But it is the marginalized/rural poor that vote Republican.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Illegal labor is cheaper specifically because it is illegal - it's an exploitative arrangement that harms both the alien and the worker that has to compete with him. If that labor was properly reported and subject to the same taxation, regulations and oversight that legal labor is, there'd be less of an issue. Make no mistake - the big donors, and therefore the party leadership, of the republican party love illegal immigration and want it to continue unabated, despite whatever lip service they pay to the rank and file constituency.
But really, the labor market considerations are a distantly secondary consideration to me compared to the national security concerns that are inherent in having a porous, unguarded border with a corrupt, collapsing 3rd world nation.
GasBandit
Staff member
It is decidedly no longer to our economic advantage to enact fully universal open immigration. That was one thing in 1849, when your favorite poem was written, and we still had an untamed frontier (and our government was still small enough to not even have a federal income tax, how about that for a mindblow), but our population has grown by approximately a factor of 20 since then. We're not "the new world" any more. And even when we were, we still had an official method of handling immigrants other than just "run on across the river in the dead of night."
Much shit as I'm sure I'm going to get for it, we need a wall. A 20+ foot wall, with barbed wire, motion sensors, spot lights, and if I can get away with it, dogs and machine guns.
GasBandit
Staff member
Driving home today, I just heard Glenn Beck on the radio saying that liberals "were right about Iraq. I lead with my mistake - they said Iraq would be a quagmire foreverwar, that iraqis couldn't operate and didn't want democracy, and that nothing there was worth one american life. I was wrong, they were right." He went on to describe how we shouldn't be spending one more dollar, one more life, one more missile, or one more bullet on Iraq, and that he was ready to stand together with those who opposed the Iraq war initially on those principles. Of course he had to throw in a little provocation at the end, saying "and if you were against it 11 years ago for those reasons, surely you must still be against it today, right? No possible reason you could support us intervening in Iraq now. It's up to the people of Iraq to sort this out for themselves."
Hrm.
Hrm.
GasBandit
Staff member
This video gets interesting around 1:20 -
Senator Jeff Sessions:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, 'The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.' And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - 'We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.' Close quote. So I would ask each of our [eight] former Administrators [of the EPA] if any of you agree that that's an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand...
... Thank you. The record will reflect no one raised their hands."
Senator Jeff Sessions:
"The President on November 14th 2012 said, 'The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted, even ten years ago.' And then on May 29th last year he also said - quote - 'We also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.' Close quote. So I would ask each of our [eight] former Administrators [of the EPA] if any of you agree that that's an accurate statement on the climate. So if you do, raise your hand...
... Thank you. The record will reflect no one raised their hands."
GasBandit
Staff member
Their also finally fighting back, even despite the mass desertions. Now I'm less "fuck them all" and "Weigh those options carefully".
Even Fox New's Megyn Kelly had enough with Dick Cheney's hypocrisy.
http://news.yahoo.com/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq-interview-135553569.html?bcmt=comments-postbox
Dick Cheney thought he'd be welcomed as a liberator by Megyn Kelly.
http://news.yahoo.com/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq-interview-135553569.html?bcmt=comments-postbox
Dick Cheney thought he'd be welcomed as a liberator by Megyn Kelly.
GasBandit
Staff member
HAR! Also kinda "Ew."
Everyone knew the whole PAC and SuperPAC thing was a shell game being personally run by candidates themselves. This operated AS DESIGNED.
Free speech has no guarantee of privacy. If it can't protect someone when they expose corruption, it certainly doesn't get to do it to prevent the exposure of corruption.
SCOTUS says (in a 9-0 decision!), "Merely saying, 'This existing process, but now on a computer,' is not sufficiently original to warrant being patented."
It's a start?
--Patrick
It's a start?
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
Thank god science isn't done by committee.
GasBandit
Staff member
Or consensus?
Necronic
Staff member
The problem with that clip is that he lead by saying CO2 is "plant food" and not a problem, then asked a very cagey question that seemed to have a similar connotation and gave weight to that assertion but really didn't really ask that question. I would be tempted to keep my hand down as well, because I'm not certain that global warming is happening faster than previous models allowed for.
But that doesn't mean that global warming isn't real and isn't a serious issue. It was a bullshit question played to the cameras and it got a bullshit answer.
But that doesn't mean that global warming isn't real and isn't a serious issue. It was a bullshit question played to the cameras and it got a bullshit answer.
GasBandit
Staff member
Let me rephrase. I hear the term "97%" bandied about as the supposed percentage of scientists in the world who attribute global warming to anthropogenic causes. Does that, in your mind, mean the science is "settled?"
It's settled until it's proven otherwise. NOTHING in science is settled.
GasBandit
Staff member
What percentage of scientists have to disagree to constitute "proven otherwise?"
Necronic
Staff member
To be honest that is actually a REALLY complex question. I have a 1000 page or so anthology on the philosophy of science that tries, and fails, to answer that. Consensus, or ad populum, doesn't really work, even straight empiricism has logical flaws.
In my line of work, and most "science for money", the bed answer is "fruitfulness". If your theory can predict something in a way that is profitable then it is a good theory. This is really what separates engineering from raw science, the former only cares that it works, the latter tries to understand why (which is why engineers are famous for their reliance on so-called look-up tables.)
Global warming, however, can't really be answered like this because there can only be one trial run, and if we are wrong humans may go extinct. That said, there is plenty of fruitful science that underpins the logic behind global warming (like CO2 absorbing IR, which admittedly is harder to understand than calling it "plant food"), and considering that all currently fruitful science generally supports the premise of global warming, I would say it's better to err on the side of caution and not risk killing off the species just so we can maintain the status quo.
I will say that whatever changes we do make should be thoughtful and measured though. The fact that a cap and trade system is favored over a carbon tax already implies that the idiocracy has infected the solution.
In my line of work, and most "science for money", the bed answer is "fruitfulness". If your theory can predict something in a way that is profitable then it is a good theory. This is really what separates engineering from raw science, the former only cares that it works, the latter tries to understand why (which is why engineers are famous for their reliance on so-called look-up tables.)
Global warming, however, can't really be answered like this because there can only be one trial run, and if we are wrong humans may go extinct. That said, there is plenty of fruitful science that underpins the logic behind global warming (like CO2 absorbing IR, which admittedly is harder to understand than calling it "plant food"), and considering that all currently fruitful science generally supports the premise of global warming, I would say it's better to err on the side of caution and not risk killing off the species just so we can maintain the status quo.
I will say that whatever changes we do make should be thoughtful and measured though. The fact that a cap and trade system is favored over a carbon tax already implies that the idiocracy has infected the solution.
It's a start. Patents may have their place (they may not), but the stupidity in the computer world with them is almost beyond belief. I think IBM, Microsoft, and the others with "patent portfolios" might want to take a good hard long look at how much money they could SAVE if they didn't need an army of lawyers to even draft up the things and could just work off of whatever.
Well, MS is a bad example there, considering the legal extortion they're doing to Android manufacturers:
And it's obvious stuff. My brother actually worked for Motorola in their division surrounding this stuff (I work in a different industry). What they're extorting on is obvious, both by my view, and according to him.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's all I was driving at really, the rest was window dressing for a debate we've had around here a hundred times, and is unlikely to be, to borrow a term from you - fruitful.
GasBandit
Staff member
The prosecutors paint a pretty damning picture... so why have no charges even been filed and the investigation stopped by both a state and federal judge?
It's spelled K-O-C-H.
GasBandit
Staff member
So it's starting to sound like the prosecutors have a political axe to grind and, having been unable to get their way in a court of law, are attempting to achieve it in the court of public opinion.[DOUBLEPOST=1403299421,1403299366][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ah yes, Koch, the new Halliburton.
Necronic
Staff member
That sounds about right. I'm generally inclined to side with Federal Judges on pretty much any ruling.
GasBandit
Staff member
Here's a wake-up call to any Republicans who anticipate an easy sweep into the senate this fall... The Democrats are out-fundraising them by 43%.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dscc-nrsc-may-fundraising-108136.html#ixzz35DGa0vWG
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dscc-nrsc-may-fundraising-108136.html#ixzz35DGa0vWG
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/20/california-female-inmates-sterilized/11034317/
California illegally sterilizing female inmates.
California illegally sterilizing female inmates.
Fucking disgusting.
If they're going to take that stance, why stop at inmates? Let's just turn the U.S. into New China, get those family planning laws in place, all the stuff Naiwen loves so much.