The Political Thread

[Strange Brew]

Since many of our threads on the Main Board tend to get hijacked I thought it might be beneficial to start a thread in the Smack Board where posters can argue the issues of the day without tainting the threads on the Main Board.

So, let's have at it. (or the mods can throw this thread into the heap of dumb ideas and delete it).

Cromnibus Bill?
Climate Change?
Grand Jury protests?
EIT/Torture?

[LadyMuskie]

All of these issues clearly have only one right answer, and some of you will just have to accept that you've chosen poorly! :wink:

[GoMuskies]

Shouldn't this be named "The Snipe Thread"?

[MADXSTER]

I learn a lot from Snipe.

[Strange Brew]

All of these issues clearly have only one right answer, and some of you will just have to accept that you've chosen poorly! :wink:

Ha, love it Lady. Where have you been in live chat?

[Strange Brew]

Shouldn't this be named "The Snipe Thread"?

Potentially, but I appreciated your take on petting zoos (I personally see no problem unless they are part of one of those pesky live Nativity scenes). Would you care elaborate? Are they good wholesome fun or a factory of flatulence that will create a blanket of atmospheric greenhouse gas which will surely destroy us all and reverse the Big Bang to the Singularity? Stay tuned........

[Kahns Krazy]

Is this the thread for discussion porn site preferences?

[Strange Brew]

Is this the thread for discussion porn site preferences?

Keep it clean Kahns, keep it clean. :)

[Strange Brew]

Not sure if I believe this story from Politico but the IRS is "considering a shutdown" over the budget cuts in the Crominbus bill.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/irs-possible-temporary-shutdown-113681.html

[Strange Brew]

In case you missed it and guessing by the media coverage you did, the Senate approved the Keystone XL pipeline bill (a bi-partisan effort mind you). Let's see if the obstructionist, do-nothing, White House of No vetoes it.

Senate approve Keystone bill: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/29/senate-keystone-bill-obama-veto/22521107/

[maketewahXalum]

Let's see if the obstructionist, do-nothing, White House of No vetoes it.



Let's be honest. There is a 1000% chance Obama is going to veto it. However [and correct me if I am wrong], I believe Congress can override the veto if a 2/3 majority of both houses agree on passing the bill. Your article states that senate vote was 62-36, which is a few more votes away from 2/3, so I don't imagine garnering 2/3 in that chamber should be an issue. However, the House of Reps might be an issue. What is the general concensus among the House of Rep on Keystone?

[waggy]

Keystone XL?

Wouldn't It Be Great?

[Strange Brew]

Let's be honest. There is a 1000% chance Obama is going to veto it. However [and correct me if I am wrong], I believe Congress can override the veto if a 2/3 majority of both houses agree on passing the bill. Your article states that senate vote was 62-36, which is a few more votes away from 2/3, so I don't imagine garnering 2/3 in that chamber should be an issue. However, the House of Reps might be an issue. What is the general concensus among the House of Rep on Keystone?

The House passed the bill and sent it to the Senate, who passed the it with amendments. It now goes back to the House which will likely pass it with amendments (with some hand wringing and stagecraft from both sides), then it goes to the President. If he vetoes the Senate will need to pass it with 67 votes (I believe) to override the veto or the POTUS could just sign it and save everyone a lot of time.

[Strange Brew]

Well, President NO vetoed the will of the people on the Keystone pipeline.

The FCC will vote to regulate the Internet tomorrow

The Pugs wussed out on defunding an unconstitutional move by the White House.

Crappy week for Americans. I wonder if my company will let me work remotely from Costa Rica

[X-man]

Well, President NO vetoed the will of the Republicans on the Keystone pipeline.

The FCC will vote to regulate the Internet tomorrow

The Pugs wussed out on defunding an unconstitutional move by the White House.

Crappy week for Americans. I wonder if my company will let me work remotely from Costa Rica

Fixed that for you.

[Strange Brew]

Fixed that for you.

So the 9 Democrat Senators who voted for it are now Republicans??

I guess Obama had to pay back his Billionare buddies Steyer and Buffett instead of helping the unions.

[NY44]

Fixed that for you.

In this energy market the pipeline debate is more about the pride of politicians than anything else.

The crude from oil sands are too expensive to produce in this market. It costs between $85 to $110 to produce a barrel of oil sand crude and a barrel is at $60 today. Would people be happier if a year ago we committed $7 Billion to build an economically non-viable pipeline? Obama's reasons for vetoing it aren't economic, but still. Unless there's a concrete indicator that oil prices will go up, this is a bad investment.

[GoMuskies]

The pipeline doesn't get built overnight. Today's oil prices are largely irrelevant.

[Strange Brew]

In this energy market the pipeline debate is more about the pride of politicians than anything else.

The crude from oil sands are too expensive to produce in this market. It costs between $85 to $110 to produce a barrel of oil sand crude and a barrel is at $60 today. Would people be happier if a year ago we committed $7 Billion to build an economically non-viable pipeline? Obama's reasons for vetoing it aren't economic, but still. Unless there's a concrete indicator that oil prices will go up, this is a bad investment.

Oil prices will go up and you know it. This is Obama paying back his Billionare buddies and his extreme left wing base.

Why does Obama hate middle class union workers?

[NY44]

Oil prices will go up and you know it.

They probably will go up at some point, but any price increase will be done strategically to limit non-OPEC market share. OPEC is clearly targeting new oil sources, like sands. I don't see them restricting the supplies they produce to let Western oil back into the market anytime soon.

