US Politics: we are all liberals, we are all conservatives

[The onion wight]

Larry Bell, is that you? A quick read:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0What could this mean for innovation and investment in new technologies one may ask? It's been painfully clear for quite a while that both adaption and mitigation are key in tackling this issue. The long term economic costs of inaction far outweigh any small hits we may take now working towards a solution.

I think to define a molecule that all life is dependent on as pollution is a perversion of language, but if it allows Obama to issue a decree without bothering with trivial nonsense like passing a law through Congress then who cares right? Btw the only thing Wall St gives a crap about is making a buck.

I love that you still don't get that "race" means different things in different countries/cultures, despite a good chunk of actual people from that actual culture telling you that while other Europeans might be "white" that doesn't mean they're the same "race."

And, uh, yeah. I don't know if you're aware, but anything is toxic in sufficient quantities. If we, for some magical reason, suddenly started pumping out a shitton of oxygen I'd be worried too. Since I like not spontaneously exploding and all. And I'd call it pollution.

Brittany currently has a robust nationalist movement moving to separate itself from France purely because it is a predominately Breton place, as opposed to the rest of France. Like I said, "race" can mean many different things. People care about that shit, for some reason.

By that sterling logic someone drowning in the ocean is in fact being killed by pollution. Too much of a good thing eh?

Also the term race, as it's commonly used, refers to specific physical characteristics common in particular sub groups of the human population. What you're referring to is ethnicity/nationality, and the English language possesses a perfectly good word to describe the irrational fear of people on that basis, xenophobia. A word you won't use as it lacks the Pavlovian fear response when the word racist is thrown around.

[Rorshach]

Wtf? Normans? Is this 12th century England?

This is the point where you, instead of typing nonsense, should stop and think: "what if I'm missing something here?". You are.

Where do you think racial thinking comes from, if not from history? Serious question, really.

[awesome possum]

Where did I ever tout the Bethea article as "gospel" or even my source of information? Are you always prone to such exaggerations? I posted pages back that the information I base my opinion on comes from my real life world. I don't need the Bethea article to tell me what I already know and am basing my opinion on, I only posted it because someone was clamoring for some sort of source.

Since its the only source you've given, not counting your all-powerful ability to just "know" what happened, you must be treating it as gospel. Because you just knowing what happened is about as reliable as the cat turds I scooped out of the litter box yesterday.

Which makes this even more amusing:

I don't disagree with anything in the Bethea article though.

Have you actually read it? Because your words and his words often don't match.

[The onion wight]

It won't lead to more "innovation jobs", because both political parties do very poor job in protecting of american market. For example the solar panels installed in last years,were overwhelmingly made by Chinese, not in America, but are paid by american taxpayers. That's unlikely to change so all this talk about "new clean innovative economy" is just PR bullshit.

You won't get solar panel production in the US as the rare earths needed to make them is much cheaper to mine in China as they don't bother so much with all the enormous amounts of actual no shit pollution that results from digging it out of the ground and processing it.

[Suttree]

I think to define a molecule that all life is dependent on as pollution is a perversion of language,

Well science disagrees and I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with Obama. To be clear though, are you going on record as a climate change denier?

[The onion wight]

Well science disagrees and I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with Obama. To be clear though, are you going on record as a climate change denier?

Please cite the scientific journals that describe carbon dioxide as pollution, I.e. toxic to life? I'll wait.

[DanteGabriel]

Please cite the scientific journals that describe carbon dioxide as pollution, I.e. toxic to life? I'll wait.

Cute attack angle. Also one currently being used by the fossil fuel industry.

Is Carbon Dioxide a pollutant?

The fossil fuel industry points out in their ads that carbon dioxide it essential for both plant life and human life. Is it wrong, then, to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant? The definition of pollution in Webster's dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there!

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp

Essentially the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant is a semantic dodge and attempt to confuse the issue. Because it's known that the presence of too much of it throws our world system out of balance in a million critical ways. Ways that will not, likely, kill life on earth, but will subject us to some pretty radical changes that will not at all be pleasant for humans. Nice job of carrying water for polluters.

[awesome possum]

Please cite the scientific journals that describe carbon dioxide as pollution, I.e. toxic to life? I'll wait.

Are you kidding me? It's a greenhouse gas. The Supreme Court even ruled that it should be regulated.

Then again, common sense hasn't ever been your strong suit, hence your need to continuously come back into this thread despite being banned how many times now?

[sToNED_CAT]

You won't get solar panel production in the US as the rare earths needed to make them is much cheaper to mine in China as they don't bother so much with all the enormous amounts of actual no shit pollution that results from digging it out of the ground and processing it.

They were not that much cheaper, just enough that it resulted in closure of many western mines, but that's changing because of new Chinese export restrictions. Anyway the solar panel example shows that you can't expect that the "dirty energy jobs" will be always replaced by new "clean energy jobs", despite increased investment.

[Suttree]

Please cite the scientific journals that describe carbon dioxide as pollution, I.e. toxic to life? I'll wait.

Sigh. Seriously stop trolling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

[Maithanet]

Please cite the scientific journals that describe carbon dioxide as pollution, I.e. toxic to life? I'll wait.

Yeah, this isn't even hard. Back in 2007 in Massachusetts vs the EPA, the Supreme Court found that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

[MerenthaClone]

So, uh, these super dangerous prisoners we're releasing? They may very well have been released in seven months anyway, at least according to a former legal advisor to the (Bush) state department. So when people scream that this is a bad trade, we, plausibly, got something for nothing, on top of the advantages in peace talks we might get. But I guess you could keep carrying on being mad that the other guys got a shiny thing, because that's frankly what this sounds like.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/01/4151601/soldier-exchange-aside-guantanamo.html

That thinking, which wouldn't necessarily apply to Guantánamo prisoners who are affiliated with al-Qaida, may have been a factor in the exchange for Bergdahl, said Bellinger, who served during the administration of President George W. Bush.

Their release, he said, could be seen as a "reasonable compromise" to a difficult dilemma. "Frankly, they are only being released seven months earlier than they might otherwise have to have been released," Bellinger said.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/01/4151601/soldier-exchange-aside-guantanamo.html#storylink=cpy

[NoneofYourBiz]

Since its the only source you've given, not counting your all-powerful ability to just "know" what happened, you must be treating it as gospel. Because you just knowing what happened is about as reliable as the cat turds I scooped out of the litter box yesterday.

Which makes this even more amusing:

Have you actually read it? Because your words and his words often don't match.

I will repeat, because you are apparently slow, that I have read Bethea's statement and that I don't disagree with anything Bethea said. His statements are a piece of the overall story and there is much more that will come out. This story belongs to the members of that unit and some others involved, such as the SOF and Intel communities and they will tell it. At least the ones who can will.

So let's court martial the guy and get the story, right? You guys should be much more concerned about the families of guys who died looking for this dirtbag. Like this one

[The onion wight]

Sigh. Seriously stop trolling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Let me see I asked you to cite a scientific journal, as you were the one claiming to have science on your side and all, and you give me an internet posting arguing about the definition under the Clean Air Act? And you accuse me of trolling! So again provide me with any scientific literature that claims CO2 is a toxic pollutant, I'll wait.

Are you kidding me? It's a greenhouse gas. The Supreme Court even ruled that it should be regulated.

Then again, common sense hasn't ever been your strong suit, hence your need to continuously come back into this thread despite being banned how many times now?

The most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor, does that make water a pollutant? What a silly nonsensical argument.

Cute attack angle. Also one currently being used by the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp

Essentially the question of whether CO2 is a pollutant is a semantic dodge and attempt to confuse the issue. Because it's known that the presence of too much of it throws our world system out of balance in a million critical ways. Ways that will not, likely, kill life on earth, but will subject us to some pretty radical changes that will not at all be pleasant for humans. Nice job of carrying water for polluters.

No it's a genuine concern, if you can define CO2 as 'pollution' then you can pretty much define any other substance as pollution no matter how innocuous or even necessary it is to life. Clearly carbon dioxide is not a toxin in our environment as clearly neither is water or oxygen. If the government wishes to restrict the burning of coal, which is what this about after all, then they should go pass a law rather than engaging in disingenuous semantics.

[sologdin]

died looking for this dirtbag

the hostility is not impressive, considering that the alleged desertion was on account of the unlawfulness of the war and occupation. better that all of the stormtroopers had deserted.

[awesome possum]

I will repeat, because you are apparently slow, that I have read Bethea's statement and that I don't disagree with anything Bethea said. His statements are a piece of the overall story and there is much more that will come out. This story belongs to the members of that unit and some others involved, such as the SOF and Intel communites and they will tell it. At least the ones who can will.

Ahh, so you agree with Bethea when he said this:

I believe that Bergdahl also deserves sympathy

and this:

Retrieving him at least reminds soldiers that we will never abandon them to their fates, right or wrong.

or this:

I forgave Bergdahl because it was the only way to move on. I wouldn’t wish his fate on anyone.

what about this:

And Bergdahl, all I can say is this: Welcome back. I’m glad it's over.

So let's court martial the guy and get the story, right? You guys should be much more concerned about the families of guys who died looking for this dirtbag. Like this one

I agree, lets get the story. Now stop pretending that you know the story.

As for the families who lost someone looking for him, I feel for them. Just as I feel for every single American family who lost someone because of this and the other bullshit war. If you're so concerned about them maybe you should direct your attention to the people who sent them there and not what they did on a mission while there.

The most powerful greenhouse gas is water vapor, does that make water a pollutant? What a silly nonsensical argument.

Well, considering you have been the King of Silly Nonsensical Arguments in this thread, I'll take your word for it. And wish you better luck in making your next account when this one is inevitably banned too.

[sToNED_CAT]

died looking for this dirtbag

the hostility is not impressive, considering that the alleged desertion was on account of the unlawfulness of the war and occupation. better that all of the stormtroopers had deserted.

Again, what was so unlawful about war in Afghanistan? Just because Iraq war was based on faulty evidence, doesn't mean Afghanistan should be put into the same category.

Oh, and just a reminder, how might US electricity prices look after new EPA regulations take effect - http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/9ec12994-c240-11e2-8992-00144feab7de.img. In 2005 the price in US and EU was the same, before EU started supporting renewables.

[TrackerNeil]

Wow...if you'd have told me, ten years ago, that board conservatives would refer to a US soldier as "shitbird" or "dirtbag", I would have laughed. In retrospect, however, perhaps this makes perfect sense. Conservatives are awfully quick to turn on the people they once called heroes; witness the absence of Bushes at the last Republican convention. Dick Cheney has vanished from the party's please-come list, Dan Quayle they probably had executed, and Mitt Romney became Facebook anathema mere hours after his 2012 loss. Hell, even "repeal and replace" has been largely discarded in favor of "reform and kinda repeal but not really and look at that funny dog over there."

[MerenthaClone]

I will repeat, because you are apparently slow, that I have read Bethea's statement and that I don't disagree with anything Bethea said. His statements are a piece of the overall story and there is much more that will come out. This story belongs to the members of that unit and some others involved, such as the SOF and Intel communites and they will tell it. t.

So let's court martial the guy and get the story, right? You guys should be much more concerned about the families of guys who died looking for this dirtbag. Like this one

Why? Her son joined an army that places a priority on finding and rescuing members that go missing. I'm sure her son was more important to her than someone else's, but I frankly don't care, they're about the same to me. Knowing that, if you go missing, people will come in after you is incredibly important to the continued functioning of that entire apparatus. I don't care whether her son was patriotic or not, and she's speaking with hindsight. Maybe you should read some of Bethea's comments regarding Bergahl, since somehow that guy's less of an ass than you? But no, tell me, why should I care more about this woman's son? And personally, while I'm not really about to join the military, knowing that your supposed comrades have your back and are coming for you is kind of the fucking core of military functioning, no? I mean, sure, we could throw that away so that you feel justified in calling a guy you don't know a "dirtbag" but okay.

No it's a genuine concern, if you can define CO2 as 'pollution' then you can pretty much define any other substance as pollution no matter how innocuous or even necessary it is to life. Clearly carbon dioxide is not a toxin in our environment as clearly neither is water or oxygen. If the government wishes to restrict the burning of coal, which is what this about after all, then they should go pass a law rather than engaging in disingenuous semantics.

As already stated, if there was a magical industrial process that dumped shitloads of excess oxygen into the atmosphere, I'd be very concerned and would treat it as a pollutant. Water re: drowning is the wrong example, because that's a totally different mechanism for dying. However, a shitton of H20 being dumped into an environment with a very, very high saline content would also be a pollutant, yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity For your perusal.

And if you're looking for "scientific evidence that CO2 is pollution" you're going to need to define pollution first. Since, well, it doesn't have an accepted scientific definition. Mirriam Webster has one of the definitions as: " substances that make land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use" of which CO2, O2, and H20 could all fall under, under appropriate conditions. Feces are critical to life as well, but I don't see you clamoring to have it added to your drinking water.

Wow...if you'd have told me, ten years ago, that board conservatives would refer to a US soldier as "shitbird" or "dirtbag", I would have laughed. In retrospect, however, perhaps this makes perfect sense. Conservatives are awfully quick to turn on the people they once called heroes; witness the absence of Bushes at the last Republican convention. Dick Cheney has vanished from the party's please-come list, Dan Quayle they probably had executed, and Mitt Romney became Facebook anathema mere hours after his 2012 loss. Hell, even "repeal and replace" has been largely discarded in favor of "reform and kinda repeal but not really and look at that funny dog over there."

The right has never "supported the troops" except when it comes to trying to quash dissent. They've been quick to cut benefits and protection for them while being in favor of shoving them into situations based on faulty intelligence with inadequate numbers for their barely-formulated goals, then have the fucking gall to accuse people questioning them of being unpatriotic.

[sologdin]

mackica--

the US had no extradition treaty with afghanistan, so there was not even a basis for the US to demand extradition, much less turn the failure to extradite into casus belli. the US didn't even provide a prima facie case to afghanistan for extradition. GWB simply stating we gonna git those who harbor terrorists does not make the invasion lawful.