Something to chew on

[Top Gun]

I know some of you will probably be pre-disposed to completely dismiss the source this video comes from. I honestly don't have any stake in it either way myself; I can't think of a time when I've had MSNBC on for more than a minute straight. But no matter your thoughts on the network this is coming from or the person that's saying it, take a listen to what's being said. It gets pretty heavily partisan at times, which I think is a detriment to its message, but try to look past that to the main point, and just think about it:

Let them eat fake

There's a lot of crap being flung around by people on all sides of the spectrum about what's \"hurting America,\" but if there's any one thing I'd single out myself, it's what Rachael Maddow addressed here. The fact that an event which was definitively proven to be patently false can still have far-reaching negative consequences, despite there being no justification for said consequences, is flat-out pathetic. This \"Damn the truth, full steam ahead!\" attitude is, quite frankly, nothing short of disgusting. Yelling one's head off in an effort to drown out facts that undermine one's opinions has never done anything but make the yeller look incredibly foolish. This country has significant issues facing it right now, issues that require reasonable, informed debate and full attention to the facts at hand in order to be properly resolved. But this climate of political gain first, hard data second is nothing short of poison to that process, and I think that's something that cuts across any and all party lines.

(It hasn't been lost on me that some people probably view me as a bleeding-heart liberal based on a few posts I've read recently. Guess that's something to get a good chuckle out of. )

[Pandora]

This country has significant issues facing it right now, issues that require reasonable, informed debate and full attention to the facts at hand in order to be properly resolved. But this climate of political gain first, hard data second is nothing short of poison to that process, and I think that's something that cuts across any and all party lines.

I completely agree with you. Not sure how it happened, but in when I was young the media seemed to provide a good view of the actual truth behind matters (but maybe I was just to naive to see what was actually going on). Now, the media and the partisan lens through which people look at facts, shields the truth more from them than reveal it. It's very disquieting.

The problem is that I don't see this changing anytime soon. For me, the only way out is to focus my attention on one topic (heh, guess what it is) and try to thoroughly understand it. But this takes about half an hour on each day, just to keep up. I don't have the time to this for more than one or two topics, on all the others I feel extremely naive. It is very frustrating.

[The_Traveler]

I'm so glad that a governmental agency made of civilians of the non scientific type people could actually go through all the data and say there was no wrong doing in the Global Warming scandal. You made my mind up.

Edit ACORN is still around just under different names same tax id's

Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment is our local chapter of ACORN just with a different name.

Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
New York Communities for Change
New England United for Justice in Massachusetts
Arkansas Community Organizations.

All ACORN but with different names.

Much like the communist changed their name to socialist then to liberals then to progressives.

Before you try and convince me communist and socialist are different think about The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) it was a constitutionally socialist state. All the those groups believe that Government has all the answers and you're stupid and don't know what is good for yourself so they need to make your decisions for you.

[Will Robinson]

Giving MSNBC credit for including some comments that are reasonable and on point with their otherwise totally biased bull★■◆● is like asking to give Rush Limbaugh credit for doing the same thing. Yes they both do mix in some valid points but considering MSNBC is supposed to be a \"News\" agency and Limbaugh is a self proclaimed conservative advocate I have to say that Limbaugh has more integrity and transperancy than MSNBC.

Madow's blanket dismissal of all concerns raised at ACORN and the Climategate scientists is no less partisan and misleading than Fox News' hyping of the events.

As to the point you wanted me to look at beyond all the partisan bias to see...well, you're preaching to the choir.

[Bet51987]

.

[Will Robinson]

Hey Bee, What do you think of the Cap and Trade legislation and the way the U.N. global warming campaign is used to justify the passing of Cap and Trade?
Do you think anyone who opposes Cap and Trade is just a tea bagging denier or do you see the disconnect between legitimate global warming concerns and the non-climate protecting Cap and Trade?

What does the Democrat Party think of these things?
What will MSNBC's spin be on the opposition to Cap and Trade legislation? Will they just show footage of Sarah Palin and Tea Party attendee's in the background to stir your emotions while they apply the \"denier\" label to the notion that there are legitimate concerns about the bill? When they do will you think or just adopt it as your position?

