dayman

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video Prominent anti-climate change scientist does a complete turnaround, and human activities are the main cause.

Studies on economic impact v. your gut feeling.

"We're moving in the wrong direction and it's b/c of the stimulus which independent and CBO stuides showed helps. We can't know what would have happened absent stimulus but I don't like what is going on now so the stimulus failed." That's basically what I'm hearing. It's pretty retarded.

So it's a failure b/c it did work, just not as well as we all hoped? And TARP is relevant b/c the entire anti-government movement vilifies government spending to help cope with the crisis...therefore the fact that TARP is largely paid back undercuts that notion. TARP was BUSH anyway...

The stimulus wasn't designed to fill enormous hole we were in, but it hoped to put a floor on it and most economic studies do show it worked in doing that including CBO studies. It worked to help us deal with the meltdown if you don't want to believe it nothing will change your mind that's fine. I disagree. And most of the TARP money has been paid back ... nobody is a fan of having to do any of this. All I'm saying is to point at the government and blame them for the meltdown is insane, all they did was help in some measure clean it up. But of course that's what the GOP does anyway. POint at the government and find a way to blame them for the meltdown and call the reaction to it as a failure. NEvermind that BEFORE the meltdown through tax cuts and increased spending the GOP doubled the national debt (before the meltdown mind you) and regularly voted to raise the debt ceiling to do so...it was only after the meltdown when we needed it most and Democrats were in power did this all become so out of style

What's pathetic to me is when conservative attack the stimulus as an example of big government gone wrong and use it to further their anti-government agenda. The stimulus worked plain and simple it put a floor under the recession to prevent it from spiraling into a complete depression and saved us an immediate 2% unemployment. The crash didn't happen b/c of the government spending the crash occurred b/c there was to little government oversight and no restraint on risky loans w/ out sufficient capital to back them up. The stimulus (which btw was mainly tax cuts and loan to local governments) only had about 1/3 of direct investment and most of that was in roads and bridges etc...not clean energy companies that everybody fixates on who watches FOx all day. The downturn hurt fewer people b/c of the stimulus which supplemented wages w/ tax cuts, saved public jobs, and created jobs through infrastructure projects and to some degree yes it did have incentives to create private sector jobs in clean energy manufacturing some of which failed. But on the whole, the stimulus worked and it was government doing it and the problem that made it necessary was created by the vaunted free market which apparently is infallible and requires not regulation, oversight, or government involvement at all. Anyway I'm really not here to argue that the government can pick the winners. Nobody will argue that. All I'm saying is that the stimulus itself worked, only a portion of it went to the things you so often criticize, and not every one of those companies failed anyway.

I don't have a link I read it in a book recently but I'm sure there is some stuff to google but there were quite a few successes. One I remember had to do with batteries. Apparently we are good battery makers now lol Ok I found the stat apparently we have gained 30 new battery plants and in 2 years went from producing 2% to 20% of the worlds batteries and are on track to supply 40% of the batteries by 2014. So there's one. For what it's worth. American made batteries.

Well there actually were some successes in there now

We have by far the most guns, and we have the most gun violence. We have the most mass shootings, and it's really easy to get weapons good for mass shootings. This isn't arbitrary abstraction. We're pretty safe right now relative to our past selves...but gun crimes have been increasing over the last decade the only such crime to do so...these stats are arbitrary?

birdog's point is some countries are proud of their system whether it would be ideal for us or not. Regardless of who you are you are a fool if you were proud of the old system and if you will be proud of the new one. I don't think the gov't needs to own most hospitals like in the UK, but a public payer is ideal either way. These are basically facts that cannot be argued against credibly.

I'm going to admit when Mitt brought up Norway as if he was a message board poster in the Morgan interview I almost threw up. You want to compare Norway to us in gun violence and mass murder? Lets do this Mitt. The lack of follow up was pathetic. No balls.

