Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Verviedi wrote:
Complete nonsensical garbage for all practical purposes, but "phobophobia" is a valid trait everyone should have.

I'm pretty sure phobophobia is murder.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text


look at that title.





are you actually being ran by grown ups or just children pretending ?

That's not a real thing. It's an Onion article. There is no way actual grown ups tasked with running the government of the USA came up with that name and ran with it.

Right? Right?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Complete nonsensical garbage for all practical purposes, but "phobophobia" is a valid trait everyone should have.

I'm pretty sure phobophobia is murder.

Oh my god you're right, what have I done?
Pointing out that things are murder is murder.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[The DNC/RNC raise large amounts of money from donors and then decide which state/local Parties and candidates receive some of that money. A lot of the DNC leadership had connections to the Clintons and some people believe that the DNC therefore had a preference for using their money to support more establishment or Clintonian down ballot candidates and ignore the "Sanders wing" of the party/more progressive candidates. Cenk uygur seems to be one of the main champions of this cause, especially with the recent Ellison vs Perez race for the DNC chair.

Thing is, there's an actual real issue here where Democrats put too many resources in to the presidential race, and not enough in to down ballot races. This has led to a bunch of conspiracy stupidity about how the some vague cabal of Clinton people kept all the money at the top, which basically boils down to people hearing "Clinton" and assuming it must be evil lizard people stuff happening.

In reality, the DNC made a call that money is better spent at the national level because it's the race most people pay attention to, and so getting someone out to vote in the presidency gives them the best bang for buck down ballot as well. This was the strategy they ran with in 2008 and 2012, and it worked really well. Of course, it didn't work so well this time around because Clinton was nowhere near the champion of the cause that Obama had been. A dollar spent on a "Go vote Obama" gave you at a dollar of impact down ballot, but a dollar spent on "Go vote Clinton" gave a return of a few cents, especially because so many Clinton ads were attacks on Trump, which likely had zero benefit down ballot.

This issue was identified by Democrats during their party review, and both major candidates for the DNC chair ran with a policy of pushing more money down to local groups.

rosebuddy is trying to make this in to some kind of issue that will permanently cripple the party, somehow, because that's how that guy rolls.

You are right. I should stop doing this. I don't want to be jailed for murder.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I'm pretty sure breathing is murder somehow.

Jainists cover their mouths to avoid breathing in micro-organisms and killing them. So yeah, to at least one group of people breathing is murder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's also a push to hold Republicans accountable at all levels. Here in NC, we kicked out Pat McCrory from the governor's office...but not the Republicans in the state legislature or at the federal level. Getting involved at county, city, and state levels is critical for getting things done for the Democrats since we've got such ridiculously gerrymandered districts.

Next census is 2020, and the results of that survey will drive the next round of redistricting. It makes the 2018 and 2020 elections vital.

 feeder wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1275/text


look at that title.





are you actually being ran by grown ups or just children pretending ?

That's not a real thing. It's an Onion article. There is no way actual grown ups tasked with running the government of the USA came up with that name and ran with it.

Right? Right?

You'd think/hope so.

Must be the exceptionalism we hear so much about.



meanwhile.....

9th March 2017

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/839805100327649280


"Our family had dinner w the President & First Lady, who were warm & gracious. Catherine brought Joe--her kindergarten class stuffed giraffe!!

23 Mar 2016




https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/712850174838771712

22 Mar 2016

"Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!"

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/712457104515317764

what a difference a year makes eh ?

One nearly had some respect for Cruz when he walked over to talk/argue/confront with the Trump supporters during the primaries.

Had some sympathy for him when he was there on the phones for Trump/the Party.

Guess that was misplaced, what a spineless little coward he really is.

 Verviedi wrote:
Technically, it's true. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself (and nuclear war, and the spread of memetic viruses) Complete nonsensical garbage for all practical purposes, but "phobophobia" is a valid trait everyone should have.

Not really. Fear is a valuable emotion which is intrinsically linked to self preservation. Would you be scared to stand in front of an oncoming train? Or to try and drive at 70mph on an icy mountain road with sheer cliffs on one side?

That is the value of fear, it prevents us doing stupid things. Sometimes it can also make us do stupid things. But then basically every human emotion has potential downsides for ourselves.

Meanwhile, in an absolute shocking surprise, the Head of the EPA who had fossil fuel corporations write his legal challenges against the EPA when he was AG of Oklahoma came out today challenging the validity of carbon and human activity on climate change.

Who would have seen that coming...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Technically, it's true. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself (and nuclear war, and the spread of memetic viruses) Complete nonsensical garbage for all practical purposes, but "phobophobia" is a valid trait everyone should have.

Not really. Fear is a valuable emotion which is intrinsically linked to self preservation. Would you be scared to stand in front of an oncoming train? Or to try and drive at 70mph on an icy mountain road with sheer cliffs on one side?

That is the value of fear, it prevents us doing stupid things. Sometimes it can also make us do stupid things. But then basically every human emotion has potential downsides for ourselves.

Honestly, I just wanted to drop the FDR quote. If you take what I say as life advice, you may deserve what inevitably happens.
No need to be overly literal. I was simply displaying some insane troll logic for fun.

Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

I live in the south, and some of the racist people I have met come from the north, like Ohio.

Lol, as someone from the West Coast who once lived in the South, I will say this. The racist Southerners that I met were ridiculously smooth with their racism. Like, you'd have an entire conversation, and it wasnt until like an hour after leaving that you go, "wait... that was racist!!" The ones that I ran into who were more overt were most likely from the "near South" which I would probably put Ohio into, as in, near enough to The South that they do what they do, and make it look like they are locals.

Conflating Ohio with the South is...to be most polite, misplaced.

Lol, I said Ohio was the "near South" as in, you can drive to The South from Ohio... And that was part of my point. The people who were overt and obvious in their racism that I encountered in The South, weren't from there, they were just visiting or living there temporarily.

I was not saying that Ohio is the South, but racists are racist no matter where they are at. Hell, if you want to see racism/potential racism elsewhere, there was a Sikh man who was shot and killed in Seattle in the last couple weeks that many are thinking (based on descriptions of the assailant) to be racially/religiously motivated.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

I live in the south, and some of the racist people I have met come from the north, like Ohio.

Lol, as someone from the West Coast who once lived in the South, I will say this. The racist Southerners that I met were ridiculously smooth with their racism. Like, you'd have an entire conversation, and it wasnt until like an hour after leaving that you go, "wait... that was racist!!" The ones that I ran into who were more overt were most likely from the "near South" which I would probably put Ohio into, as in, near enough to The South that they do what they do, and make it look like they are locals.

Conflating Ohio with the South is...to be most polite, misplaced.

Lol, I said Ohio was the "near South" as in, you can drive to The South from Ohio... And that was part of my point. The people who were overt and obvious in their racism that I encountered in The South, weren't from there, they were just visiting or living there temporarily.

I was not saying that Ohio is the South, but racists are racist no matter where they are at. Hell, if you want to see racism/potential racism elsewhere, there was a Sikh man who was shot and killed in Seattle in the last couple weeks that many are thinking (based on descriptions of the assailant) to be racially/religiously motivated.

Your point is wrong then. Ohio is a completely different world then the south.

NYC is also geographically close to Maryland and Virginia.

Seattle and Portland both had racial redlining and they are the opposite of a Southern city.

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Why would I bother?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Why would I bother?

It doesn't exist?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Please cite the legislation where the EPA has authority over climate change. This may take awhile so I'll go get lunch.

Why would I bother?

It doesn't exist?

Leaving aside simply the optics involved in the fething Environment Protection Agency joining the climate change denial clown show, does the EPA regulate emissions? Auto, factory and agricultural emissions all contribute to man made climate change.

"Authority over climate change"?

That sounds like climate change is some kind of man-made government bureau or something.

I don't think anyone usually has authority over natural phenomena such as continental shifts, solar flares or climate change.

No one has authority over climate change, obviously.

I think we can all agree on this, even if there's perhaps a discussion to be had over the extent to which humanity is affecting the current speed and direction of it.

How on Earth is climate change and the United States' contribution and response to it not relevant to the EPA?

And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

The best thing to do with idiotic arguments is to not give them legitimacy by debating them.

 Spinner wrote:
How on Earth is climate change and the United States' contribution and response to it not relevant to the EPA?

Sure it's the most logic department to enact regulations.

Here's the key: what statutory law empowers the EPA to regulate 'Climate Change' anything?

And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

 Zywus wrote:
"Authority over climate change"?

That sounds like climate change is some kind of man-made government bureau or something.

I don't think anyone usually has authority over natural phenomena such as continental shifts, solar flares or climate change.

No one has authority over climate change, obviously.

I think we can all agree on this, even if there's perhaps a discussion to be had over the extent to which humanity is affecting the current speed and direction of it.

