News of the day

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Of course all of those bills in the list sound wonderful - if you only read the titles, that is (which are designed to make it sound horrible to oppose any of them). Paycheck fairness: supposed to prevent wage discrimination against women in the workplace; sounds wonderful until you consider that men and women tend to work different kinds of jobs because they are different and want different things.  The jobs filled more often by women tend to be lower-paying. Elder abuse: In reading the summary of this bill, I was struck by how unnecessary the whole thing seemed.  Establishing new divisions of the law enforcement system for "elder abuse?"  Seems more logical, reasonable, and efficient for old people who are abused to operate under the same divisions of the justice system as young people who are victims of abuse.  Also notice all the "grants" mentioned in almost every section.  Goodbye money... Wounded Veteran: not sure why this was filibustered.  You could be right on this one (although I suspect the cost was a key issue) Nuclear waste:  The house republicans said about this one - "This proposed legislation would effectively prevent U.S. companies from competing for certain foreign contracts that could create jobs in the U.S. and result in substantial revenues for the U.S. economy. In an era of record high unemployment and a struggling economy, we strongly oppose legislation that erects new trade barriers that put our own companies at a competitive disadvantage in the international nuclear arena. We believe the U.S. can and should seek to be a leader in the construction, operation, and ultimate decommissioning of new nuclear plants around the world." Bombing prevention:  Um...homeland security already tries to prevent terrorist attacks.  Seems a bit redundant (and expensive) to me. That's five I've looked at and I can see pretty darn good reasons for opposing four of them.  No, I don't have time to examine all of them.  I'd bet you anything that the person who wrote that article just copied the list of bills from somewhere and didn't read anything other than the titles. Honestly, are you only listening so you can fight back?  Did you try to look at both sides or only look at Conservative sources for arguments to present to me? Look at all sides of an issue before making a decision.  Don't make a decision and then look at the other sides with a combative attitude.

I got most of my information here.  It's a wonderful site, non-partisan and dedicated to government transparency.  They post summaries of every bill, so that someone without enough time to read all the bills you listed (like me) can quickly and easily find out what the bills are all about.

Defending the reasoning of the senate republicans wasn't my point, ether (although I wouldn't have voted for most of those bills, either).  The article you posted claimed they they were filibustering those bills just to make it look like Obama and the Democrats had failed.  I looked at the bill summaries and found reasons why they would have wanted those bills blocked because of the content of the bills themselves.

Filibusters are not an abuse of democracy, as the article claimed, either.  They are a completely legal part of the way the Senate works, and are, in my opinion, a good way to prevent the oppression of a minority by a majority.  Whether you agree or disagree with the political opinions behind the filibuster, it's still a legitimate thing to do.  I, for example, am anti-abortion and would have loved to see that abortion bill in Texas pass.  But I respect Wendy Davis' right to filibuster the bill, and the rights of the people who came in and yelled to do what they did.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Of course all of those bills in the list sound wonderful - if you only read the titles, that is (which are designed to make it sound horrible to oppose any of them). Paycheck fairness: supposed to prevent wage discrimination against women in the workplace; sounds wonderful until you consider that men and women tend to work different kinds of jobs because they are different and want different things.  The jobs filled more often by women tend to be lower-paying. Elder abuse: In reading the summary of this bill, I was struck by how unnecessary the whole thing seemed.  Establishing new divisions of the law enforcement system for "elder abuse?"  Seems more logical, reasonable, and efficient for old people who are abused to operate under the same divisions of the justice system as young people who are victims of abuse.  Also notice all the "grants" mentioned in almost every section.  Goodbye money... Wounded Veteran: not sure why this was filibustered.  You could be right on this one (although I suspect the cost was a key issue) Nuclear waste:  The house republicans said about this one - "This proposed legislation would effectively prevent U.S. companies from competing for certain foreign contracts that could create jobs in the U.S. and result in substantial revenues for the U.S. economy. In an era of record high unemployment and a struggling economy, we strongly oppose legislation that erects new trade barriers that put our own companies at a competitive disadvantage in the international nuclear arena. We believe the U.S. can and should seek to be a leader in the construction, operation, and ultimate decommissioning of new nuclear plants around the world." Bombing prevention:  Um...homeland security already tries to prevent terrorist attacks.  Seems a bit redundant (and expensive) to me. That's five I've looked at and I can see pretty darn good reasons for opposing four of them.  No, I don't have time to examine all of them.  I'd bet you anything that the person who wrote that article just copied the list of bills from somewhere and didn't read anything other than the titles. Honestly, are you only listening so you can fight back?  Did you try to look at both sides or only look at Conservative sources for arguments to present to me? Look at all sides of an issue before making a decision.  Don't make a decision and then look at the other sides with a combative attitude. I got most of my information here.  It's a wonderful site, non-partisan and dedicated to government transparency.  They post summaries of every bill, so that someone without enough time to read all the bills you listed (like me) can quickly and easily find out what the bills are all about. Defending the reasoning of the senate republicans wasn't my point, ether (although I wouldn't have voted for most of those bills, either).  The article you posted claimed they they were filibustering those bills just to make it look like Obama and the Democrats had failed.  I looked at the bill summaries and found reasons why they would have wanted those bills blocked because of the content of the bills themselves. Filibusters are not an abuse of democracy, as the article claimed, either.  They are a completely legal part of the way the Senate works, and are, in my opinion, a good way to prevent the oppression of a minority by a majority.  Whether you agree or disagree with the political opinions behind the filibuster, it's still a legitimate thing to do.  I, for example, am anti-abortion and would have loved to see that abortion bill in Texas pass.  But I respect Wendy Davis' right to filibuster the bill, and the rights of the people who came in and yelled to do what they did.