[AlphaDoG]

Rachel Maddow is funny! I often watch her for laughs, but inevitably she always utters something that ticks me off, so I cycle back to Fox News for \"Fair and Balanced.\"

[Spidey]

The left has been manipulating reality for as long as I can remember, now that the right has begun to use the same tactics, all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Turnabout is fair play, get over it.

[Krom]

The left has been manipulating reality for as long as I can remember, now that the right has begun to use the same tactics, all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Turnabout is fair play, get over it.

So two wrongs make a right eh?

[Sickone]

Frankly, anyone who is all the way to the right, or all the way to the left is a moron. (sorry I don't want to write three paragraphs to sound PC).

Most, if not all shows/commentators are pretty far left or right, just to stir ★■◆● up. It equals ratings.

Somewhere in the middle is likely the best answers. A place where common sense lives. A place where taxes are resonable, and opportunity exists.

This year, about half of \"tax payers\" with low income credits, etc. Will pay no fed taxes... Now I certainly want the best for everyone. When I was earning at or near poverty level I had to pay taxes, and really wasn't that small a portion of my income.
It was in fact, in some sense... my share. I also always had a drive to improve, get ahead, etc. After years of work, I pay a much larger amount & percentage. So how is that I had to pay ?? If fairness and equality are the goals, why is it that consistant hard work equals getting screwed ???

[Gooberman]

why is it that consistant hard work equals getting screwed ???

Because, \"My opponent raised taxes on the poorest of the poor,\" makes for such an awesome talking point.

[Top Gun]

I'm so glad that a governmental agency made of civilians of the non scientific type people could actually go through all the data and say there was no wrong doing in the Global Warming scandal. You made my mind up.

Any group of reasonably-educated people can examine a situation like that to see if proper procedures were followed; the scientific method isn't some veiled arcane process. Both a government investigation and other scientists have stated that there was nothing fudged about the data at that research center (and this is far from the only place in the world doing that sort of research). So where's this "wrong doing" coming from?

Much like the communist changed their name to socialist then to liberals then to progressives.

Before you try and convince me communist and socialist are different think about The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) it was a constitutionally socialist state. All the those groups believe that Government has all the answers and you're stupid and don't know what is good for yourself so they need to make your decisions for you.

No, no, NO. Look up what these terms actually mean, and think before you use them. Honestly, the amount of stupidity displayed in this statement is utterly staggering.

Madow's blanket dismissal of all concerns raised at ACORN and the Climategate scientists is no less partisan and misleading than Fox News' hyping of the events.

The California AG established that the first incident was entirely based on a flat-out fake video, and the concerns over the second has been completely debunked by both government investigation and other scientists who took another look at the data. How is there anything "partisan" in declaring both cases closed, which they are?

The left has been manipulating reality for as long as I can remember, now that the right has begun to use the same tactics, all of a sudden the sky is falling.

Turnabout is fair play, get over it.

So are you going to raise legitimate counter-examples and try to get a reasonable discussion going, or are you going to just throw out a one-liner talking point and ignore any merit in her argument? Because it looks to me like you're sort of proving her point.

Frankly, anyone who is all the way to the right, or all the way to the left is a moron. (sorry I don't want to write three paragraphs to sound PC).

A thousand times this. This is the real problem with political discourse in this country today, and it's on full display in here on a daily basis. Everyone needs to collectively stop sipping the damn Kool-Aid of either side and start thinking. Throw out the talking points, throw out the soundbites, throw out the fluff, and examine the facts of the matter with a clear head. That, and nothing short of it, is the way to actually accomplish something worthwhile.

[Will Robinson]

You make this assertion:

...
The California AG established that the first incident was entirely based on a flat-out fake video, and the concerns over the second has been completely debunked by both government investigation and other scientists who took another look at the data. How is there anything "partisan" in declaring both cases closed, which they are? ...

and then expect us to believe you are sincere when you say this:

...Everyone needs to collectively stop sipping the damn Kool-Aid of either side and start thinking. Throw out the talking points, throw out the soundbites, throw out the fluff, and examine the facts of the matter with a clear head.....

You are either woefully ignorant of the details and instead depending on the Kool-Aid vendors talking points or you aspire to be the vendors little bucket boy!

There is substance to the charge that ACORN employees tried to facilitate the pimp guys requests, in at least one case they even made suggestions to him on how to avoid the law telling him what to say and what not to say! And you just tried to tell me the whole thing was fake! Is that true?!? Or did you just put some wicked spin on things? Hint to you...AG Brown doesn't have jurisdiction anywhere but California and although Maddow implies that all the tapes were edited to show guilt where there was none the truth is ACORN employees did try to help the pimp guy get around the law.

As to the global warming issue, just because the data that was fudged doesn't disprove the larger results of a study it was used or withheld from doesn't mean there were no unethical acts perpetrated by the scientists involved. Nor does it mean those scientists haven't skewed the results of other studies and models...we can't even find out because they destroyed data...'ooohhh it was too big to store'...science?! or bullscience?!?
There has been plenty of very un-scientific work done to further the U.N. climate demagoguery campaign and the climategate emails just exposed a bit of it.

So in spite of your claims that the case is closed (by a very politically motivated attorney general I might add....do some research on him) the issues are real and ACORN as well as some of the U.N. science is tainted for good reason.

[Top Gun]

There is substance to the charge that ACORN employees tried to facilitate the pimp guys requests, in at least one case they even made suggestions to him on how to avoid the law telling him what to say and what not to say! And you just tried to tell me the whole thing was fake! Is that true?!? Or did you just put some wicked spin on things?

A big part of the public outcry centered on this whole concept of a guy in a pimp suit getting treated as a legitimate visitor...but that never happened in the first place! The filmmakers have resisted just about every call to release the full unedited footage of their visits...nope, nothing suspicious about that. It's come out that several of the responses by ACORN employees were made at entirely-different parts of the conversation than the edited video showed. And as was revealed in the investigation, the ACORN employee who was supposedly "aiding" O'Keefe in establishing a prostitution channel through Mexico called the police immediately afterwards to report what had happened. So let me ask you: where's the "substance" here to support anything? The only thing that happened here was dirty money-grubbers like Andrew Brietbart swindling Congress and the public as a whole.

As to the global warming issue, just because the data that was fudged doesn't disprove the larger results of a study it was used or withheld from doesn't mean there were no unethical acts perpetrated by the scientists involved. Nor does it mean those scientists haven't skewed the results of other studies and models. There has been plenty of very un-scientific work done to further the U.N. climate demagoguery campaign and the climategate emails just exposed a bit of it.

The conclusion of the investigation was that this "fudging" never existed in the first place, and that the phrases in the e-mails were being woefully misinterpreted. The underlying data that the research center gathered was sound, and their conclusions were valid. Unless you have specific evidence of this other "unethical" or "unscientific" behavior by other nebulous scientists, I'll feel free to ignore those assertions.

[Will Robinson]

Topgun, there is more than one video, there was more than one visit to an ACORN office. On some of those tapes ACORN employees clearly tried to help the couple get around the laws. Now if you can show me all the tapes were staged and those weren't ACORN employees advising the couple on camera how to run their prostitution business to avoid legal problems and how to lie so they will qualify for financial assistance....if you can show that...then I'll admit I'm wrong and you are right.
But you are taking a selective bit provided by Maddow and Jerry gonna-run-for-office-again-in-liberal-land Brown and telling me that it represents the totality of the numerous ACORN/pimp guy encounters in multiple states not just California and you are totally wrong.
And trying to come back and sluff off the serious nature of those actions and suggest the nature of the offense centers around the fact that he dressed like a pimp or not is weak! Whether or not he dressed like a pimp in every instance or not doesn't change the fact that it appears that ACORN employees tried to help a prostitute and her pimp game the federal government for monetary gain!
So were those actors or real ACORN employees?
Uh huh...that's what I thought.
So, did Maddow try to leave us with the impression that all the incidents were total fabrications? Yep she sure did.
Did you buy her story? Yep you sure did.

Lets see how you deal with that first and maybe I'll dig up some U.N. climate demagoguery flavored crow for you to eat. Or just do a search of this forum, it's been mentioned over and over again.

note: I'm not trying to say that there is no global warming or even that there is no anthropogenic warming. I doubt some of the reporting that makes it seem so dire and definitely doubt the motives of the U.N. are anything but financial and political power motivated not ecological. Some of the reports they have come out with were full of questionable data and they have bad excuses for it when challenged.
there are scientists and there are politicians both using the general theory that climate change is going to impact our lives. The scientists would do well to rid themselves of the politicians if they want to regain any credibility because although the average guy doesn't know the science of climate change very well they do know the science of political bullfeces all too well and the U.N. climate team and the U.S. Cap and Trade stuff stinks of bull★■◆●.

