Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41341 - 41360 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Mar 26, 2014 - 04:05pm PT
- I think I found my area to live in.... Too bad it only takes one tracking spill to contaminate ground water for miles and miles... and I'd rather die than be any part of that shite.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/carson-city-frack-ban/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Daily%2520March%252026&utm_campaign=daily

One California oil town keeps fracking in check — by banning all drilling

By Heather Smith

To the city council, the story sounded a little fishy. It was true that Carson City, Calif., probably still had oil of some kind. Los Angeles County had a well-documented history of being an oily place. As early as the 1850s, there were reports of enterprising folks scooping up the occasional seep of oil that rose to the surface and refining it into lamp oil. But these days the easy oil of L.A. County is long gone — especially in Carson, where the oil drilling began in the 1920s.

So how was Occidental Petroleum, which had approached the city with a set of plans for new drilling infrastructure, planning to get more? A few years ago, the company had begun reopening wells that had seemed closed for good. Now, it had announced its intention to drill 200 new ones. What, exactly, was it planning on doing differently, that other wildcatters with oily gleams in their eyes had somehow missed?


“At first they said ‘hydrofracking,’” said City Councilmember Al Robles, over the phone, with the slow, patient tones of a man who has told this story many times over the last few days. “And then there was a big public outcry. So they said, ‘Oh, we changed our mind. We’re not going to do fracking any more.’”

“Then we said, ‘You’re never ever going to do fracking?’ They said ‘Well, not ever, ever. We want to keep our options open in case it’s proven safe in the future.’”


 Because you will never hear these words spoken out loud by any republican on any planet I help you to read them again:
“Then we said, ‘You’re never ever going to do fracking?’ They said ‘Well, not ever, ever. We want to keep our options open in case it’s proven safe in the future.’”

Holding off until something is proven to be safe... Never a thought to any republican, as far as I can tell.




But then I read another headline and wondered what kind of politician lives in this town.

"BP’s newly upgraded refinery just spilled oil into Chicago’s water source"

Those business's seem to have a handle on things.... we should probably let them handle this and, let's everyone go back to work and allow nature to take it's course.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 26, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
when the crazy quilt of exceptions the Administration has granted has already created a great deal of inequality under that act.

just the opposite

the exceptions have been done to in fact smooth out and lessen any inconvenience any
"unintended consequences" of the ACA

which is only right and proper to do, just as every major, and many minor, pieces of legislation throughout US history have "needed", including our fuking Constitution
by Amendments

but then, one sees only harm and pisses and moans like a ten year old, refuses to support or even understand the concept, when one is predisposed to be blindly partisan

blind? yeah, the proofs of such keep piling up

with the latest gem being that it was the Democrats and not the House Repub that shut down the Federal government last fall

you once had credibility, JohnE, not any more
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
including our fuking Constitution
by Amendments

Aye, there's the rub!

We can't improve on Shakespeare.

John
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:06pm PT
John posted
I've experienced the same, HDDJ, but if we don't blow it, I think we can post GDP growth in excess of 3.0% for the remainder of the year, which would provide a true economic expansion. My main fear is that the proximity of elections may cause politicians to feel compelled to "do something." If they can control that urge and leave the economy alone, the economic fundamentals would allow the sort of rising tide that really does float all ships.

You must be living in a parallel dimension to ours because nobody over here has any misconceptions that our Congress might pass a law much less one designed to actually help the economy. I would love for you to cite some actual examples of recent legislation that has hurt the recovery instead of simply repeating the hackneyed and completely erroneous libertarian assertion of "anything the government does is automatically bad." It's pretty clear that government inaction has horribly prolonged our economic woes.

John continued

On a different note, and with much reluctance, I have trouble with a "religious" exemption for a business. We have recognized "religious corporations" for well over a century in American law, but they were always non-business entities (e.g. churches). Can we fashion a principled distinction between a closely-held corporation such as Hobby Lobby, and, say, Exxon? To me, that forms the crux of the problem.

Really? The distinction is between a publicly traded company and a closely held one? So if you own a business outright you're allowed to dictate the religious practices of your employees? Require them to pray? Or ban them from praying? Or make them read your religious materials? I think you're drawing the line in the wrong place here, John. Not to mention that if this was a case about a Muslim owned business requiring their employees to wear head scarves that the outcry would be completely different. This is about a religious majority trying to assert their dominance and corporatists trying to expand their powers.

John went on
This case differs greatly, to me, from Citizens United, say. While I strongly sympathize with the Green family, the individuals aren't the plaintiffs here, so how do we determine a business corporation's religious beliefs? In any case, the Greens' statement that they would "be forced" to shut the business down with an adverse ruling strikes me, from an Evangelical Christian perspective, as poor stewardship. They could always sell it to someone who doesn't mind the required coverage.

Or they could not pay for health insurance and instead have their employees seek insurance on the exchanges. There are several very easy, very obvious options available to them that aren't "selling the business" nor "shutting down." That a straw man like this made it to the supreme court is insane but the track record of the current court has little to do with deference to precedent nor law and everything to do with politics so it's not that shocking.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
The 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause applies to government and individuals. The Hobby Lobby issue is still very much undecided.