But here's the point - no bill is ever perfect.  You ever heard of a poison pill?  Look it up.  But no bill is perfect.  Sometimes when you know something is perfect, you have to get as close to a solution as you can, push that through, then adjust it later.  This insistence from the Republican party of denying any progress whatsoever on the basis of imperfect bills (which are often so because of their own poison pills) is killing our country.  And what's really funny about the way you're arguing, Jacob, is that if the other side were doing it you'd probably be outraged.  Your whole ideal system is based on the idea that the minority shouldn't exercise power over the majority.  But then you're perfectly fine with a minority repeatedly exercising power over a majority.  Over and over again.  You're completely fine with it.  You're a walking contradiction my friend.

Rob wants to know if I'm going to answer your points.  No, neither will I answer his.  I'm tired of this.  I've realized there's nothing I can do.  Ever.  Why?  Because of derp.  (Read how the article defines it.)

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Of course all of those bills in the list sound wonderful - if you only read the titles, that is (which are designed to make it sound horrible to oppose any of them). Paycheck fairness: supposed to prevent wage discrimination against women in the workplace; sounds wonderful until you consider that men and women tend to work different kinds of jobs because they are different and want different things.  The jobs filled more often by women tend to be lower-paying. Elder abuse: In reading the summary of this bill, I was struck by how unnecessary the whole thing seemed.  Establishing new divisions of the law enforcement system for "elder abuse?"  Seems more logical, reasonable, and efficient for old people who are abused to operate under the same divisions of the justice system as young people who are victims of abuse.  Also notice all the "grants" mentioned in almost every section.  Goodbye money... Wounded Veteran: not sure why this was filibustered.  You could be right on this one (although I suspect the cost was a key issue) Nuclear waste:  The house republicans said about this one - "This proposed legislation would effectively prevent U.S. companies from competing for certain foreign contracts that could create jobs in the U.S. and result in substantial revenues for the U.S. economy. In an era of record high unemployment and a struggling economy, we strongly oppose legislation that erects new trade barriers that put our own companies at a competitive disadvantage in the international nuclear arena. We believe the U.S. can and should seek to be a leader in the construction, operation, and ultimate decommissioning of new nuclear plants around the world." Bombing prevention:  Um...homeland security already tries to prevent terrorist attacks.  Seems a bit redundant (and expensive) to me. That's five I've looked at and I can see pretty darn good reasons for opposing four of them.  No, I don't have time to examine all of them.  I'd bet you anything that the person who wrote that article just copied the list of bills from somewhere and didn't read anything other than the titles. Honestly, are you only listening so you can fight back?  Did you try to look at both sides or only look at Conservative sources for arguments to present to me? Look at all sides of an issue before making a decision.  Don't make a decision and then look at the other sides with a combative attitude. I got most of my information here.  It's a wonderful site, non-partisan and dedicated to government transparency.  They post summaries of every bill, so that someone without enough time to read all the bills you listed (like me) can quickly and easily find out what the bills are all about. Defending the reasoning of the senate republicans wasn't my point, ether (although I wouldn't have voted for most of those bills, either).  The article you posted claimed they they were filibustering those bills just to make it look like Obama and the Democrats had failed.  I looked at the bill summaries and found reasons why they would have wanted those bills blocked because of the content of the bills themselves. Filibusters are not an abuse of democracy, as the article claimed, either.  They are a completely legal part of the way the Senate works, and are, in my opinion, a good way to prevent the oppression of a minority by a majority.  Whether you agree or disagree with the political opinions behind the filibuster, it's still a legitimate thing to do.  I, for example, am anti-abortion and would have loved to see that abortion bill in Texas pass.  But I respect Wendy Davis' right to filibuster the bill, and the rights of the people who came in and yelled to do what they did. But here's the point - no bill is ever perfect.  You ever heard of a poison pill?  Look it up.  But no bill is perfect.  Sometimes when you know something is perfect, you have to get as close to a solution as you can, push that through, then adjust it later.  This insistence from the Republican party of denying any progress whatsoever on the basis of imperfect bills (which are often so because of their own poison pills) is killing our country.  And what's really funny about the way you're arguing, Jacob, is that if the other side were doing it you'd probably be outraged.  Your whole ideal system is based on the idea that the minority shouldn't exercise power over the majority.  But then you're perfectly fine with a minority repeatedly exercising power over a majority.  Over and over again.  You're completely fine with it.  You're a walking contradiction my friend. Rob wants to know if I'm going to answer your points.  No, neither will I answer his.  I'm tired of this.  I've realized there's nothing I can do.  Ever.  Why?  Because of derp.  (Read how the article defines it.)

For every bill I looked at, I gave a perfectly good reason why someone  could reasonably not support it.  Not because of a "poison pill," not because of imperfections, but because the bill would cost too much, or was unnecessary, or could harm the economy.  Did you notice the one bill I didn't see a problem with?  I didn't skip it, didn't leave it out to better make my point.  I left it in my analysis, because I'm honest, and care about truth, not just about being right.

My "ideal system" (which isn't a good way to describe libertarianism, but whatever) is not based on majorities and minorities and what not.  I believe in allowing the maximum amount of freedom for individuals, families, businesses, churches, nonprofits, and for every other entity in the private sector.  I believe in small...tiny...miniscule government, dedicated to protecting it's citizens from harm instead of running their lives.  I can't think of any better way besides a democratic-republican system (I'm using that term to mean a mixture of a democracy and republic, not to refer to the two-party system) to make decisions, but inherent in that system is the danger that a majority will oppress a minority.  The filibuster is a tool to help the minority stop the tyranny of the majority.  It also keeps the minority from "doing nothing," as you claim the Democratic minority in the House does.

And I think the fact that my political view have gone from staunch fiscal/social conservative to moderate conservative to moderate fiscal conservative/moderate social liberal to libertarian in the past year pretty much disproves that I don't change my beliefs based on evidence.  If I didn't change my beliefs based on evidence, I'd be in an outrage over the Supreme Court's DOMA decision and arguing with Rob about his libertarian beliefs right not (well, actually not, because I'd get my ass kicked too quickly).  I change my views all the time, because I always pursue truth.  The fact that I haven't come to the same conclusions as you does not make me a "derper."  I thought you knew me better than that.


Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - July 01 2013 at 13:23

No Geoff that is not science. Science doesn't hold anything as an "absolute truth", everything is falsifiable. True science leaves room for error and changes. Besides, you accuse people here of being stubborn but you haven't given one single argument except "I'm right, why can't you see it" and posting links to other people's opinions. I'm not even refuting your view now Geoff, just the idiotic way you present them. You might be right (I'm not one to believe I know anything for sure) but we will never know unless somebody else presents your point of view because you are terrible and overtly confrontational at doing it.

CAPS of course don't count as arguments or facts. The only image I get in my mind when I see a sentence full of CAPS is someone is tearing their hair out of their heads in desperation.

dtguitarfan wrote: That's an ideal.  Completely, and totally impractical.  Not based on fact or reality.  And that's why I can't even possibly argue with you libertarians.  You're so convinced you're right, and you can't point to a single system on earth that actually proves the science of your ideals.  I CAN.  EVERY THING I THINK WE SHOULD DO IN AMERICA, I CAN POINT TO OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE DOING IT AND IT IS WORKING.  THAT'S SCIENCE.

The T wrote: No Geoff that is not science.

Insisting your way is right without having any successful experiments to point to is definitely not science.  Science is about proving your theory through experiments.  So when I say I think we should have universal healthcare, I point to experiments that were successful - such as Canada, England, France, and pretty much every other country in Europe.  When you say the free market should decide the costs of medicine, I say that's NOT science and point to the fact that the free market has been doing this for decades in America right now and we have the highest medical costs on the planet as a result.  The experiments prove the theory.  Science.

dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: No Geoff that is not science. Insisting your way is right without having any successful experiments to point to is definitely not science.  Science is about proving your theory through experiments.  So when I say I think we should have universal healthcare, I point to experiments that were successful - such as Canada, England, France, and pretty much every other country in Europe.  When you say the free market should decide the costs of medicine, I say that's NOT science and point to the fact that the free market has been doing this for decades in America right now and we have the highest medical costs on the planet as a result.  The experiments prove the theory.  Science.

A few points: one, I have never read anyone here "insisting their way is right" (whatever that means), I've read people saying that they think a change towards a fully free health market would probably improve things; two, even if it's true that universal healthcare has some success in some countries, it's not as perfect as you can think (even though I tend to like the idea); three, even with that, those are not "experiments" and the results are not science (where the hell did you get your definition of science anyway); and four, I know the system here SUCKS (caps added for effect and also to imitate your style ) but I would quite simply never call it a "free market" system. It is heavily regulated, and government has a big say therefore helping insurance companies get as big and powerful. The problem is Geoff, I see you have a different (and I would add wrong) idea of what a truly un-regulated free market is. For you, it is the US. For libertarians, it is a market devoid of almost any government intervention or regulation where supply, demand and prices are all dependeant and decided by the actors, buyers and sellers.

Also, "opinion" =/= evidence. Presenting links to opinion articles is not giving evidence of anything except that someone thinks in a specific way.

The one who refuses to hear other points of view (I'm not saying agreeing with them, only allowing and thinking a little bit about them) is you Geoff. You are quite intolerant. You changed intolerance of one kind with intolerance of another, it would seem. That's why you get upset and mad and USE A LOT OF CAPS.

Blacksword wrote: Warning: Contraversial post alert. Don't read if easily upset.. UK broadcaster Channel 4 has announced it's intention to play Islamic prayer calls daily throughout the festival of Ramadan to 'challenge' those who believe Islam is 'all about terrorism' They admit the move is a 'deliberate act of provocation' The Independant This latest attempt to be 'right on' and appeal to a minority group may backfire badly on them. For starters, I don't really see how all those who currently believe that Islam is 'all about terrorism' (I don't btw) are going to be pursuaded otherwise by extensive covarage of a Muslim festival, including the sound of prayer calls. Typically this mindset of people believe the UK is being 'Islamified' Surely, this C4 initiaitive will serve only to reinforce this misguided view and potentially increase tensions at a time when Islam is clearly back in the firing line after the Woolwich attacks, and the escalation of tensions in Syria. This, in my opinion could be a god send to the far right in the UK, who will offer this up as 'proof' of a 'liberal conspiracy' to undermine the white population and turn the UK into a 'Sharia state' These lunatics don't need much encouragement at the best of times. The trouble with the "right on" brigade who clearly run C4 is that they are so terrified of appearing to be in any way intolerant of anyone, they arguably go too far in trying to prove their liberal credentials. Maybe they just need to relax and not try so hard.

I could see the point if the intent was to express solidarity with Muslims (by what I read in the article there has been some anti-Muslim violence going on, I think?) but you're probably correct, it does seem like a bit of a bad idea to use this as a "deliberate act of provocation."  I can just imagine what the reaction would be if, say, MSNBC did this in the US.  People would go crazy.

For the record, although I definitely can't affirm the Islamic faith, I do enjoy Muslim music and Middle Eastern music in general, including the Adhan.

On the brink of civil war in Egypt