[Spidey]

No TG I’m not going to play the game by “your” rules, there are plenty of counter points, such as abortion, guns and burning churches, but I have no intention to go tit for tat in some inane argurment over this or that piece of propaganda. I totally agree with her assertions, so what would be the point? And you should have been able to figure that out, by what I said…Krom sure did.

There are plenty of other people here that will gladly go point for point with you.

If you didn’t get “my” point…I’ll state it again in a different way…

The liberals have lost their monopoly on the media, now all they do is complain about it. (in many different ways)

That is a valid point in and of itself, and it’s too bad if you don’t like it, or can’t understand it. When you start a conversation, everything doesn’t always go as planned. If you can’t accept everyone’s point of view, you shouldn’t be starting conversations.

………………………….

Krom, no two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.

[The_Traveler]

I'm so glad that a governmental agency made of civilians of the non scientific type people could actually go through all the data and say there was no wrong doing in the Global Warming scandal. You made my mind up.

Any group of reasonably-educated people can examine a situation like that to see if proper procedures were followed; the scientific method isn't some veiled arcane process. Both a government investigation and other scientists have stated that there was nothing fudged about the data at that research center (and this is far from the only place in the world doing that sort of research). So where's this "wrong doing" coming from?

It's not like a governmental body won't have Billion$ or Trillion$ of reason not to look close enough to actual prove wrong doing on the part of scientist. So why did the scientist resist peep review, why won't they release the data when asked, why did the destroy data?

I don't have to look up those terms most likely they have been change over the last 50 years to mean other things. Much like the plural of fish was fish when I was in school now they want me to spell fishes. I remember when the were 9 planets in the solar system just like when I was in grade school communist were socialist and with the things this current admin is doing it's still communist actions plain and simple. People need to relearn the true history of the world instead of this crap they are teaching now.

[Top Gun]

...Will, are you even listening to what I'm saying? Most of those unedited tapes were never made public, but those had access to them reported that there was editing going on across the board, not just in one single encounter. Seriously, go look up some of the sources on this article yourself. And I love how you're completely dismissing the Attorney General's report just because he's "zomg in a liberal state." I mean, it's not like other pairs of eyes than his own contributed to it, right?

And as far as the actual impact that global warming will potentially have, did you happen to see this incident? Even taking the low side of sea-rise incidents, a decent chunk of Bangladesh as it exists today is going to wind up underwater in 50 or so years, displacing a few million people. And that's just one country in one small part of the world. It's pretty hard to put a spin on hard physical evidence.

The liberals have lost their monopoly on the media, now all they do is complain about it. (in many different ways)

That is a valid point in and of itself, and it’s too bad if you don’t like it, or can’t understand it. When you start a conversation, everything doesn’t always go as planned. If you can’t accept everyone’s point of view, you shouldn’t be starting conversations.

The great "liberal media stranglehold"...Christ, can you get any more cliche? Even if this nebulous concept could be held up, are you asserting that it's a valid answer to spew out massive bias swinging in the other direction? Who wins in that setup, other than asinine talking heads like Beck and Olbermann?

And don't give me that "acceptance" bullcrap when every other post in this forum is full of "evil pinko liberal commie" nonsense. It's a sad attempt to demonize people whose political viewpoints you personally disagree with, instead of engaging them in rational discussion like a big boy. Here's a news flash: a "liberal" viewpoint is every bit as valid as your own, just differing from it. Everyone has their own answers to the same questions, but covering your ears to an entire class of answers makes us all poorer in the process.

I don't have to look up those terms most likely they have been change over the last 50 years to mean other things. Much like the plural of fish was fish when I was in school now they want me to spell fishes. I remember when the were 9 planets in the solar system just like when I was in grade school communist were socialist and with the things this current admin is doing it's still communist actions plain and simple. People need to relearn the true history of the world instead of this crap they are teaching now.