This is a good short read on the topic:


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/do_corporations_have_religious_beliefs_the_supreme_court_will_need_to_decide.2.html

From the article:

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act bars the federal government from imposing a "substantial burden" on anyone’s "exercise of religion" unless it is "the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest." The Obama administration and the judges who have refused to grant injunctions contend that the burden here is insignificant, amounting to a few dollars borne indirectly by the employer to facilitate independent, private decisions made by their female employees. They also argue that they are promoting a compelling government interest in providing preventive health care to Americans. The employers and the judges who have enjoined the birth-control provision claim that they are being forced to choose between violating protected religious beliefs and facing crippling fines and that free or inexpensive birth control is available at community health centers and public clinics."

20% of American hospital beds (45% here in WA, and 100% in many communities) are Catholic owned. These hospitals have chosen to violate the ACA by not providing family planning services.

Yup, this is a huge, far reaching issue.

The ACLU of WA, which is preparing to start round 2 on this issue (round 1 involved an amicus brief in support of the state of WA's legal action against a florist who refused to serve a gay couple on religious grounds), has passed a policy that distinguishes between public organizations whose primary purpose is religious worship or indoctrination (churches and schools) and those that serve the public in other capacities (hospitals, stores, etc).

We will work to enshrine this principle in law and jurisprudence to better balance religious freedom with the rule of law. Right now they are severely at odds - a tried and true formula for discrimination and other forms of human misery at the hands of the religious.
tradmanclimbs

Ice climber
Pomfert VT
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:41pm PT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/26/republican-states-most-dependent-government_n_5035877.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:47pm PT

Tvash,

I am still waiting for your comprehensive presentation as to how this Administration
has stifled "freedom of the press" as you stated yesterday

thank you
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
My answer is:

Google it.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 05:54pm PT
Crib notes:

Pentagon papers attempted injunction
Surveillance of journalists
Recent restrictions of journalists during wartime
Snowden case
Indictments for failing to reveal sources
etc...
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 06:14pm PT
Have fun, Norton!

Report back!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 26, 2014 - 06:32pm PT

reporting back

Tvash, you are usually very good in both your assertions and also their foundations

if you are going to criticize, as you did, then back it up, so far you are very weak

example: Snowden, he broke the law and you damn right he is an adult, knew what he was doing and fled the country, ain't no assault on the "free press" there

while you are at it, try comparing this Administration's supposed assault on the free press with previous administrations

Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 26, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
Norton..what law did Snowden break?
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Mar 26, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
When you sign a Security Clearance, you're agreeing to never, ever, under any circumstances reveal anything you know to be classified or should know is classified. Under penalty of law. You don't have to sign the security clearance, you just don't get the job. And the FBI likely adds a note to the file they've created for you.

Daniel Ellsberg knew full well that he was breaking the law when he copied the Pentagon Papers and took the copies home. He firmly believes, and still does, it was in the best national interest and he was willing, and did, go to prison for it.

I believe Ellsberg did the right thing at the time (mid Vietnam War).
I'm not so sure about Snowden. And why did he run away? He certainly doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:05pm PT
Snowden was charged with theft, as well as

unauthorized communication of national defense information

and

willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person

under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Whether he broke any laws remains to be seen.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that rot.


dirtbag

climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:10pm PT
True, but come on, is that seriously disputed? This isn't a court of law.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
oh really Tvash?

I see, so according to you a guy can steal steal from his employer classified data, release it to the public, flee the country because he know what he was doing was wrong and knowing that he would never come back to the US because he would spend life in a prison.....

and you say, naw....he is innocent until proven guilty?

man up Tvash, when it looks like, smells like, and acts like a duck, it IS a duck

you can defend for your own personal opinion, for the good of mankind Snowden, but you absolutely cannot defend his "innocence" in any legal sense

clue: no one, one one, has the "right" to fuk with our security, and he did, get it?

but to your original point, how exactly is the Obama Administration stifling "freedom of the press" by wanting Snowden to answer for breaking our laws?

huh?
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
Here is the oath he took:"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

We were being spied on by our government...was he defending the Constitution?

The f*#king NSA is out of control. Period.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
Snowden ran because

a) He feared for his life - a fear that is not, even in the remotest sense, unfounded, given the agencies he was dealing with.
b) He is smart and knew full well what the government had in store for him
c) His agenda was simply to enable America to have this conversation, and he would not be able to inform that conversation from solitary confinement.

Snowden is one of the most principled and committed Americans I've ever seen. He sacrificed his entire life for this country. I guess you actually have to read his words rather than the smear campaign to get that - few Americans will bother, of course.

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic principles of our legal system.

I kind of thought everyone knew that one by heart.

Reckon not.

Lots of Americans don't believe in it, however. Mob justice is so much quicker and less risky.



dirtbag

climber
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:33pm PT

Innocent until proven guilty is one of the most basic principles of our legal system.

There is a difference between arguing on an internet forum, and arguing in court to determine whether someone should be imprisoned.

I happen to also think OJ is a murdering puke, even though a jury of knuckleheads decided otherwise.

A lot of people broke laws to do admirable things. MLK, for example. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Snowden.
Tvash

climber
Seattle
Mar 26, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
Read about what the NSA actually used its powers for and you'll be a fan. Cheerist!
Messages 41341 - 41360 of total 45391 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews