• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sibylus

Banned
Oh, and an additional snippet of context: Former civilian appointee to the watchdog body for CSIS (Canadian foreign intelligence bureau) was also a literal lobbyist for the oil company Enbridge, at the same time as when CSIS and local police were keeping tabs on pipeline critics. Canadian government, much like the chairman, disavowed any and all wrongdoing. To say they're cozy with the oil industry would be to engage in colossal understatement.

Oilsands pollutants underestimated, researchers conclude - University of Toronto study finds release of carcinogenic compounds greater than believed (Jeff McIntosh, CBC)

The U of T study used a model to predict emission levels of a group of atmospheric pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which can be highly carcinogenic.

While previous models assessed the PAHs released directly into the atmosphere during extraction of bitumen from oilsands – numbers that tend to fall within acceptable regulatory levels – this study included indirect pathways for the pollutants to enter the air, such as evaporation from tailing ponds.

“Tailing ponds are not the end of the journey for the pollutants they contain. PAHs are highly volatile, meaning they escape into the air much more than many people think,” Parajulee said.

The model also factored in additional PAHs released during the transport and storage of other waste materials from oilsands operations.
Andrew Read, a researcher with Pembina Institute, an environmental watchdog, is a member of the joint oilsands monitoring program rolled out two years ago by the federal and provincial governments.

He doesn't believe there is enough funding to appropriately monitor emissions.

"We are not at the world-class level to really be championing that," he said. "There is a concern there that we are not doing the effective monitoring that is necessary to really understand the full impact on the environment."
 
Climate cover up, collusion and conflict of interest alleged in Keystone XL report release (Matthew Millar, Jenny Uechi, Vancouver Observer)

Mud everywhere with a side of "didn't read lol".
Conspiracy theory: Perhaps this is some 11-dimensional chess . . . let some Energy-company tied group write up a positive environments review of the pipeline in the official report. Then call the official report null & void due to a conflict of interest and delay the pipeline further. Require another year of study for a new report.
 
Oh, and an additional snippet of context: Former civilian appointee to the watchdog body for CSIS (Canadian foreign intelligence bureau) was also a literal lobbyist for the oil company Enbridge, at the same time as when CSIS and local police were keeping tabs on pipeline critics. Canadian government, much like the chairman, disavowed any and all wrongdoing. To say they're cozy with the oil industry would be to engage in colossal understatement.

Oilsands pollutants underestimated, researchers conclude - University of Toronto study finds release of carcinogenic compounds greater than believed (Jeff McIntosh, CBC)

aren't you canadian? traitor!!!
 
What would you guys say to someone who claims social security is a Ponzi scheme?

I've talked with someone I know who has the whole conservative "government works like a business" view. The government isn't going to go out of business and have no way of dealing with SS shortfalls, so the threat that would make it a "scheme" isn't there in my view.

I have a hard time making a convincing case though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ponzi-scheme/2011/08/25/gIQA2t0dcL_blog.html

There's one. Calling SS a ponzi scehem simply means the person doesn't understand what a ponzi scheme is or SS i, or both.
 

Tamanon

Banned
What would you guys say to someone who claims social security is a Ponzi scheme?

I've talked with someone I know who has the whole conservative "government works like a business" view. The government isn't going to go out of business and have no way of dealing with SS shortfalls, so the threat that would make it a "scheme" isn't there in my view.

I have a hard time making a convincing case though.

I'd ask him to explain how life insurance isn't a ponzi scheme in that case.
 
What would you guys say to someone who claims social security is a Ponzi scheme?

I've talked with someone I know who has the whole conservative "government works like a business" view. The government isn't going to go out of business and have no way of dealing with SS shortfalls, so the threat that would make it a "scheme" isn't there in my view.

I have a hard time making a convincing case though.