When you were in grade school, "communist" was the scare buzzword used to convince kids that duck-and-covering would save them from a nuclear strike, or by that lovable psycho McCarthy to carry out some sort of deluded witch-hunt. If you can't see that the Obama administration's polices are as far from Marx's original concept, or how it was implemented in various countries during the last century, you're frankly willfully shutting your eyes to historical fact. Try going to any reputable political scientist with that, and they'd laugh in your face.

[CUDA]

When you were in grade school, "communist" was the scare buzzword used to convince kids that duck-and-covering would save them from a nuclear strike, or by that lovable psycho McCarthy to carry out some sort of deluded witch-hunt. If you can't see that the Obama administration's polices are as far from Marx's original concept, or how it was implemented in various countries during the last century, you're frankly willfully shutting your eyes to historical fact. Try going to any reputable political scientist with that, and they'd laugh in your face.

Did you live through the Cuban Missle Crisis? I did. I grew up in central Florida also. Communist was not just a scare word. it was real, so to quote another poster on this BB.

you're frankly willfully shutting your eyes to historical fact.

[The_Traveler]

Tell you what when they walk 3/4 of a century in a black man shoes as I have then they can laugh in my face. Obama is no friend of freedom. You people are starting to really get on my nerve. Talking like people who attend the tea party are racist. I sure wouldn't be going to them if that were true. Only ones around here that are racist are the ones keep bring it up. I am also tired of you so called liberals defending this man in the white house.

[Top Gun]

Did you live through the Cuban Missle Crisis? I did. I grew up in central Florida also. Communist was not just a scare word. it was real, so to quote another poster on this BB.

you're frankly willfully shutting your eyes to historical fact.

You know as well as I do that we're talking about different contexts. The Soviet Union and its satellites weren't dangerous because they espoused the ideals of "communism" (their version barely resembled Marx's original ideas...which themselves never would have worked in practice), but because their system was in practice a military dictatorship. The entire "Red Scare" of the 50s and 60s was little more than overblown propaganda, especially considering how the domino effect never came to pass in any real sense. The Cuban missile crisis was a very real and certainly very scary incident, but its roots have nothing to do with the widespread misuse of the term "communism," either today or at the time.

I am also tired of you so called liberals defending this man in the white house.

I'm no liberal myself, but I'll gladly defend the man, even if I disagree with some of his specific policy implementations. Given the alternative in the last election, I'm very glad that he wound up in office.

[The_Traveler]

I am also tired of you so called liberals defending this man in the white house.

I'm no liberal myself, but I'll gladly defend the man, even if I disagree with some of his specific policy implementations. Given the alternative in the last election, I'm very glad that he wound up in office.

Well I can agree with that but with the way it was the country was screwed either way. Both portray themselves as moderates when both would have done exactly the same things. I don't agree with the taking over the health care or the big businesses or the banks as each wanted to do and Obama did it. Every one of those businesses needed to go under. There is a danger to our country and it's called socialism or progressivism or liberalism you take your pick it's all the same even if you don't see it yourself. It's a cancer eating away at both parties and our nation as a whole.

[Top Gun]

So \"liberalism\" is somehow eating away at the hardcore right-wing? How does that work? And what is the exact nature of this \"danger,\" beyond the ideology itself? Are you denying, for instance, that people have a fundamental right to have access to healthcare when they most need it? Because I think that fits pretty snugly into both the first and third pillars of \"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\" Prior to now, the United States had been the sole First World country without sort of all-encompassing healthcare system...I don't know about you, but that strikes me as being a pretty poor statement of our commitment to our fellow Americans' well-being.

And if those banks had been allowed to go under, the economy would have essentially tanked into a no-holds-barred depression. I don't like the concept of government takeover of most categories of private business myself, but in this case, there simply wasn't any choice in the matter. The ★■◆● of it is that the pre-existing system is what allowed these institutions to get to that state in the first place, and my only hope is that current and future reforms can ensure that they're never allowed to get there again. Maybe it's an ill-founded hope, though.

[Spidey]

What is it called when you put words in someone’s mouth, then argue against them?

Lol I’ve seen your tactics before, and quite frankly…they bore the living crap out of me.

Yawn

[Top Gun]

What is it called when you put words in someone’s mouth, then argue against them?

Lol I’ve seen your tactics before, and quite frankly…they bore the living crap out of me.

Yawn

If I'm forced to put words in your mouth because you didn't express yourself clearly enough, maybe you should try doing so in the first place. I can only work with what you give me.

[Lothar]

The fact that an event which was definitively proven to be patently false can still have far-reaching negative consequences, despite there being no justification for said consequences, is flat-out pathetic.

True... but why include the subjective "negative" qualifier? It's pathetic that things which are proven false can have far-reaching consequences anyway.

Recall the "Fake but accurate" Killian documents. Had the fakes prevented Bush from being elected, many people would have considered that a positive result. But it would still be sad to see an election swung by fraudulent information.

Similarly, I would love to see the UN's attempt at Climate Control legislation completely fail. And I would love to see the last round of Health Care Reform legislation get overturned. And I'd even like to see ACORN fail and be replaced by less political and more efficient organizations (501c3's, not a 501c4.) But it would be sad to see those things happen as a result of fiction, falsehood, fraud, or forgery.

[Bet51987]

.

[The_Traveler]

And he says he isn't a liberal. I have seen the out come of a depression have you? I was born during it and we made it through and country would have survived another one. Fear is letting you be enslaved. What fools the younger generations has become. Beside if they would have enforced the laws in the first place we wouldn't have ended up in the mess we were in. I also see what you are trying to doing young one I will not be a party to your games. You may put all the words you would like into my mouth it's been done before by smarter people than you. It doesn't change the fact your are enslaving yourself I don't have much longer on this plane so keep up with the enslavement of yourself. I'll have none of it.

[Will Robinson]

...Will, are you even listening to what I'm saying? Most of those unedited tapes were never made public,...

I don't care how much editing went on, you'd be surprised how much editing goes on in everything you watch and never question the premise of.
Regardless of how much stuff is spin the question remains:
Did real ACORN employees try to assist a couple they believed to be seeking assistance in subverting the law and fraudulently receiving government funds?!?


Now you can dance around that issue all you want but in spite of everything you have said, you, nor Maddow, nor Brown have shown that accusation to be untrue!

From your own link the AG's dismissal of ACORN's guilt is far from a comendation! ""Because O’Keefe and Giles’s criminal plans were themselves a ruse, one cannot be criminally complicit in those plans.""
He says right there that you can't be guilty of helping to assist in a crime if the crime you think you are assisting in is in fact a ruse! Heh, Far from absolution anyway you read it! And his opinion is constrained to only the one event in California.

Is pimp guy a partisan hack? Sure he is. My guess is he went into this project with a preconceived notion that ACORN would act the way they did...and he was correct. He got it on tape and tried to get it many more times in which he failed most of the time as most people like Michael Moore and 60 minutes and Geraldo, etc. etc. do when they try to do a sting operation.

Would I want him teaching a civics class in any school? Absolutely not, I'd say he's totally unqualified but it doesn't change the fact that he caught ACORN employees doing some really bad stuff on tape....unless you want to stop that dance and show me where anyone has proven they were all edited to alter reality that is the elephant in the room that Maddow has told you is not there and you are choosing to believe that spin job.

[Bet51987]

.

[Sickone]

Bee, no spin is good, sort of the point.

If various social and political plans were
simply offered as facts (unspun), and had no
'deals' attached to get votes. Ahhh a perfect
world.

When 'both' sides actually make ★■◆● up to help
further their view... we are the ones that pay.
Further, those sort of politics drive us farther
apart. We start taking sides, rather than looking
for common ground and solutions. Frankly almost every
politition I can think of these days should be ashamed. That is a pretty damn sad thing say, but it
is true.

I am so sick of it all, I almost can't take it.
When your job is to serve the people, and instead
you make back room deals, lose all common sense, and screw
the people who elected you to protect them... wow.
Flush them all and start over.

[dissent]

And as far as the actual impact that global warming will potentially have, did you happen to see this incident?

from your linked article -

"There's no trace of the island anymore. After studying satellite images, I confirmed this from fishermen," Sugata Hazra, a professor from the School of Oceanographic Studies at Jadavpur University in Kolkata, told reporters.

Hazra said global warming and erosion were responsible for solving a point of contention in the sometimes fractious relations between India and Bangladesh, which both claimed the island.