In the US, when the Constitution was first signed, government could only do what it was specifically empowered to do. Ocassionally courts remember that.

The EPA empowering legislation does not include climate change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
How on Earth is climate change and the United States' contribution and response to it not relevant to the EPA?

And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Relevance is irrelevant (well other than climate change is not pollution), legality is.

TFW the two people on this forum with the strongest track record of being uninterested in an honest debate get mad that no one will engage them in an honest debate. LOL, no.

 whembly wrote:

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Wikipedia reply but its quite thoroughly documented with references.

But yea, to counter your Fox news/Brietbart/Alex Jones talking point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Saying there is no "Law" dictating the EPA do anything regarding climate change is disingenuous, as climate is part of and affects the "Environment"

Anyways, obvious bait from these two is obvious, last I'll say on the matter. We know "Science" is a four letter word in Texas

 Ouze wrote:
TFW the two people on this forum with the strongest track record of being uninterested in an honest debate get mad that no one will engage them in an honest debate. LOL, no.

Who are you referring to and what are we debating?

 Ouze wrote:
TFW the two people on this forum with the strongest track record of being uninterested in an honest debate get mad that no one will engage them in an honest debate. LOL, no.

TFW when Climate Alarmist goes into a tizzy when challenged on their premise as if it's heretical... lol.

More to the point of what is being brought up with regards to EPA head Pruitt's "thoughts" on climate change and his right-out-of-the-blocks attack on, well, the scientific world's findings...

"Pruitt's view is contrary to mainstream climate science, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA itself."

"Anyone who denies over a century's worth of established science and basic facts is unqualified to be the administrator of the EPA," Schatz said in a statement. EXACTAMUNDO!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/epa-chief-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-cause-of-warming/ar-AAo4kQS?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

 Frazzled wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
"Authority over climate change"?

That sounds like climate change is some kind of man-made government bureau or something.

I don't think anyone usually has authority over natural phenomena such as continental shifts, solar flares or climate change.

No one has authority over climate change, obviously.

I think we can all agree on this, even if there's perhaps a discussion to be had over the extent to which humanity is affecting the current speed and direction of it.

In the US, when the Constitution was first signed, government could only do what it was specifically empowered to do. Ocassionally courts remember that.

The EPA empowering legislation does not include climate change.

Are you suggesting that the EPA wouldn't have authority to do things like regulate carbon emissions etc, because climate change isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution?

I'm not aware of exactly what the mission of the EPA is, but I presume it's something failrly generic, like "enforce national standards of enviromental protection" etc.

Obviously everything cannot be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be able to be regulated. At least not according to any reasonable interpretation. Digital piracy for example is of course not directly mentioned in the constitution since that technology didn't exist at the time of writing it, but authority to regulate those areas still exist through the more general Intellectual Property Clause.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Wikipedia reply but its quite thoroughly documented with references.

But yea, to counter your Fox news/Brietbart/Alex Jones talking point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I can play the wiki game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Saying there is no "Law" dictating the EPA do anything regarding climate change is disingenuous, as climate is part of and affects the "Environment"

The name is meaningless... Executive department still needs statutory laws that empowers them to regulate.

Anyways, obvious bait from these two is obvious, last I'll say on the matter. We know "Science" is a four letter word in Texas

Well that's some load of horse gak there...

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?

Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.

Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.

 Zywus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
"Authority over climate change"?

That sounds like climate change is some kind of man-made government bureau or something.

I don't think anyone usually has authority over natural phenomena such as continental shifts, solar flares or climate change.

No one has authority over climate change, obviously.

I think we can all agree on this, even if there's perhaps a discussion to be had over the extent to which humanity is affecting the current speed and direction of it.

In the US, when the Constitution was first signed, government could only do what it was specifically empowered to do. Ocassionally courts remember that.

The EPA empowering legislation does not include climate change.

Are you suggesting that the EPA wouldn't have authority to do things like regulate carbon emissions etc, because climate change isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution?

I'm not aware of exactly what the mission of the EPA is, but I presume it's something failrly generic, like "enforce national standards of enviromental protection" etc.

Obviously everything cannot be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be able to be regulated. At least not according to any reasonable interpretation. Digital piracy for example is of course not directly mentioned in the constitution since that technology didn't exist at the time of writing it, but authority to regulate those areas still exist through the more general Intellectual Property Clause.

Close in that the enabling legislation and follow on legislation were focused on particulate and chemical pollution. There is no grant of authority enacted by law to cover climate change.