Politics

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread keeping track of shameless Democrat behavior, so we can remind the world of it come election year. Same with the Republicans, which I also made a thread for here.

Couple good articles worth reading. This first one is from today's Christian Science Monitor: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/03/palin-limbaugh-beck-%E2%80%A6-now-it%E2%80%99s-republicans-seeing-the-downside/ The second one, which I found through a link in the CSM article, is from David Brooks at the New York Times, who points out that these demagogues don't actually represent most conservatives: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion Sane words in crazy times. What do you all think?

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread keeping track of shameless Republican behavior, so we can remind the world of it come election year. Same with the Democrats, which I also made a thread for here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/health/policy/30health.html?bl The Senate Finance committee has rejected two amendments which include a public option. Committee chair Senator Max Baucus cites his fears that such legislation would fail to get the 60 votes necessary to bypass an inevitable Republican filibuster. Oddly enough, the main issue with the public option doesn't seem to be cost. In fact, the CBO estimates the public option would actually save $50 billion over Max Baucus's current bill, which would spend $774 billion over a period of 10 years (i.e $77.4 billion / year) Republicans are fearful that the program wouldn't be fair to private insurers and …

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/business/media/02views.html I guess Obama has to pull for his home city, but I hope Rio wins. It's about time South America hosted an Olympics. What do you all think?

Oh my. ABC News just ran a story on this and I'll post the link here later after the print version it appears on their web site. But Google News did produce one article from some local outlet that I've quoted and linked below. Apparently tens of thousands of Christian evangelicals are participating in "alternate health care" plans that entail spending a fixed amount every month tailored to be viewed as cheaper than a real health care plan -- in order words you cancel your existing insurance-based plan and go with this one instead. The plan consists of sending your payment each month to those members of the plan who are currently in need of medical care, at the…

So there's been all this talk lately about whether or not gun rights are in jeopardy with our current congress and president running things. My question has more to do with: Should Americans be allowed to own and use firearms? And is the ability to acquire firearms the main cause of gun-related crimes in this country? Where do criminals really get their guns?

Seems easy enough. hUNCpnRBf9o Here's a link to the plan: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/ What are your thoughts?

Good background on the developments regarding this week's revelation of Iran's second nuclear processing plant may be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602022.html?hpid=moreheadlines One of the more interesting things I heard this week was some insight from ABC's Jake Tapper, who reported that there seems to be a developing consensus regarding the handling of Iran, at least with regard to nuclear weapons. The general idea seems to be that pursuing and pressuring seems to be paying off. In short, when Iran cheats, it gets caught. And more importantly, when it gets caught it weakens their diplomatic support from Chi…

Some Democratic senators are moving to shut down warrantless wiretapping programs. Among them: Al Franken. http://washingtonindependent.com/60611/al-franken-reads-the-4th-amendment-to-justice-department-official The tacit opinion expressed by Mr. Kris both concerns and enrages me: It's okay until the Supreme Court says otherwise! That sort of attitude sickens me. ANY US Attorney questioned as to the constitutionality of their actions should have a suitable rationale in their mind. Responding "this is surreal" when questioned as to the constitutionality of their actions simply enrages me and screams ineptitude. But I get it, they simply respond to executi…

I notice that the thread "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage?" as has been reopened but we are forbidden from discussing some arguments because they are "shifting the question" or "beyond the scope of the debate". So, I wanted to ask another question: Are there any relevant secular reasons to support gay marriage? In other words, how would instituting gay marriage benefit our society? How would instituting gay marriage benefit me? Why should I support gay marriage? It seems to me, there needs to be a good reason for changing a law, and presenting that good reason should come before any opposition to change.

I'm not big on politics, but in general it seems like there's much more ignorance surrounding the republican party... Are democratic and independent voters as brainwashed as the republican party, or does it just seem that way? The majority of the republican voters (fanatics) seem to be either.. A.) Gun owners who think Obama will take away their guns (which going by his voting record is a myth or conspiracy theory). Or B.) just political fanatics, who will overlook reality on all the issues just to maintain faith in their party.

As another spin-off from the gay marriage thread (not wanting to take it off-topic), I wondered if anyone could come up with any relevant secular reasons to oppose marriage between close relations, such as brother and sister or mother and son? Let's qualify this a bit by saying that both should be of consenting age. Also, let's right away quash the argument that the off-spring of such marriages have a higher rate of birth defects. This is a flawed argument for 2 reasons. Firstly, having children is not a required for a marriage (plenty of married couples chose not to have children), nor is it restricted to marriage (plenty of unmarried couples have kids). Secondl…

