StrangeSox

On India: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/...in7028709.shtml

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 08:52 AM) I really hate this guy. Wasn't there talk about implementing a recall apparatus in Illinois? If so, begin the recall campaign soon. It was on the ballot. I'm glad Brady didn't win, but I'm sad that Quinn did. Also, politicians should not be allowed to use the word "mandate" anymore, or they get automatically impeached.

Nate Silver finds Rasmussen consistently biased towards Republicans, generally poor showing in latest election. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ormed-strongly/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) I'm somewhat surprised that MSNBC would even go so far as to temporarily suspend their highest rated program over this, as opposed to a private admonition, if there wasn't something else going on behind the scenes. Much like the Juan Williams case; I wonder if they weren't wanting to discipline him for something else, and this gave them their opportunity. Things that make you go hmmm... edit: lol liberal media, even MSNBC is running off marginally progressive voices.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:56 PM) @ebertchicago: Olberman gave a few bucks, Fox gave a million and its soul. Meh, Fox has similar policies for their newscasters/anchors. Olbermann should have notified his boss, problem solved.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...emoirs_say.html Bush thought McCain was "less of a man" choosing Palin as his VP candidate. Not for choosing a woman, but for choosing a complete incompetent.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) I'll look for the rest when I get home, bt about the Acorn thing, there have been discussions on here about voter registration and its link to potential fraud. Several of the more liberal posters insist that registration of false names is no big deal, they dont vote, etc. But in my district, I was not asked for ID, I could have been anyone voting. They didnt even really look at my signature before I voted. And with false registration, you leave the potential for abuses, especially with absentee ballots and mail ballots. And some states have it for if yu sign up to get your ballot by mail once, they auytomaticly mail it to you every year after that. No potential for missues there at all. SOME groups get paid per voter registered. Some don't. So what is the incentive to register false people if you are not getting paid per registration? Just askin. The problem is that widespread voting irregularities have not been observed. Polling prior to the elections, exit polling and statistical models like Silver's at 538 indicate that the races almost always turn out within the expected statistical margins. This wouldn't work if their was voter fraud. There are problems here and there, but not nearly the level imagined/fabricated by some.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:30 PM) Yes, the over-the-topness is for reaction sake. But how many members of Obama's admin and the house and senate were found to have not paid taxes over the last 2 years? And not because they had massive deductions, but because they 'forgot', or because they outright lied to the IRS? There was a stretch there where every damn appointment he made owed back taxes. Kerry gets caught trying to duck taxes on his damn boat, but the taxes are good enough for the average mand to pay. My statements referred to the politicians, ALL of whom like to spend other peoples money, some more than others, to make themselves feel better. But lately, the ones not wanting to also pay thier share have had a D after their name. The wealthy are the ones in charge and rig the system for their own benefit. This is not shocking, and this applies to just about all politicians everywhere.

For instance: QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) Well I could post how magic boxes of ballots are just appearing in races where Dems are losing, and of course we all know about the voting machines in Nevada alrwady checking Harry Reid, machines serviced by a company that employs SEIU members, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate...orted-in-nevada Well, I know now that this came up on conservo-land, but that there have been no official reports of this happening. And the SEIU isn't some sort of demonic organization bent on voter fraud. The owner of Diebold is Republican; does that mean all votes cast on Diebold machines are suspect? Sorry, I like to examine the facts of a story instead of buying into echo chamber bulls***. The current India flap should tell you why you should be extremely skeptical of what gets pumped out of conservative media. Couldn't find much on these through Google. Sources?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) Well I could post how magic boxes of ballots are just appearing in races where Dems are losing, and of course we all know about the voting machines in Nevada alrwady checking Harry Reid, machines serviced by a company that employs SEIU members, or how in several races where Dems won, there were huge surges of Dem votes at the last moment, but you would just find some way to say that it was all coincidental, made up or otherwise meaningless, so why try. You had one race where they 'ran out of ballots', so they photocopied ballots to use. And two bags of those ballots just happened to appear as the vote tally was about done, with the Republican leading. But that is all a mirage, nothign to see here. Or the one where the guy and his campaign manager were caught with absentee ballots at their desk and in their car. But there surely has to be a good reason for that. Isn't there? Real vote fraud should be investigated and severely punished. Imagined vote fraud like ACORN stealing elections in 2008 (and some of the left was guilty of it re: Ohio 2004 and Diebold) is orders of magnitude worse than reality and is always partisan. But, if you could provide links to reliable sources on those incidents, I'd be interested in reading them. edit: see the Maddow video in the Dem thread for the problem with trusting anything from the echo chamber. It's likely to be just as true as the "ZOMG! $200M and 10% of the NAVY!" bulls***.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 03:55 PM) For anyone wondering why I had a bit of a meltdown in the Republican thread on the "$200M India Trip!" thing, that's why. Because I thought this place was above that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) Yes. You are correct on both of those statements. (Was this comprehensible eventually? Communicating science to people who don't know the field is obviously a skill I could use). I'm an engineer and also a science junkie, but as soon as I read your second post I knew what you meant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) OK, now I get why you're misunderstanding it. The 55 million year old event was in itself a fairly rapid event. The phrase is the "Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum". It was in itself a (geologically speaking) rapid event. Within a period of 10,000-100,000 years a substantial amount of carbon was released to the atmosphere. That carbon probably was stored in fossil form, most people would guess stored in some sort of methane ices. It was released geologically rapidly, and it was a huge event in climate. The correct way to say it would be we're on the verge of releasing the same amount of carbon in 200 years that were released in 10,000 years at the PETM, and that much carbon at the PETM shifted ocean currents, caused extinctions of creatures, formed large scale deserts, and prevented formation of long-lived ice caps for 20 million years. Ah, so the "55 million year event" was the warming event of 10-100k years that occured approximately 55 million years ago? Either way, we're still dumping carbon into the system at a rate that's several orders of magnitude faster.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 02:59 PM) I think the "55 million year event" is similar to "100 year flood". It doesn't mean it endured for that long, it means a periodic event time. They said "the 55 million year event", not "a 55 million year event".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) That's not what that statement says at all. We'd be pushing CO2 levels to the point that they have not been since 55 million years ago. I think you're wrong. amounts added = carbon dumped into the atmosphere, at least by my reading. Further, the preceding paragraph: So, we've already added 500B tonnes, and if we keep going at present rates, we'll pass 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes, the total amount released during a 55 million year long period. I agree that there is a big difference, but I still think my reading of the sentence was correct.

We're going to emit 55 millions years worth of CO2 in a couple of centuries, and somehow it's still inconceivable for some people that this will impact the climate.

Geological Society of London statement on climate change and the money-shot:

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) Joe Scarborough made donations to GOP candidates in 2006. He was not suspended. Did he notify management?

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) "Reasonable accomadations" is a subjective term, and it would be up to a judge to decide what reasonable means in cases like these. Also, its not separate but equal if non hearing impaired individuals can attend the theaters as well. But I don't think an entire theater like that would be the best answer anyways. I definitely think that the theaters should have 1-3 screens that play movies with subtitles. They could rotate the movies every week, so that everyone would get a chance to see all of the movies while they are out. They make hearing aids with receivers (t-coils, I think). If the venue (movie theater, concert hall, church, etc.) transmits the audio, you can pick it up. Wouldn't work for the totally deaf, though.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) What does that even mean? I think he's implying that, had Democrats won a bunch of races, we'd still be hearing ranting and raving about another right-wing pseudo-problem and Fox almost certainly would still have broadcast it's planned-before-the-election "Voter Fraud in Nevada" special.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:35 AM) Anyone who believes in prosperity theology has clearly never read the bible. Yeah, it's clearly post hoc justification for their materialism, at least from my viewpoint.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) Yep Democrats give away other peoples money. There are no Democrats that pay taxes, there are no Democrats in the highest tax bracket. I know you werent joking, but I am truly saddened that you can believe something that is so unbelievably false. Im pretty sure on this board I ran some numbers and showed that Democratic states pay a larger percentage of taxes than Republican states, and thus Democrats end up giving away their money to pay for Republicans. For example, in 2005 the Democratic state of Illinois paid more taxes to the Federal Govt than it received (99,776 >80,778). Other states that paid more than they received, California, NY. Now lets look at some Republican states, South Carolina received more than it paid, TN received more than it paid, VA received more than it paid, Mississippi received more than it paid. It seems to me that there is absolutely no facts to support the idea that Democrat's give other peoples money away, when the facts show that Republican's are the ones who receive more govt hand outs than they pay for. Kind of a peculiar fact. NV is the only "Republican" state who actually pays more to the govt than they receive, yet its the Democrats who are "getting a free ride". Gimme a break. I actually would find it hilarious if they got rid of most federal taxes, because half of those Republican states would lose tens of millions of dollars in funds that come from Democrat states. There's no room for rational dialog when you don't even know what the opposing viewpoints[/] (not just D vs. R) are. How many people who rant about communists and Marxism have ever read anything written by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or, hell, even guys like Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, von Mises, etc?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 11:30 AM) I've tried to think this out as a life long, social conservative Christian who has more liberal tendencies when it comes to government. Jesus taught "love your neighbor as yourself". He taught to help the poor and lame. He taught parables about the rich who hoard their money. The bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But all I hear from these so called evangelical neo-cons is that people with money (those who can afford health care worth having) deserve priority over those who have nothing. I hate the argument that Universal Healthcare will create long lines and people will die while waiting for care. What they are saying, without saying it, is that people WITH good insurance deserve the care MORE than those who don't have it. If you cant afford insurance, then screw you, you're not worthy. Well, there's prosperity theology, which I find pretty abhorrent. But, basically, you find people using religious doctrines (or treating things like the Constitution as religious doctrines) to justify their pre-existing biases and beliefs, not to form their beliefs and morals and ethics. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias to some degree, but some take it a wee bit farther than others.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 10:40 AM) What's hilarious about this is that everything I've read of yours on this board indicates that's exactly what you think. Oh I'm sorry, those two paragraphs weren't related.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) Forget remembering 1994, I thinking back to the 2001 to 2009 era. Do we need to post the charts showing the number of obstructionist actions from 2000 to 2010 again? There's a pretty big jump that mysteriously happens right at the start of 2007.