SI
SI

 Politics | Mainstream Politics and Economics


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: koan3/27/2012 11:03:54 AM
1 Recommendation   of 46294
 
I sent that animated video Wharfrat posted yesterday on the anthropocene to my son in law for his climatology students. He teaches climatology at a northwestern university. He sent me the following.


Here is something unrelated, but quite spectacular:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120305.html

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TopCat who wrote (13756)3/27/2012 11:14:32 AM
From: koan   of 46294
 
That is not a serious post, it is a sarcastic post.



<<In decision theory, the very first thing you must do to solve a problem is identify it."

How many more years is it going to take you to identify the problem? Hell....I thought you had already identified it. THE PLANET IS WARMING!!!

Now how about articulating some solutions. I'd really like to hear some so that I can determine if all this panic you're trying to spread is really worth considering or whether I should just bend over and kiss my ass goodbye.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: koan who wrote (13769)3/27/2012 11:22:17 AM
From: TopCat1 Recommendation   of 46294
 
"That is not a serious post, it is a sarcastic post."

No...that was a serious post. I'll ask again.

How about articulating some solutions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TopCat who wrote (13770)3/27/2012 11:47:19 AM
From: koan   of 46294
 
Bush and the Republician's did everything in their power to discredit AGW.

How about our congress asking the scientists for solutions? When the Republican's had control of the senate James Inhofe called AGW the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people; and did everything he could to denounce and ignore any action on GW.

Not exactly a constructive way to enlist the American scientific community to solve the problem. Bush made his EPA administrator (Whitman) soften their consclusions on AGW and his person who headed the other atmospheric position had to quit when it was found he was rewriting the research.

First we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Everyone knows that.



<<That is not a serious post, it is a sarcastic post."

No...that was a serious post. I'll ask again.

How about articulating some solutions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: koan who wrote (13771)3/27/2012 11:50:12 AM
From: TopCat3 Recommendations   of 46294
 
"Bush and the Republician's did everything in their power to discredit AGW."

Bush is no longer President of the United States........just in case you haven't heard yet.

Now.....how about articulating some solutions.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: koan3/27/2012 11:52:52 AM
   of 46294
 
Caro talks about a lot of things in his C-Span interview, among them the Civil Rights bills that Johnson got passed over the years. One episode that I had completely forgotten about that actually had nothing to do with Johnson, but a lot to do with civil rights as well as split conventions (relevant today), was on Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic convention. Wiki's account of it is interesting--a little history lesson that once again demonstrates that unintended consequences are the rule in human affairs, not the exception.

The national Democratic Party of 1948 was split between liberals, who thought the federal government should actively protect civil rights for racial minorities, and southern conservatives, who believed that states should be able to enforce racial segregation and infringe on the rights of non-white citizens.

At the 1948 Democratic National Convention, the party platform reflected this division and contained only platitudes in favor of civil rights. The incumbent president, Harry S Truman, had already issued a detailed 10-point Civil Rights Program that called for aggressive federal action on the issue of civil rights. He, however, supported the party establishment's platform that was a replication of the 1944 Democratic National Convention plank on civil rights.

A diverse coalition opposed this tepid platform, including anti-communist liberals like Humphrey, Paul Douglas and John Shelley, all of whom would later become known as leading progressives in the Democratic Party. These liberals proposed adding a "minority plank" to the party platform that would commit the Democratic Party to a more aggressive opposition to racial segregation. The minority plank called for federal legislation against lynching, an end to legalized school segregation in the South, and ending job discrimination based on skin color. Also strongly backing the liberal civil rights plank were Democratic urban bosses like Ed Flynn of the Bronx, who promised the votes of northeastern delegates to Humphrey's platform, Jacob Arvey of Chicago, and David Lawrence of Pittsburgh. Although viewed as being conservatives, these urban bosses believed that Northern Democrats could gain many black votes by supporting civil rights, and that losses among anti-civil rights Southern Democrats would be relatively small. Though many scholars have suggested that labor unions were leading figures in this coalition, no significant labor leaders attended the convention, with the exception of the heads of the Congress of Industrial Organizations Political Action Committee (CIOPAC), Jack Kroll and A.F. Whitney.

