed and the information we have. They haven't done so for two reasons - 1), that alternative hypothesis where humans aren't causing this just isn't true, and 2), they don't need to produce an alternative hypothesis to obfuscate and introduce doubt into the public (not the scientific) debate, just as Big Tobacco didn't need real evidence to argue for years that we don't know cigarettes cause cancer.

Do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, Bob? Why or why not?

 

[Kepler]

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

Deniers aren't real skeptics, they're using rhetorical devices to attack the falsifiability and uncertainty of science. They use the very principles that enable science to determine fact against it in the realm of public opinion.

See also: Creationists and their extraordinary mendacity when discussing what "theory" means.

The GOP is only anti-science when there's donor money in it. Notice how all over brilliant pebbles they were even though it was based almost completely on b.s., rigged tests, and wish-fulfillment. Their stances are decided strictly by who's paying.

Speaking of how those folks operate, not a single Republican elected official has joined "It Gets Better." If it would be too politically damaging to you to give people hope against bullying, maybe you should consider appealing to a less vicious political base.

 

[Foxton]

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

See also: Creationists and their extraordinary mendacity when discussing what "theory" means.

It's just a theory!

Wanna see what happens to planets when you get too much green house gases floating around? Check out Venus where the surface temperature is a balmy 900 degrees at 90 times Earth's atmospheric pressure.

 

[Kepler]

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

It's just a theory!

Wanna see what happens to planets when you get too much green house gases floating around? Check out Venus where the surface temperature is a balmy 900 degrees at 90 times Earth's atmospheric pressure.

Yeah, but that wasn't done by humans, so there's your refutation of global warming right there.

"Those moons are in your telescope."

 

[walrus]

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

The climate change proponents dominate the debate because, well, the facts are on their side. ?

So is the money, follow the money

 

[Bob Gray]

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

The climate change proponents dominate the debate because, well, the facts are on their side. They dominate the debate in the same way that doctors and scientists dominated the debate over Big Tobacco.

Deniers aren't real skeptics, they're using rhetorical devices to attack the falsifiability and uncertainty of science. They use the very principles that enable science to determine fact against it in the realm of public opinion.

Here's the thing about science, Bob. Science welcomes people to question its conclusions - that's what the whole scientific process is about. But those questions have to logical, they have to be structured, and they have to actually make sense.

And, when all is said and done, the deniers have not yet produced a shred of real evidence that disputes the body of reseearch showing that human-based greenhouse gases are significantly changing our climate. The deniers cannot produce a competing hypothesis to explain the data we've observed and the information we have. They haven't done so for two reasons - 1), that alternative hypothesis where humans aren't causing this just isn't true, and 2), they don't need to produce an alternative hypothesis to obfuscate and introduce doubt into the public (not the scientific) debate, just as Big Tobacco didn't need real evidence to argue for years that we don't know cigarettes cause cancer.

Do you believe that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, Bob? Why or why not?

You are very naive.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

See also: Creationists and their extraordinary mendacity when discussing what "theory" means.

The GOP is only anti-science when there's donor money in it. Notice how all over brilliant pebbles they were even though it was based almost completely on b.s., rigged tests, and wish-fulfillment. Their stances are decided strictly by who's paying.

Speaking of how those folks operate, not a single Republican elected official has joined "It Gets Better." If it would be too politically damaging to you to give people hope against bullying, maybe you should consider appealing to a less vicious political base.

As compared to evolution and the many gaping holes in the evolution "theory" that has gradually morphed into being fact. To claim it is even a theory anymore that cna be challenged is to get clobbered by the media, etc. as being backward, unscientific, etc. What a sad state of affairs. I swear the ability of the American public to rationally think through issues is in serious decline.

 

[blockski]

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

You are very naive.

There you go with the rhetoric again, Bob.

If you got some facts, let's talk facts.

How about smoking? Do you think it causes cancer, or not? What evidence and information do you base that belief on?

 

[Bob Gray]

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

There you go with the rhetoric again, Bob.

If you got some facts, let's talk facts.

How about smoking? Do you think it causes cancer, or not? What evidence and information do you base that belief on?

If I thought there was one iota of openness in you to have a reasonable discussion, I'd answer your questions. But I've found you're modus operandi is to attack me if I don't parrot the things you believe.