Social security is a program by which the government pays elderly people US dollars based on a merit system that takes into account that person's labor over the course of his or her lifetime. That's it. There is no scheme, because the program is no more complicated than that. The program can continue as is even if social security taxes are entirely eliminated, because those taxes do not empower the US government to create and spend US dollars. If your friend does not like paying regressive payroll taxes (and who does?), just agree with him that they should be repealed. That's what I'd do.
 
So I got a question for y'all.

The US tax rate is relatively low compared to other countries. But much of the benefits those taxes provide are still borne on US citizens either by private corporations through monopolies or mandated fees (sewage, water, heating).

Things like University Costs and Health Care are easy but there's also things like banking, pensions (401k) where people don't see it as taxes but in essence their increased costs caused by government actions.

What are some of the more 'hidden taxes' the US has or is there a good study or explanation on hidden taxation/privatizing the safety net/basic necessities?

Social security is a program by which the government pays elderly people US dollars based on a merit system that takes into account that person's labor over the course of his or her lifetime. That's it. There is no scheme, because the program is no more complicated than that. The program can continue as is even if social security taxes are entirely eliminated, because those taxes do not empower the US government to create and spend US dollars. If your friend does not like paying regressive payroll taxes (and who does?), just agree with him that they should be repealed. That's what I'd do.

Money doesn't grow on trees!!!!

It's created by a few clicks on a keyboard
 

Wilsongt

Member
It would be absolutely hilarious if the GOP tried to Impeach Obama. It would be amazing watching them try to figure out what their line of reasoning is.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It would be absolutely hilarious if the GOP tried to Impeach Obama. It would be amazing watching them try to figure out what their line of reasoning is.

benghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazi will be their reasoning.
 

Wilsongt

Member
benghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazibenghazi will be their reasoning.

Will never understand it... Twenty children died due to an idiot with a gun and it basically gets swept under the rug. Four Americans die in a foreign country and the GOP literally loses their shit.
 
Will never understand it... Twenty children died due to an idiot with a gun and it basically gets swept under the rug. Four Americans die in a foreign country and the GOP literally loses their shit.

...and they ignore all of the Americans who died under similar circumstances while their guy was in the WH.
 

Trouble

Banned
I'm actually kinda surprised there isn't a conspiracy theory out there that Obama was involved in 9/11. Or maybe there is, but it's just too fringy so I haven't seen it.
 
I too agree that its getting worse. I just spoke to someone today who went on an epic rant about white people 'losing the country' which is what I think is driving the reaction today. There is a palpable fear that 'white people' won't have exclusive control of the country. They now have to listen to Latino voices, Black Voices, Asian voices, Middle Eastern Voices, etc. Before they were just background noise but now they have power.

Before immigration was someone controllable and manageable for the xenophobic (I don't think racism is the right word)

I think a lot of it is also because of horrible economic policy has come down hard on rural and disaffected poor whites who are justifiably angry though they direct their anger at a minority which isn't the cause of their problem and this scapegoating is used cynically by politicians to enact policies which are even worse for them, only further strengthening their disdain for others.

A fair share of white people see the country as majority a white working class one. They acknowledge that the people are getting poorer but don't understand the reason why. To them it is because of the violent lazy blacks in the next two towns over and the unpatrotic non-English speaking illegals in the town next door who are making them poorer. Affirmative action is practiced everywhere. So just because the blacks are blacks and the latinos are latinos they get significantly more money than someone who is white. Yes your white friend isn't receiving enough food stamps to make ends meet, however the ghetto hood rat bad bitch welfare queen extraordinaire the next town over is reaping in food stamps, EBT, welfare checks, and everything else to the point where she makes bank and spends it all on rims and her weaves. So America does not have a problem with not giving enough welfare, it merely sucks a lot with the distribution of welfare. If you significantly cut the welfare blacks and latinos receive from affirmative action and then give that money to the hard working whites then things will balance out. This is precisely what "giving money to the people who need it!" means. That the people who don't need it (the blacks and browns) are going to have to give much of the portion of their welfare money to the people who do need it (the whites).