So, theres all this crap about obama being and evil socialist and all this from the american media. but, whats never explained is wats so wrong with socialism? i'm not that into politics so i'm not to well versed in all the terms so can someone explain it to me in laymans terms?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23climate.html?_r=1 Opened yesterday, with the US and China being the two biggest figures involved in the talks but not presently part of any international agreement to limit emissions. The two countries together emit 40% of the world's anthropogenic CO2. What do you think? Is this meeting going to be productive, or a waste of everyone's time? I'm glad to see a less recalcitrant US involved in these sorts of discussions, as the previous administration shrugged off and actively stifled research into climate change.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/blogs/bizfeed/172290/fcc_to_take_a_stand_on_net_neutrality.html The FCC is formalizing rules which effectively force ISPs to be common carriers, forbidding them from filtering and restricting particular types of traffic. While I think ISPs should have the right to apply quality-of-service rules to certain types of traffic, I think net neutrality is necessary because a misapplication of those policies could limit free speech. Imagine if there were deliverability issues with email coming from candidates of a particular party, for example. To me it's largely an issue of free speech, or more generally, the free exchange of in…

lUPMjC9mq5Y Wow. I think that video speaks for itself. It's hard to know whether the people interviewed are really representative of the crowd as a whole, but, wow. It seems there's a growing clamor over how these protests are being stoked by Fox News. Literally at least in one case: IPYbPsvOnX8 And worse, apparently Fox News took out a full page ad that claimed that CNN (in addition to CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc.) didn't cover the protests. CNN's Rick Sanchez responded to that, with: "You lie" qM1f5xrOfGU All that said, is anyone else disgusted that 9/11 is invoked to protest... government spending on healthcare? Never mind Hitler, fascism, etc. And well…

Politics is not science, it's obviously not empirical and has multiple possibilities for a conclusion. You can discuss factual data, but the conclusion that arises from that factual data is (unlike science!) subjective. Stop pretending this is supposed to be some empirical objective endeavor. Be civil, and stop expecting others to refrain from using logical fallacies when you use logical fallacies, or convince others that they should be open minded to your opinion when you're presenting yourselves to be absolutely positive that your own opinion is right. If you're not open minded, stay out of the thread; we're not arguing facts, we're arguing opinion, and in poli…

"You lie!": an outburst made by South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson during Obama's speech on healthcare to a joint session of Congress. This has sadly been overshadowed in the mainstream media by Kanye West jumping up on stage during the MTV Awards when Taylor Swift won best female music video. The comment was made regarding a statement from Obama that illegal immigrants would not receive healthcare under the proposed legislation, a statement which, in fact, is not a lie. Democratic leadership have called for a resolution admonishing him for the outburst. Oddly enough, 20% of Americans support Wilson's actions, with 6% of them describing their reaction as "thrille…

A very interesting article from conservative economist and historian Bruce Bartlett, who served as a treasurer under George W. Bush and a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/ Lots of comparisons are drawn between Bush, Clinton, and Reagan, noting how there are many more parallels between the economic policies of Reagan and Clinton than there are to anything Bush did. The article blames the present economic problems pretty squarely on Bush, and that the rage exhibited towards Democrats and Obama at the town hall meetings should really be directed at Bush. This section wa…

On my way to get coffee today I did something I've never done sober - walked into a church for something other than a wedding or funeral, in this case because there was a blood drive. I filled out all the forms, and on the one question "have you ever had sexual contact with another male, ever in your lifetime, even once" I checked yes as, I had once. I was asked some followup questions "was that a one time occurrence?" Yes... "Is that something you'll repeat?" No. It was the only question that required any conversation as based on every other question I was pretty much the ideal donor. And.... that one answer equates to a life long ban - I am not allowed to ev…

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Article linked below covers the basics pretty well. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18assess.html?hp IMO it's probably the best move, both for the politics and for the technology. It still focuses attention on the most likely threats of Iran and North Korea, while being less provocative towards our Russian allies. And it makes a statement that we're not giving up on proven and reliable technologies, as Obama promised during his campaign. What do you all think?

And Obama responds brilliantly: Context: http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080910/888/twl-republicans-term-obama-s-lipstick-on.html The latest party line against Obama: an anecdote has become PLAYING THE GENDER CARD. Pangloss has his definition of partisan. I have mine. Perhaps it can be described as making a mountain out of a molehill. The Republican party runs a desperately underqualified candidate as the Vice President of the United States. Obama relates a common anecdote: putting lipstick on a pig. How does the Republican party respond? As a whole mind you, they're coordinated, through Karl Rove's talking points. WHINE WHINE BITCH BITC…

All opinion should be clearly labeled as opinion. All facts should be clearly referenced. So, who can define marriage, and prove their definition correct? Specifically, enough to answer the question of whether the word "marriage" includes sames sex couples or not. Obviously, this is a central issue to the gay marriage debate (though separate from the question of giving them equal rights but not calling it marriage). So far, we have plenty of people's opinions on the definition of marriage, and pretty much nil in terms of evidence. I'd like some evidence in favor of said opinions. The most relevant evidence would be concerning the historical definitions our laws ar…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/business/15obama.html?bl&ex=1253160000&en=4a6d3f6f9f183e9c&ei=5087%0A One year after Lehman Brothers collapsed under the weight of their toxic "financial instruments", Obama has renewed calls for financial reform and increased regulation, however it seems his calls are largely falling on deaf ears. Considerable opposition to increased regulation is coming from Congress, although I'm still yet to see the specifics as to why. The only argument I've seen put forward is that further regulation of the financial sector would be detrimental to economic growth, which is sorely needed after the financial crisis. Yet I really …