"Climate change has obliterated the source of dispute," he said.

ok, so it was global warming AND erosion; now it's just global warming. So which is it? I'm betting being a small island in a mangrove delta had something to do with it, global warming or no global warming (see comments below).

Hazra said temperatures in the region had been rising at an annual rate of 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

interesting ... perhaps. but without references or documentation, who knows. These rates are considerably higher than the global average numbers frequently bandied about. I doubt you can blame local temperatures on sea level rise.

In 1981, the Indian navy planted its national flag on the island, but no permanent settlement was established.

The island, which is thought to have been created by a cyclone only about 40 years ago, sat in the Sundarbans mangrove delta in the mouth of the Hariabhanga River that divides India and Bangladesh.

At its height, it was never more than two metres (about six feet) above sea level.

well, now that helps to put things into a little perspective. I'm not at all surprised to find that land may be collecting above sea level from time to time, only to be washed away and shifted elsewhere. It's a huge river delta region - think southeast Louisiana, subject also to tropical rain conditions and averaging 16 cyclones per decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bangladesh

Hazra said a larger island, called Lohachara, disappeared in the Bay of Bengal in 1996 after 4,000 inhabitants had fled.

At least five other islands in the region are also threatened, he said.

Bangladesh is one of the countries worst affected by climate change with some scientists predicting 20 million people will be displaced by 2050 because of rising sea levels.

Even taking the low side of sea-rise incidents, a decent chunk of Bangladesh as it exists today is going to wind up underwater in 50 or so years, displacing a few million people. And that's just one country in one small part of the world. It's pretty hard to put a spin on hard physical evidence.

hmm. "some scientists", huh? IS going to wind up under water, you say? really? how sure are you, and on what basis do you stake this certainty?

Are sea levels rising? Yeah, have been trending upward since the last ice age ended. People who elect to live near sea level will be affected first. This isn't rocket science. But determining these rates and their variability is a multivariate problem. Not as simple as saying there is just "hard physical evidence".

For the record, I think I have a lot of agreement with this guy's position.

[Kilarin]

And if those banks had been allowed to go under, the economy would have essentially tanked into a no-holds-barred depression.

The bail out was not only unnecessary, but VERY harmful to the industry. What it did was reward bad behavior and penalize good behavior.

What would have happened if there had been no bail out? Several large banks that made some REALLY bad decisions would have gone under. And, just like the other banks that failed before the bailout, they would have been broken up and sold to other banks. The FDIC would have covered personal investors who lost insured money.

Now think about what that would have meant. Banks that did REALLY stupid things would be out of business. OTHER banks, often smaller banks, that had made good decisions, would have picked up a lot of that business. Bad banks=no profit. Good banks=more profit!

But we didn't do that, we did the exact OPPOSITE of that. Stupid behavior was rewarded. The bailout of the stupid banks was a big government backhand across the face of every small bank that had invested in a smart and conservative manner.

The problems that caused the 2009 banking disaster have not really changed much. Why should the industry change? All of the big banks now understand that they can take a lot of stupid risks, and if everything falls apart, the government will rush in and save them. Small Banks that played a more conservative game are now wondering if they should have taken more stupid risks and grown big enough to get bail-out money themselves. And the Big Banks that played a conservative game are just glad to get OUT of that bail out mess, because it did NOTHING but give them heartache and trouble.

[dissent]

So "liberalism" is somehow eating away at the hardcore right-wing? How does that work? And what is the exact nature of this "danger," beyond the ideology itself?

See the links in my posts in the American Exceptionalism thread for the requisite discussion and background.

Are you denying, for instance, that people have a fundamental right to have access to healthcare when they most need it? Because I think that fits pretty snugly into both the first and third pillars of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Yes, I am denying this. You do not have a right to health care.

In the American system, you do have a right to your life; government is constrained from capriciously killing you. You have a right to liberty; government may not capriciously deprive you of that liberty without acting within the rule of law. You have a number of other rights, as enumerated in the founding documents; excercise of religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

Health care is not one of these rights. Health care is a service that is provided by others; a very useful and valuable service, mind you, the availabilty of which should incentivized. But the government may not compel anyone else to provide you with health care; this would run contrary to the other rights that the government is constrained from trampeling upon.

Americans do not have a right to happiness; they do have a right to pursue happiness, to the best of their abilities and hard effort and within the bounds of the rule of law. People should certainly have a right to access to health care, at least from those individuals who freely choose to provide it, because that is access to simple liberty. Indeed, one of the problems with the American health system is the maze of government (state and federal) regulations that make excercising free choices so difficult.

[Spidey]

http://www.descentbb.com/viewtopic.php?t=4086

[Top Gun]

Health care is not one of these rights. Health care is a service that is provided by others; a very useful and valuable service, mind you, the availabilty of which should incentivized. But the government may not compel anyone else to provide you with health care; this would run contrary to the other rights that the government is constrained from trampeling upon.

See, that's where we'd have to differ. I think it's a safe statement to make that all of those other rights enumerated in the founding documents--our liberty, our ability to pursue happiness, our freedom of exercise of religion, free speech, and the rest--are essentially meaningless if we are not alive to enjoy them. A terminal cancer patient presumably isn't too concerned about how well the government is upholding their right to peaceably assemble. It is only when our more basic needs have been met, needs like food, shelter, and health, that we're free to deal with more abstract concepts like those.

We are the world's wealthiest country, the country with the most influence on the global scale. And yet, until these reforms took place, we were the only country on that tier that could not guarantee its people a reasonable level of medical coverage if they could not afford it. Am I the only one who sees a large dichotomy in this? We revere the rights and values that America was founded on, and rightly so, but isn't one of those values the willingness to look out for the less-fortunate? Reserving advanced medical care only for those who can shell out tens of thousands of dollars in co-pays runs directly against that "American dream" we so often love to mention.

My bottom line? Treating something like medical care as a for-profit business is a gross mistake in the first place, and has led our health industry to the sad state it finds itself in today. If our government truly exists to serve the American people, then greatly expanding insurance coverage to millions who couldn't previously afford it seems like a fine way of upholding that pledge.

[Krom]

^^^ My insurance provider, hospital, and clinic are all non-profit entities and it is still so expensive that I don't go in for anything unless I am on deaths doorstep.

[CUDA]

I keep hearing of the \"fundamental right to healthcare\" there can be do \"right\" to healthcare

here are your \"Rights\" according to the Constitution

Right to keep and bear arms[1]
Right to freedom of movement within the country[2]
Right to property
Right to marry the person of any race
Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications
Right to freedom of association[3]
Right to freedom of speech[4]
Right to equal protection under the law [5][6]
Right to freedom of thought
Right to vote in general election
Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power
Right to privacy[7]

dont see a right to healthcare there. besides to make healthcare a \"right\" it would require the infringement on other peoples rights.

1. you would have to force someone to perform a medical process
2. you would have to force someone to pay for the process

each act would infringe on the rights of others, therefore Healthcare cannot be a fundamental right

[Top Gun]

How would someone be \"forced\" to perform medical procedures, when those doing the performing will be getting paid for doing so, just as they are now? This isn't some scenario where a surgeon will be forced at gunpoint to operate on poor people and not get a salary in return. And via our taxes, we're already \"forced\" to pay for any number of government services, many of which we may not personally utilize. How is paying to ensure healthcare access any different than paying to ensure national defense or clean air?

And from what I can tell, several elements on your list were never strictly enumerated in the Constitution; there's certainly been no lack of controversy over the existence of a \"right to privacy,\" for example. So if these non-enumerated rights are recognized by you as being fundamental, why then shouldn't healthcare?

[AlphaDoG]

How would someone be "forced" to perform medical procedures, when those doing the performing will be getting paid for doing so, just as they are now? This isn't some scenario where a surgeon will be forced at gunpoint to operate on poor people and not get a salary in return. And via our taxes, we're already "forced" to pay for any number of government services, many of which we may not personally utilize. How is paying to ensure healthcare access any different than paying to ensure national defense or clean air?

And from what I can tell, several elements on your list were never strictly enumerated in the Constitution; there's certainly been no lack of controversy over the existence of a "right to privacy," for example. So if these non-enumerated rights are recognized by you as being fundamental, why then shouldn't healthcare?

I almost quoted the 10th amendment on this, but I see where you are going with this.

The enumerated powers are a list of nonspecific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

So how about we discuss the limits placed on Congress?