USA Politics: Tea Party vs. the Establishment and other issues

[TrackerNeil]

But, in other news, a federal judge has struck down Pennsylvania's gay marriage ban. A judge that was nominated by George W. Bush and endorsed by Rick Santorum.

Yep. The same judge who handed down Kitzmiller vs. Dover, which was a big defeat for the God Squad. I may just have to send GWB a thank-you note.

[lokisnow]

As to Sullivan and ANWR...

My view - shared by a majority of Alaskans - is that ANWR has NOTHING to do with protecting the environment or endangered species or anything remotely similar. Rather, it is a federal 'land grab'. ANWR's status as a wildlife refuge will last until the federal government decides to sell oil/gas leases in that area, with the revenue going to the federal government, not the state. The federal government will never openly admit this.

Piketty sort of touches on this issue in chapter five. Basically, one contributing factor to the explosion in inequality from the late 1970s to 2010 was governments around the world distorting the free market by dumping assets into the hands of their greedy buddies at absurdly low fire-sale prices. I'm sure if Republicans get all three branches again, they will try to sell off lots of federal assets to make themselves and their buddies rich--the agitation for such is starting to enter party policy (see the Bundy issue and people claiming the real problem is that the federal government owns land in nevada), and it would be really tragic if we did reduce national assets because all those assets will only go to a couple dozen billionaire investors, who will then charge exorbitant rents for the use of that formerly public land.

If we manage to not mine the oil and gas out of ANWR it might eventually be one of the USA's biggest assets on a global carbon market. It could make us even more wealthy in the future if we leave it in the ground now.

But it's not just republicans, Diane Feinstein is working to make herself worth 9 or 10 figures by selling off branches of the post office to her buddies and pocketing millions in the process.

[Inigima]

This tweet makes me happy

Ann Boobus ‏@a_girl_irl 1h

when liberal mush brained granola fuckers talk about vaccines & autism I call them idiots so I don't wanna hear any "not ALL conservatives"

[Shryke]

Piketty sort of touches on this issue in chapter five. Basically, one contributing factor to the explosion in inequality from the late 1970s to 2010 was governments around the world distorting the free market by dumping assets into the hands of their greedy buddies at absurdly low fire-sale prices. I'm sure if Republicans get all three branches again, they will try to sell off lots of federal assets to make themselves and their buddies rich--the agitation for such is starting to enter party policy (see the Bundy issue and people claiming the real problem is that the federal government owns land in nevada), and it would be really tragic if we did reduce national assets because all those assets will only go to a couple dozen billionaire investors, who will then charge exorbitant rents for the use of that formerly public land.

If we manage to not mine the oil and gas out of ANWR it might eventually be one of the USA's biggest assets on a global carbon market. It could make us even more wealthy in the future if we leave it in the ground now.

But it's not just republicans, Diane Feinstein is working to make herself worth 9 or 10 figures by selling off branches of the post office to her buddies and pocketing millions in the process.

And, as an adendum to this and as I mentioned earlier, a big part of any fire-sale plan is shifting ownership to the states. The Federal government is the best shot in the US at avoiding the sell-off of public assets.

[ThinkerX]

Piketty sort of touches on this issue in chapter five. Basically, one contributing factor to the explosion in inequality from the late 1970s to 2010 was governments around the world distorting the free market by dumping assets into the hands of their greedy buddies at absurdly low fire-sale prices. I'm sure if Republicans get all three branches again, they will try to sell off lots of federal assets to make themselves and their buddies rich--the agitation for such is starting to enter party policy (see the Bundy issue and people claiming the real problem is that the federal government owns land in nevada), and it would be really tragic if we did reduce national assets because all those assets will only go to a couple dozen billionaire investors, who will then charge exorbitant rents for the use of that formerly public land.

I will reluctantly concede halfway with you on this. However...

...the oil majors, back in the day, invested a *lot* of money building the Alaskan Pipeline. Possibly a prohibitive amount by todays standards. Yes, they profited, but so did the state...and so did a *lot* of laborers, welders, techs, truck drivers, and equipment operators. Even now, oil/pipeline jobs are very well paying. But...

...the amount of oil going through the Alaskan pipeline has been declining for a long while now. According to the original design, it was supposed to have been shut down years ago. It is still functioning because of the reduced volume and drilling n a couple of minor fields near Prudhoe Bay. The amount of oil going through it declines below a certain amount (exact figures vary), pipeline shuts down, and that revenue goes away. Starting it back up again will be a really, really expensive mess. So...which is worse: deny access to ANWR, let the pipeline shut down (and kill the LNG line out of spite in the process) in the midst of a growing energy crisis, OR allow ANWR to be tapped, and maybe ease the pain?

Because what is 'normal' now CANNOT last much longer. Modern civilization is totally dependent on fossil fuels to keep things 'normal' and those in charge are completely dead set against alternatives. The changeover is going to be a bitch, and what comes after...well, the 'new normal' might have more in common with a third world dictatorship than the present system.

[Lightysnake88]

Guess what?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-illegal-campaign-contribution-106882.html

Looks like D'souza may do some jail time.

[Wise Fool]

-I said Paul shouldn't have altered the quote to put words in Obama's mouth. I hate fundraising letters. But the best propaganda has a kernel of truth, and this is no exception

-Your use of "religious fanaticism" and "sacred" just proves you make no attempt to actually understand the views of those who disagree with you on this issue. What other rights are you willing to toss away because you don't like their supporters? Free speech? Freedom of religion? Right to trial by jury?

:agree: I am not a gun-nut, I don't own a gun. But I am a 2nd-amendment "absolutist" and NRA supporter because of the reasons you list. Vigilantly defending the Bill of Rights is not evidence of some irrational attachment to ink on paper, it's a rational attempt to preserve the Constitution's teeth.

-Propaganda is propaganda. Lies are lies. Reality and fiction are different things. You can allude to some mystical kernel of truth but you haven't shown any, or why anyone should care when this kernel is presently lodged in the middle of a forty pound piece of steaming bullshit. Broken clocks may be right twice a day, but I'm still throwing them out.

-I think describing the mindless, inconsistent, and irrational rhetoric and the mindset behind it as similar to religious fanaticism is quite apt. Religious fundamentalists, according to themselves, are also staunch supporters and vigilant defenders of truth, goodness, God, virtue, kittens and babies. "Absolutists" such as yourself also hold yourselves in high esteem, dressing up your particular views and specific follies in the light of some grandiose principles and an implied (if not explicit) moral superiority. And it's probably not a coincidence that notable religious fundamentalists, whether of the Christian or Muslim varieties, tend to be right wing if not extreme right.

And sure, you love to accuse dissenters of being evil henchmen of evil. Religious fundamentalists accuse of hating God, making war on God, trying to get rid of God in society, and promoting evil. You, on the other hand, prefer to accuse of trying to get rid of rights - not just one right, but all the rights. Because you see it the same way religious fanatics do - either you're with them, and you accept and defend and agree with everything any one 'representative' or spokesman or media idol or politician or pundit says; or you're opposed to them, and opposed to the high principles they allegedly espouse, and probably opposed to [kittens/babies/rainbows/goodness/other rights] too.

So what's the difference, really? You'll accuse anyone who supports any measure of gun control, or even of simply not seeing a looming omnipresent Agenda in relatively standard post disaster speech, of wanting to eliminate the second amendment and probably all others too. A religious nutcase will accuse anyone who supports any measure of a division between Church and state of wanting to burn the Bible and overthrow God Himself. Even if I don't want to eliminate any rights. Even if I don't want to tackle the Almighty. Hell, I might even believe those rights should be protected, and I might even believe in God too, but it doesn't matter, because holy shit, I disagreed with some stupid shit some derpy celebrity-elect proposed or did or said.

And frankly, it's as difficult to have real faith in God when there are so many idiotic, hateful, ignorant people who feel they are God's defenders and what they do is really defending God somehow. And it's difficult to think the Constitution "has teeth" at all when there are so many people who honestly believe that showing up somewhere (a Chipotle's, for example, or a Bundy ranch) with guns and cameras is some kind of defense of Constitutional rights. At this point even I'm almost ready to say "fuck it" to God and the Constitution both - and I know you've already forsaken one of these yourself. You Satanist.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Kansas is a cluster right now.

[1918me]

McConell wins the GOP primary in Kentucky, surprising nobody.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/20/politics/primaries-roundup/

[Ramsay Gimp]

McConell wins the GOP primary in Kentucky, surprising nobody.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/20/politics/primaries-roundup/

Yea the newest issue of Rolling Stone really made it seem like he was barely hanging on for his life but apparently it wasn't even close

[Lightysnake88]

It's possible Grimes will beat him, but against the Tea Prty, he was always gonna be fine.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Wise Fool,

For the record I support reasonable regulations for firearms. That includes registration and liscensure. My point is that to out right ban firearms from ownership by individual members of the public a constitutional amendment is necessary.

[awesome possum]

Speaking of McConnell vs. Grimes, Grimes recently hit McConnell with the charge that he accepts more donations from lobbyists than any other member of congress. Politifact rated this as True

Which just goes to show, it takes a lot of money to make government do so little.

[MerenthaClone]

Wise Fool,

For the record I support reasonable regulations for firearms. That includes registration and liscensure. My point is that to out right ban firearms from ownership by individual members of the public a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Well its a good thing that Obama does [not] want to ban guns, then!

So what's the difference, really? You'll accuse anyone who supports any measure of gun control, or even of simply not seeing a looming omnipresent Agenda in relatively standard post disaster speech, of wanting to eliminate the second amendment and probably all others too. A religious nutcase will accuse anyone who supports any measure of a division between Church and state of wanting to burn the Bible and overthrow God Himself. Even if I don't want to eliminate any rights. Even if I don't want to tackle the Almighty. Hell, I might even believe those rights should be protected, and I might even believe in God too, but it doesn't matter, because holy shit, I disagreed with some stupid shit some derpy celebrity-elect proposed or did or said.

This. I'm reasonably sure Ramsay doesn't care, but the only change I'd generally make to gun legislation is requiring a very short, relatively simple gun safety and storage licensure process. I'm even in favor of relaxing some restrictions, and (possibly) tightening others. I think that (for example) the way NY is handling it, by just refusing to grant permits, is wrong. But wanting that apparently means I am literally identical to someone who wants to take all your guns, so fuck it, why shouldn't I want to take all your guns? If you're going to be histrionic and completely incapable of a rational discussion where a possible compromise or mutually agreeable balance could be reached , yeah, I'm going to move further outward in response, both out of spite and out of sheer tactics.

[Inigima]

This comic seems instructive.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1299907

Pardon the Daily Kos link, it's Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World -- it's just the place I found hosting it first.

[The onion wight]

Wise Fool,

For the record I support reasonable regulations for firearms. That includes registration and liscensure. My point is that to out right ban firearms from ownership by individual members of the public a constitutional amendment is necessary.

So you're not of the view that gun ownership is a right? More a government granted , and regulated, privilege?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Onion Wight,

Voting is a right, it's subject to regisration before it can be exercised.

[The onion wight]

Onion Wight,

Voting is a right, it's subject to regisration before it can be exercised.

Voting is a right? I had always thought of it as a voluntary civic duty. In my country it's actually an involuntary duty, like serving on a jury, as voting is mandatory.

I'm only asking as I had thought the 2nd amendment was speaking to both the governments need to maintain an armed population to defend the country and an individuals right to defend him/herself against aggression with available means. For example I've never understood the restriction on ex felons owning guns? Are rights restricted purely through the democratic process or is there some fundamental basis that makes some rights more indelible than others?

[Wise Fool]

Wise Fool,

For the record I support reasonable regulations for firearms. That includes registration and liscensure. My point is that to out right ban firearms from ownership by individual members of the public a constitutional amendment is necessary.

Right, but what happens when opposition to the former (registration, licensing, regulations of any sort) claims that it's exactly the same as the latter (gun bans) and therefore unconstitutional and vile and part of an Agenda to grab everyone's guns? Because that's what the standard, ahem, political-speak is these days.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WF,

I state that I believe they are wrong and strongly supect courts will agree with me.