Despite aggressive pressure by Truman's aides to avoid forcing the issue on the Convention floor, Humphrey chose to speak on behalf of the minority plank. In a renowned speech, [4] Humphrey passionately told the Convention, "To those who say, my friends, to those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years (too) late! To those who say, this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, I say this: the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!" Humphrey and his allies succeeded; the pro-civil-rights plank was narrowly adopted.

As a result of the Convention's vote, the Mississippi and one half of the Alabama delegation walked out of the hall. Many Southern Democrats were so enraged at this affront to their "way of life" that they formed the Dixiecrat party and nominated their own presidential candidate, Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. The goal of the Dixiecrats was to take Southern states away from Truman and thus cause his defeat. The Southern Democrats reasoned that after such a defeat the national Democratic Party would never again aggressively pursue a pro-civil rights agenda. However, the move backfired. Although the strong civil rights plank adopted at the Convention cost Truman the support of the Dixiecrats, it gained him many votes from blacks, especially in large northern cities. As a result Truman won a stunning upset victory over his Republican opponent, Thomas E. Dewey. Truman's victory demonstrated that the Democratic Party could win presidential elections without the "Solid South", and thus weakened Southern Democrats instead of strengthening their position. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough has written that Humphrey probably did more to get Truman elected in 1948 than anyone other than Truman himself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TopCat who wrote (13772)3/27/2012 11:53:55 AM
From: koan   of 46294
 
If Obama tried to do something about AGW the Republicans would use it to defeat him in November.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: koan who wrote (13774)3/27/2012 11:57:15 AM
From: TopCat3 Recommendations   of 46294
 
"If Obama tried to do something about AGW the Republicans would use it to defeat him in November."

Cut it out, koan. Give me some solutions or I'm going to conclude that you are a just a pseudo intellectual that has nothing to offer other than being an alarmist.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Farmboy who wrote (13760)3/27/2012 11:59:07 AM
From: JBTFD   of 46294
 
The sad thing is that in addition to being inaccurate you actually believe that the right is different.

If anything the group think of the right exceeds that of the left.

As evidence I submit the unanimous adoption of Grover's pledge by the republicans. You call that thinking for themselves?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: koan who wrote (13774)3/27/2012 11:59:08 AM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations   of 46294
 
obama-has-finally-done-it-commits-treason/]Obama Has Finally Done It – Commits Treason[/url]
By Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) on Jan 12, 2012 in



[url=http://conservativedailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/share-secrets.png]


The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines TREASON as “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.” The US Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, addresses treason: “Treason against the United States, shall consist … giving them [enemies] Aid and Comfort.” Treason, as defined by the framers of the US Constitution, is “… aiding the enemies of the USA.”

The last time I looked, Russia was still an enemy of the USA, if for no other reason than its Iran policies: opposition of oil sanctions and “regrets” Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Further, Russians were spying on the USA.

So what? you say. That is nothing new. But now guess who wants to give USA secrets to Russia: President Barack Hussein Obama!!! Obama told Congress on January 4, 2012, that he is prepared to share US missile defense secrets with Russia. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on US Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority. [emphasis mine]

US officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. Further, there are concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China, and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, to help their missile programs defeat US missile defenses. Obama is willing to give away a technological secrets highly desired by Russia (and especially by China) in a liberal pursuit of a thirty-year-old grudge against President Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength.”

And this is not the first time he has given away missile secret. As part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by President Barack Hussein Obama in February, 2011, information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Great Britain will be given to Russia. The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the “special relationship” between the US and Great Britain. Classified messages show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” treaty. So now we see that Obama thinks his “accomplishments” are more important than the interest of allies.

Will the Barack Hussein Obama outrage never end? He is determined to destroy the USA any way he can. He has tried economics. He has tried class warfare. Now he wants to aid an enemy of the USA. The US Constitution says its treason, I say it’s treason, most readers of this website will say it’s treason. Now it is time for us (and the US) to make sure everyone knows what he is doing. And where is the MSM? As usual, shilling for Obama by not doing their job!

But that’s just my opinion.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.