The "attack" would be all out war of the hugest magnitude in an area of the world we can't help but stick our nose in for obvious reasons. If anyone says they "support the attack as POTUS" (which I did not hear Mitt say btw) there is only one thing that would mean. And that would be that I will not vote for him. It's simple...any POTUS I want needs to speak to OUR interest. OUR interests are not Israel and Iran going to war under any circumstances. It's really that simple. I personally would like to hear both POTUS candidates posture in a way that communicates that to the voters. I understand there are things better kept close to the vest, and things we all do not know. But we do live in a democracy and these are the facts of life. There's a storm brewing and it's the type that can go one way or the other if certain things happen and certain people are in power. The American people have to decide who is in power. It's that simple. I'm just a guy. But I have 1 vote. To me, if you don't speak on the issue for fear of not saying something I like...you might as well have said the wrong thing. I'm not a 1 issue guy, but this is a big one. A huge one. I am kind of young but most of my buddies who served are out but our younger brothers are in still...and it effects are nation even if you don't have people servings in a million ways. Whatever you think on MItt's taxes (which BTW I actually do think are not off limits but that's just me), this certainly if you are running for POTUS deserves more than vague statements designed for me to simply move along and punch the ballot for you. This IS your job as president. More than anything else, this is the one single thing I vote to give you power to act on unilaterally in this day in age. And if I had to pick 1 thing (which I hate doing) this is what it is. This is POTUS. Commander in chief. People may disagree but on that 1 issue, to me Obama is miles ahead of where I see Mitt at this time. It isn't even close. I understand people hate Obama for a variety of reasons maybe even as Commander of our military. I don't.

Read the thread I've not held back. And btw, I don't have a solution. I don't have the answers to fix healthcare perfectly with one bill, to reduce gun violence the most it can be with a single federal act, to counteract human-influenced climate change, or to help the American economy come out on top in this global down turn. Nobody does. I'm not on an high horse here I really am not. Like every issue though, I do have have an general starting point that I can be moved off of when in discussion (easily). But if you want to know where I'm at mentally to discuss...it's simple. As I see it (only me I'm talking about) there's hunting and protection. Certain guns are commonly used for hunting. Certain guns are carried as concealed weapons and by common street police in most jurisdictions. Anything not used for those purposes seems, to my naive mind, to be overboard. The starting point for my admittedly "liberal" attitude for this discussion is simply that the sale of guns not commonly used for hunting or as carried as concealed weapons by law abiding citizens for protection should be stopped...and furthermore they should be made illegal. That is to say yes, if I were king, I would take those weapons away whatever I determined them to be with the aid of advisers and after debate with those I respected. I am not king. And with good reason. And I'm not God. I don't have some huge answer. But I fail to see at this point, why at the very least there are gun show loop holes, or even federal documented sales of guns that can kill as many people in a minute as a huge bomb. I'm not a gun expert. I'm not a policy expert. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I don't like hearing that it's all about mental health. It isn't all about mental health. That much is obvious. And that is my point. Once the most extreme on both sides of this issue accept this, we can engage in the debate in a way that makes sense. I understand guns don't kill people, but people who want to kill people often use guns. This is common sense.

Honestly newsroom has strung together a few pretty good episodes. It's a shame, although no unpredictable, that some portion of the potential audience won't like it b/c of the way it represents certain stories/people but it really does have the seeds to become a good show. And I don't even like Sorkin all that much.

Have you seen my posts? Yes I'm serious. They're just whatever I would say if I were talking (even worse as if I were just thinking out loud) they're terrible everybody on this board should know that by now...why do you think I use so many "..." it's when things get weird it just allows the reader to regroup without me rewriting anything. Anyway I'm being dead serious...I'm !@#$ing worried about my personal laptop some idiot friend got the stupid new batman movie offline handed me a usb and now my chrome runs slow and spell check doesn't work. Malwarebytes found a few infected files that I think it got rid off but no fix on this stupid spell issue and chrome still runs kind of slow. I think I have a problem and it's not my first rodeo...used to pirate a lot of music couple years ago and it always ends with me having to reset my windows which is a HUGE pain. Basically coming to terms with the fact that this will happen again. You sould rejoice. I'm passing my version of a kidney stone.

My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not.

I type real fast and somehow, IDK why, the spell check no longer works. It's actually going to be a problem this started about 2 days ago. I'll never proof my own posts b/c I'm above that, so without auto catch every homophone, common spelling error, or even just muscle memory gone wrong in my fingers is going to make me out to be a fool. I say this not as an excuse, but to ask if anyone knows why on earth the autocheck would suddenly not work in google chrome/windows 7/whatever the problem is. WTF is going on? The automatic red lines are gone, and now I have to type for myself and this is truly scary.

Do you really think that kind of language does anything in any situation though? Pretty clear to me that's not the way to go if you actually want a solution. We're going to have to give on our position, and they will on theirs, in order to compromise. The main "gets" we would need would be some assurances that they cooperate and enter the responsible international community...unless we are saying it's worth a war to crush them (which I'm not and I don't think you are either) then there's no point in taking that approach in rhetoric.