Government is evil because it make these policies exist. It is the government that is giving these people money from YOUR tax dollars. It supports giving minorities home owner grants to move into your neighborhood to make it more dangerous. It funds schools to increase bureaucracy and to help teach ghetto kids who don't want to learn. It supports affirmative action in hiring so companies have to suffer hiring incompetent ghetto black and brown people over the hardworking white man.

This is why so many whites think that the government is incompetent. Not because of healthcare websites, Katrina's bungling (mostly caused by the private sector anyway), or other things. But because the government helps these people who do not need to be helped.

There is also the fact that their communities are getting blacker, browner, and more foreign. Univision is the most watched TV network, at white bars and dance clubs you will be more likely to hear black artists than white artists playing on the speakers, you can't openly say the word "fag" anymore, their daughter is bringing home friends who have non-white boyfriends or even worse it is your daughter's boyfriend who isn't white. These are the things that many white voters care about. Their vision of America is not a country that is a melting pot that is full of struggling people, but that it is a predominately white country of the I Love Lucy and Elvis age that is now threatened by people from different cultures that are changing that, and that is not a good thing all while ghetto sugar mommas are taking money away from the traditional nuclear white family.

It seems that many liberals do not understand these two things. "How can so many white people vote against their own interest?" well because to them it is their interest to take the surplus of welfare money from the black and brown communities to them. Unfortunately for them this isn't true so they are fighting something that doesn't exist. But the more these whites get squeezed the more they feel that inequality of welfare money is becoming more prevalent. The same with the anti-immigration stances. The reason why so many people don't support it is because they do not want people to come here in the first place. One more brown person in this country is one more person in this country who isn't spreading the culture founded on I Love Lucy and Elvis. Even if they are educated this rings true.

It isn't a uniquely American issue either, fascist parties are gaining prominence in Europe as well. People in Europe are terrified of Muslims and it's really pathetic because issues like mass immigration and welfare fraud are used by the bourgeoisie to distract people from the real problems in their lives.

I am always interested to how openly anti-Muslim Euro-GAF seems to be.Then again it is hard to see who is European and who is American in those threads.
 
I can't believe O'Reilly got a chance to interview Obama and decided the best use of that interview would be to talk about the Obamacare website and BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi.

They are literally living in the past.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I can't believe O'Reilly got a chance to interview Obama and decided the best use of that interview would be to talk about the Obamacare website and BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi.

They are literally living in the past.

Could very well be they were marching orders from the guys upstairs. The new CNN bosses had Anderson Cooper doing an hour long special on people with near death experiences. This is the kind of shit that happens when news exists to make money, we don't get the news anymore. We get bottom of the barrel shit that doesn't even matter but will bring in the numbers.
 

Snake

Member
Will never understand it... Twenty children died due to an idiot with a gun and it basically gets swept under the rug. Four Americans die in a foreign country and the GOP literally loses their shit.

There's nothing to understand or reconcile about Benghazi obsession. It's nothing more than the culmination of right-wing desperation, delusion, and denial in the 2012 elections. That delusion is now permanently scarred into the American right.

...and they ignore all of the Americans who died under similar circumstances while their guy was in the WH.

Just imagine if something like this had happened during Obama's term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
 
Could very well be they were marching orders from the guys upstairs. The new CNN bosses had Anderson Cooper doing a. hour long special on people with near death experiences. This is the kind of shit that happens when news exists to make money, we don't get the news anymore. We get bottom of the barrel shit that doesn't even matter but will bring in the numbers.

The interview was pretty much what I expected except for the end. O'Reilly used an e-mail question to end and picked one of the dumbest possible ones "why do you feel it's necessary to fundamentally transform the nation that has afforded you so much opportunity and success??" I really have no idea why he wasted a question by picking that one.

I understood the others (and expected them) since it's Fox News. Something tells me Bill O didn't pick that e-mail one because it was just too stupid even for him.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I can't believe O'Reilly got a chance to interview Obama and decided the best use of that interview would be to talk about the Obamacare website and BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi.

They are literally living in the past.

If he treated Obama like he treats John Stewart he could have actually done an interesting interview and maybe actually make Obama look worse in the eyes of moderates, but I guess he was targeting the O'Reilly crowd and not the Daily Show crowd, so Benghazi it was.

Thanks to that, O'Reilly practically threw Obama more softball questions than any other journalist I've ever seen. Obama clearly made the right decision to take that interview.
 
There's nothing to understand or reconcile about Benghazi obsession. It's nothing more than the culmination of right-wing desperation, delusion, and denial in the 2012 elections. That delusion is now permanently scarred into the American right.



Just imagine if something like this had happened during Obama's term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Reagan clearly wasn't spending enough on military/security....or rabble rabble something something like that.


Also, gonna throw this out there: http://cir.ca/news/legal-challenges-to-net-neutrality
 
This is pretty low . . .


Campaign site misleads man into donating money against Sink
Alex LearyAlex Leary, Times Washington Bureau Chief
Monday, February 3, 2014 11:44am

Ray Bellamy said he wanted to make a political contribution to Alex Sink a Google search landed him at "http://contribute.sinkforcongress2014.com."

"It looked legitimate and had a smiling face of Sink and all the trappings of a legitimate site," Bellamy, a doctor from Tallahassee who follows Florida politics, wrote in an email to the Buzz. (Here's Sink's actual site, which uses a similar color scheme.)

What Bellamy overlooked was that the site is designed to raise money against Sink. "I failed to notice the smaller print: Under "Alex Sink Congress" was the sentence 'Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her,' " he said.

"After sending what I thought was a contribution of 250 dollars to Sink, I get a page clearly thanking me for attempting to defeat Democrats, Obama, and Pelosi.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-b...into-donating-money-against-alex-sink/2163901

02032014_114421_sinkfundsite_8col.jpg


Yes, it has that sentence . . . but it also has a misleading URL (contribute.sinkforcongress2014.com), a copy of the Sink campaign's color scheme, and a smiling Sink.

Reagan clearly wasn't spending enough on military/security....or rabble rabble something something like that.
Reagan actually acted a bit rationally on this one. He just concluded that these people are crazy and pulled our troops the heck out of there.

Of course if a Democrat did something like that, it would be phrased as "Democrat does a 'cut & run'!"
 
What would you guys say to someone who claims social security is a Ponzi scheme?

I've talked with someone I know who has the whole conservative "government works like a business" view. The government isn't going to go out of business and have no way of dealing with SS shortfalls, so the threat that would make it a "scheme" isn't there in my view.

I have a hard time making a convincing case though.

I assume it is only called a Ponzi scheme because they believe that Social Security will no longer be around for when its their time to collect.

But its funny, the ones who are so worried about this are also the ones who want to gut the program or vote for people who want to gut the program.

Social Security will only fail if we choose to shoot ourselves in the foot, destroy the program, and cut people's benefits. Our ability to fund the program and help people make a living is not particularly tied to any sort of regressive Payroll tax.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I assume it is only called a Ponzi scheme because they believe that Social Security will no longer be around for when its their time to collect.

But its funny, the ones who are so worried about this are also the ones who want to gut the program or vote for people who want to gut the program.

Social Security will only fail if we choose to shoot ourselves in the foot, destroy the program, and cut people's benefits. Our ability to fund the program and help people make a living is not particularly tied to any sort of regressive Payroll tax.

Bingo. It's surprising how few people tend to point this out.
 
I'm actually kinda surprised there isn't a conspiracy theory out there that Obama was involved in 9/11. Or maybe there is, but it's just too fringy so I haven't seen it.

I'm sure it was just a distraction so that people wouldn't pay attention to Obama's support of the gun ban in Chicago.
 
Removing the risk corridors would raise premiums next year and further undermine the ACA. Oil pipeline, or screwing people over. Dunno, that's a tough call for them.
They (boehner) know for a fact that Obama wont budge at all on ACA. If they go with it they will drive off a cliff.

Keystone xl can box Obama if played right. Its easier to work with and has better optics for the GOP. Facts be damned. Hell why does GOP even need facts when Ted Cruz can create them from his rectum.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
They (boehner) know for a fact that Obama wont budge at all on ACA. If they go with it they will drive off a cliff.

Keystone xl can box Obama if played right. Its easier to work with and has better optics for the GOP. Facts be damned. Hell why does GOP even need facts when Ted Cruz can create them from his rectum.

Yeah, that's probably the option Obama would be more likely to bend on. I was torn on what the GOP would be more likely to rally around, given how smoothly they handled the last one.

Here's hoping Obama plays it the same way.
 

gogosox8

Member
What would you guys say to someone who claims social security is a Ponzi scheme?

I've talked with someone I know who has the whole conservative "government works like a business" view. The government isn't going to go out of business and have no way of dealing with SS shortfalls, so the threat that would make it a "scheme" isn't there in my view.

I have a hard time making a convincing case though.

I'd say he doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is if he thinks ss is one.
 
If it weren't for the media coverage I'd be fine with Obama giving them Keystone - it's going to happen anyway. But since we'd have to deal with the spin, let them hang.
 

Jackson50

Member
What happens if he wins multiple districts?
The Constitution requires a candidate to be a resident of the state when elected. So he can't win multiple district across the states. But there is no such requirement for primary elections, so he's running in four primaries.
Senators: Kerry Admits Obama's Syria Policy Is Failing (Josh Rogin, Daily Beast)



Two of the hawkiest senators are jumping straight to the shipping of armaments, but Kerry is apparently thankfully being more prudent in his tact. The policy may be failing to end the Syrian War, but it's nonetheless spared the US from wading into the morass, bled AQ mightily, and (in part) driven Tehran to negotiation over sanctions and the scope of its nuclear program. Not only may an altered Syrian stance affect the US at the primary point of contact, it could embitter Iranian elements still wedded to Syria. Delicate balancing act, and the correct move may be a tough one to swallow: continue to bide time.
It's not even that the policy has failed to end the war. Graham and McCain's primary goal is regime change, and they've been agitating for the armament of the insurgents since the beginning of the conflict; of course, that would only be the first step for them. Fortunately, Obama directs foreign policy. And as you note, his circumspection has prevented our entanglement in another hornet's nest. Moreover, it prevents our arms from exacerbating the transnational dispersion of weapons that is undoubtedly occurring throughout the region. The diffusion of arms after the Libyan revolution contributed to the subsequent instability throughout Northern and Central Africa. And the stakes in Syria are greater given the presence of numerous Islamist factions.

Also, I'm not convinced our quiescence has bled al-Qa'ida. There has been friction recently between the various factions nominally affiliated with al-Qa'ida and the core group. But the friction will only increase uncertainty and make our participation, if there is to be any, more perilous.
I'm actually kinda surprised there isn't a conspiracy theory out there that Obama was involved in 9/11. Or maybe there is, but it's just too fringy so I haven't seen it.
He wasn't involved in them. But they clearly didn't bother him, and he might've supported them if Jeremiah Wright's to be believed.
 
Obama won't cave on the debt ceiling. You can't take a hostage you aren't willing to take out...and everyone is saying we won't default. The GOP will pass thee bill first, Reid will strip the nonsense out and send it back.
 
Obama won't cave on the debt ceiling. You can't take a hostage you aren't willing to take out...and everyone is saying we won't default. The GOP will pass thee bill first, Reid will strip the nonsense out and send it back.

Exactly. Keystone will be something Obama will use in different and real negotiations, not this hogwash. He can never negotiate over the debt ceiling.

And I said how this was just like that scene in TBL last year! Don't be stealin' my movie anecdotes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom