The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

Really tired of the inane Polar Bears are dying off bunk. Polar Bears Article . Lots of objective ( for once ) information about how Polar Bears are faring.

If I said the sun will rise tomorrow, you'd say it was a false, inane statement spread by liberals to swindle money from unwitting citizens to make upper crust liberals billionaires.

Did you even bother to read the article you think proves Polar Bear numbers are not diminishing? First of all, did you not notice the big highlighted Adverisement notice posted in plain sight right in the middle of the page? Second, just because some numbers of bears have increased in a particular location doesn't mean numbers aren't overall lower. Additionally, even the places supposedly with higher numbers than before are misleading. For example, the advertisement's main focus is on Churchill and western Hudson Bay: "Research from 1984 to 2004 showed that the western Hudson Bay population, which includes the Churchill bears, had declined from 1,194 to 935. The trendlines from that study suggested that by 2011, the population would fall to as low as 676. Fast-forward to today and a new study, which reveals that the current polar bear population of western Hudson Bay is 1,013 animals." This 1013 is touted as an increase in the population. However, though it is an increase over the lowest number of 935 somewhere in the 1984-2004 study, it's still a decline from the high of 1194 bears, a 15% drop in total numbers.

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/key-polar-bear-population-plummets-alaska-canada-n250356

 

[RogueWriter]

Actually, I thought the article I posted was a fairly objective article, showing how hard it is to actually get a good count, how some areas have not been counted for decades, how some counts are higher than anticipated - but also that a lot of the bears appear to be underweight, and questioning whether the young will survive at the proper rate. -shrugs-

 

[GILSAN]

Buffalo - NY - Worst in memory: 8 killed as ferocious cold ‘thunder’ snowstorm sweeps through US
http://rt.com/usa/206863-usa-snow-storm-victims/

Al Gore after arriving in Buffalo NY yesterday, to talk about.... "you know what"

 

[Domainace]

Did you even bother to read the article you think proves Polar Bear numbers are not diminishing? First of all, did you not notice the big highlighted Adverisement notice posted in plain sight right in the middle of the page?

Ummm... those are called Google ads. They are not part of the article. The good news is, I guess not everyone suffers from banner ad blindness.

This is the vortex that global warming debates always get sucked into. People arguing over the validity of various scientific studies of complex issues that they know little about. Nobody has the time to study these issues in depth, unless that's their profession. Which is why it comes down to looking at the motives of those who deliver the messages, and the scientists who support them. Follow the money. And these days, a scientist may as well piss on his resume when he/she questions anthropogenic climate change theories. Why risk my research funding when I can simply agree with the masses?

 

[verbster]

Ummm... those are called Google ads. They are not part of the article. The good news is, I guess not everyone suffers from banner ad blindness.

On the computer I'm using, it just shows the highlighted Advertisement. Which seemed to make sense reading about Churchill and the tours and such.

This is the vortex that global warming debates always get sucked into. People arguing over the validity of various scientific studies of complex issues that they know little about. Nobody has the time to study these issues in depth, unless that's their profession. Which is why it comes down to looking at the motives of those who deliver the messages, and the scientists who support them. Follow the money. And these days, a scientist may as well piss on his resume when he/she questions anthropogenic climate change theories. Why risk my research funding when I can simply agree with the masses?[/QUOTE]

In a sense you are right; most people not researching the issue don't know a lot about the topic. But they still offer opinions on the research and the character of the researchers as though their opinion is fact, kind of like your opinion that the scientific results are simply untrue findings that go along with popular opinion in order to protect themselves. Why is it that you can't bring yourself to understand that most scientists put science first. I was lucky enough to work with scientists in the Arctic, and I simply saw a love for science and an attempt to find and collect information that explained the problem and might lead to a solution . . .

In fact, for some scientists, their findings (submitted to the senior directors who are appointed by the governor) were not what the political appointees by the feds and the State wanted to hear, and they lost their jobs because of it.

http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardtel...alaska-based-scientist-and-polar-bear-expert/

 

[Domainace]

I have worked with scientists as well (not in Arctic, thankfully). I know they are mostly motivated by the search for scientific truths. But here's the thing:

1- Most scientists know little more about climate change than the general public. Their field may be entirely unrelated. Yet, such scientists are often quoted.
2- Scientists are as susceptible to peer influences as anyone. If they hear a lot of respected scientists talk about climate change, they are inclined to accept it at face value (unless they are in the field).
3- Scientists in some unrelated fields (say they study snake breeding habits, or hydrogen embrittlement on metals), may have access to more funds if they include some aspect of climate change in their studies, however marginally relevant it may be.
4- Scientists who have demonstrated a willingness to upset the status quo get fewer funds.

There are few scientists on either side willing to wreck their careers. Most compromise. (The article you provided was rather interesting, as it points out Obama's willingness to use the justice department and criminal charges to go after people who oppose or slow down his programs. But that's another kettle of fish.)

 

[verbster]

I have worked with scientists as well (not in Arctic, thankfully). I know they are mostly motivated by the search for scientific truths. But here's the thing:

1- Most scientists know little more about climate change than the general public. Their field may be entirely unrelated. Yet, such scientists are often quoted.

I wouldn't say most because it seems to me that many areas studied by scientists are somehow related that part of their study includes a need to know about climate change, from archaeology to zoology. Naturally, there are fields that aren't connected, but where they are being quoted as experts, I've not seen. Most that I know, if they comment at all in a field not theirs, preface it with that admission.

2- Scientists are as susceptible to peer influences as anyone. If they hear a lot of respected scientists talk about climate change, they are inclined to accept it at face value (unless they are in the field).

And rightly so. "Respected" scientists are respected for good reason. They have no reason to disbelieve such a respected peer.

3- Scientists in some unrelated fields (say they study snake breeding habits, or hydrogen embrittlement on metals), may have access to more funds if they include some aspect of climate change in their studies, however marginally relevant it may be.

I can see how climate change could have an enormous impact snake breeding habits.

4- Scientists who have demonstrated a willingness to upset the status quo get fewer funds.

I'm sure that's so in some cases, but I'm sure the opposite is true, too. A scientist that goes against the grain and proves to be right reaps enormous rewards, from the Nobel to possibly saving millions of lives.

There are few scientists on either side willing to wreck their careers. Most compromise. (The article you provided was rather interesting, as it points out Obama's willingness to use the justice department and criminal charges to go after people who oppose or slow down his programs. But that's another kettle of fish.)

If compromise is the norm because the powers that be will ruin their career, it's not the scientists' fault. We should encourage legitimate dissent and separate it from truly wing-nut nonsense, if possible, but then again, before their theories proved true, many were proclaimed everything from heretics to insane.

Hard to say how much Obama's knowledge or interest (if any) about this case was. Will have to research the end of the story.

 

[JB Lions]

Obama will be addressing the nation shortly:

"In his 8 p.m. address, Obama is expected to say he will stop deportations for a certain group of illegal immigrants"

And Cruz is a bit of a nutball

"On Thursday, looking for a parallel to Obama’s actions, Cruz reached back to ancient Rome, comparing Obama to the Catiline conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the Roman Republic."

Wonder if he felt the same when

"Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986."

Maybe they'll try to shut down the government again

"We went down the government-shutdown route before, and the results didn't hurt the Republicans at all," says Rick Tyler, a onetime spokesman for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Republicans got reelected to the majority."

Guess they care more if it hurts them, not the country.

 

[DU]

 

[DU]

That's my contribution for the day

 

[RogueWriter]

"There are enough laws on the books....that for me to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

Not only does he ignore the mandates of congress, the wishes of a majority of American citizens, he also ignores himself. Worst. President. Ever.

 

[GILSAN]

"There are enough laws on the books....that for me to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

Not only does he ignore the mandates of congress, the wishes of a majority of American citizens, he also ignores himself. Worst. President. Ever.

And the "Emperor" also got a few more million to vote for the Democrats

 

[RogueWriter]

Show attachment 8386

So he trivializes anyone who opposes the liberal plan of spending billions upon billions of dollars that we don't have on technologies that are owned by democrat campaign donors. Hmmmm. Maybe he is part of the problem.

 

[JB Lions]

"There are enough laws on the books....that for me to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

Not only does he ignore the mandates of congress, the wishes of a majority of American citizens, he also ignores himself. Worst. President. Ever.

So most Americans want the Republicans to play games and shut down the government again? How about grow up, act like adults and get some work done. Where is their solution to the problem exactly? Somebody had to step up. They keep bending over for the instigators in the party that just like to stir it up to amuse themselves.

More like Worst. Congress. Ever. They're going expose themselves even more, remind Americans what they're about. They've already started. And you're going to get yet another Democrat President out of it and future changes in Congress.

All this Yippee ki-yay, let's go round us up some immigrants was going to work how exactly? How do you deport a few million people? I've all for tighter borders and legal immigration but how do you deal with the people already here? I'm talking about a real solution. One that I don't remember hearing from anybody on the right. How did you want this to be handled, do you personally want those millions deported?

 

[RogueWriter]

Obama pledging in 2008 not to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress. Griping about Bush trying to accumulate power, lol. Specifically says President should not interpret laws to his advantage. Obama listens to no one, not even himself.

 

[JB Lions]

That was in 2008, things change. I guess he didn't realize he would have to deal with people that had no interest in getting anything done. I notice you dodging the questions, just like Congress. The party of no solutions, just arrows.

 

[GILSAN]

 

[RogueWriter]

".....An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration."

Obama's Priorities

 

[JB Lions]

".....An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration."

Obama's Priorities

So now you're praising Obama for having his priorities straight? Most people would agree felonies tend to be more serious than misdemeanors, so obviously they would get a little higher priority.

 

[GILSAN]

".....An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration."

Obama's Priorities

Sounds like Europe... especially the UK. Pat Condell explains very well how political correctness has reached alarming proportions in the UK, thanks to the.... yes you guessed it, the left