Fair enough opinion. I do disagree that they are equal to a suicide bomber of a country though. That is my fundamental disagreement and I think American policy discussion from that starting point will be warped and hurt our decision making.

Simply that denying those facts the obvious correlations in any discussion is nonsencial. I don't care what peoples poisition is honestly I am always reminded how far apart certain people are from each other on this issue each time it hits the news again...gun homocides havne't gotten any better w/ the policy we've had since 2000 and nonfatal gun crimes have gotten 20% worse. We do have 5% of the world population and 50% of the guns. We are heavily armed and have heavy gun incidents. Simple facts. Does this mean you must be in favor of gun regulation? No, but it does mean you must acknowledge these facts when debating others on the merits of dealing with gun violence in America.

The question is simple...if Iran is really so insane why is the regime still oporurating? They're either completely off the map, dangerous, and unpridictable or they hold positions against us and others with an ideology we don't share and we're at political odds with them. In one scneario war is probably necessary. In another it would be a disaster. We aren't at war, we haven't been at war, the only thing we can do is follow Israel into one. Israel btw is in the grips of what would be a very "conservative" (not that the term translates) government here in the US. Their own foreign policy strong men dominate all levels of government at the moment. They can and will do what they need to do and we won't sit by and watch them be destroyed...but that said...what are we dealing with here? An insane nation or a hostile towards our interests nation? It think the truth of the matter is that Iran while I personally do not like the regime...is not some evil "must be stoppped" regime. There is clearly room for peace here. And peace may well mean Israel doesn't get to control all aspects of Iran military operations. And if that is what it is, that is what it is. And that's fine by me and should be fine by us as a nation.

I wouldn't call them a responible world actor but I would call them a rational actor in the sense that things made not in their best interest by conditions placed on them throught the world community can and will deter certain of their own behavior adn things that threaten their very existence as a regime will be forgone. They're dead set on going forward with what they see as their soverign right, to have nuclear domestic energy program...and that means having the ability to make a bomb along with it really. That said, I think we can use this carrot as a lure to bring them into a situation where they can be expected to act mores so as a responsible member of the international community. That doesn't mean they'll be responsible in terms of cooperating with our best intersts or that of Israel..but at least that perhaps if we make concessions and they do as well...they can come back closer to the international community in terms of where they are now and that is ultimately the goal of all involved who don't want war. And I do think that by the narrow definition I hold "rational actor" to they are in fact still a rational actor even if they are dysnfuctional and possibly mislead and eating severe sanctions right now. Basically in sum what I'm saying is the starting point in negotiation and the talking points of "no nuclear program whatsoever" is ok to an extent in this game of chicken/diplomacy but the honestly take that approach to the problem beyound international posturing and not being open to creative options including some form of nuclear Iran as a result is something that is a non-starter in terms of real progress. Now...there may and hopefully are some alternative approaches to compromise besides nuclear Iran that can work...so I'm not suggesting those aren't preferable. Nuclear nations will always argue they're bad and should be controlled. NonNuclear states seeking them will alway aregue security. The real issue here is proliferation v. security. If we can break the interests off from specific tactics I think there is some room to make a deal here.

As predicted Romney touched on foreign policy in Israel (no ****) on "foreign soil." His "I won't comment on foreign policy on foreign soil" w/ MOrgan was just what it always was..."I'll only give speeches about foreign policy I won't talk in interviews or answer follow up questions about it."

I'm going to go way way out there in terms of the way Americans typically discuss foreign policy but IMHO...I don't think EVEN IF they build a damn bomb...it's worth going to war over. Period. Nuclear arms have historically been a deterent. We had our cold war never fired them. Lots of other countries have them and don't use them. Pakistan and India went to war constantly until the bomb now they both have one and never do anymore. I understand teh rhetoric of Iran is out of control but I do see them as rational actors, they are interested in their own preservation. Not to say I wouldn't try to do everything I can to stop them from getting a bomb. But the policy of "we will do what it takes to make Israel safe"...if that means going to war to stop Iran from getting a bomb...the bottom line is that's a stupid ****ing policy no matter what candidate says it. I think secretly at least Obama knows that and maybe even Mitt (I hope). And I sure as hell basically know Iran has done the math and knows it isn't worth it for any country to go nuts over this...

Plain and smiple facts about American guns: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/