The Saudi project, part two (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21644198-oil-price-has-been-rising-againbut-will-it-last-saudi-project-part-two)

[Masterofreality]

Well, President NO vetoed the will of the Republicans on the Keystone pipeline.

The FCC will vote to regulate the Internet tomorrow

The Pugs wussed out on defunding an unconstitutional move by the White House.

Crappy week for Americans. I wonder if my company will let me work remotely from Costa Rica


Fixed that for you.

Uh, no, not really. 57% FOR, 28% Against, 15% unsure? Don't let the facts get in the way of an argument though.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-back-keystone-pipeline/

[X-man]

Uh, no, not really. 57% FOR, 28% Against, 15% unsure? Don't let the facts get in the way of an argument though.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-back-keystone-pipeline/

More facts: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/20/many-americans-on-fence-over-keystone-xl-wsjnbc-poll/.

[X-man]

So the 9 Democrat Senators who voted for it are now Republicans??

I guess Obama had to pay back his Billionare buddies Steyer and Buffett instead of helping the unions.

So all that stuff about Republicans and big oil isn't true???

[Strange Brew]

More facts: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/20/many-americans-on-fence-over-keystone-xl-wsjnbc-poll/.

Thanks X-Man for posting that and proving my point. The article states that only 20-30% of Americans diapprove of the pipeline depending on the survey. So, the President is holding up a bill to appease an extreme minority and his Billionare donors. I guess the hard working union guys will just have to pound salt so Buffett can line his pockets.

[muskienick]

Thanks X-Man for posting that and proving my point. The article states that only 20-30% of Americans diapprove of the pipeline depending on the survey. So, the President is holding up a bill to appease an extreme minority and his Billionare donors. I guess the hard working union guys will just have to pound salt so Buffett can line his pockets.

Brew,
Based on some past posts I've seen from a number of the regulars around here, I doubt that you'll get much support using "the hard working union guys" as the whipping boys stemming from the President's veto. And pointing out that the President has some "Billionaire donors" might actually endear him to some of those same regulars!

[X-man]

Thanks X-Man for posting that and proving my point. The article states that only 20-30% of Americans diapprove of the pipeline depending on the survey. So, the President is holding up a bill to appease an extreme minority and his Billionare donors. I guess the hard working union guys will just have to pound salt so Buffett can line his pockets.

Also you fail to mention that nearly as many people are undecided on the pipeline as support it. But I agree....trying to tie Obama to fat cats, as opposed to Republicans and their manifest connections to both fat cats and big oil, is ludicrous. At least try and have an honest conversation about things instead of just spewing nonsense.

[GoMuskies]

Big Oil *&$&#@*

Must be scary if BIG OIL &%*($&# is involved!

[NY44]

One quick note: this isn't a veto of the pipeline itself. It's a veto of a bill which would force the construction of it. He can still approve it after the State Department finishes its process.

[Strange Brew]

Also you fail to mention that nearly as many people are undecided on the pipeline as support it. But I agree....trying to tie Obama to fat cats, as opposed to Republicans and their manifest connections to both fat cats and big oil, is ludicrous. At least try and have an honest conversation about things instead of just spewing nonsense.

And twice as many support it than don't. Are you saying you know which way the undecideds would fall? If you do, you failed Statistics.

I'll see if you can be honest.
Who currently transports the oil and would lose money if the pipeline is built? Buffett.
Who donated a ton of money to and actively campaigned for Obama in 2012? Buffett.
Who bought part of Obama's veto? Buffett.

Who makes up a large part of the Progressive base? Extreme left wing environmentalists.
Who irrationally hates anything that extracts,transports and/or uses oil? Extreme left wing environmentalists.
Who is appeased and partially bought Obama's veto with Steyer's money? Extreme left wing environmentalists.

[muskienick]

And twice as many support it than don't. Are you saying you know which way the undecideds would fall? If you do, you failed Statistics.

I'll see if you can be honest.
Who currently transports the oil and would lose money if the pipeline is built? Buffett.
Who donated a ton of money to and actively campaigned for Obama in 2012? Buffett.
Who bought part of Obama's veto? Buffett.

Who makes up a large part of the Progressive base? Extreme left wing environmentalists.
Who irrationally hates anything that extracts,transports and/or uses oil? Extreme left wing environmentalists.
Who is appeased and partially bought Obama's veto with Steyer's money? Extreme left wing environmentalists.

Yeah, that Steyer guy and his wife are terrible people. They have limited their gifts to charities to a mere $800,000,000, half their fortune of $1.6 B. To be totally fair, the Koch brothers have also given or pledged $600,000,000 to legitimate charities.

As far as Buffett is concerned, why would you have demonized him for supporting causes that would help to assure the viability of his business concerns? The extreme right seems to make a living by ballyhooing how great the Koch brothers and their ilk are for doing the same in support of THEIR big business ventures.

If there were a way to limit such political funding, I'd be for putting a cap on all of it, not just the Extremes of both political parties. By doing so, we might actually be able to have the 99% decide such matters. I'm leery of the efficacy of most polls due to the Leftist or Rightist leanings of the polling groups. I much prefer results from the voting booth than from biased pollsters, whichever way they lean.

[X-man]

Strange Brew really is strange if what he posts is actually the way he thinks.

[NY44]

Who currently transports the oil and would lose money if the pipeline is built?

Middle class Union workers

[Strange Brew]

Middle class Union workers

Not sure if Burlington Northern RR is union or not. Couldn't find verification.

[Strange Brew]

Strange Brew really is strange if what he posts is actually the way he thinks.

So, attack the messenger. Classic!

What happened to that "honest" conversation?

[X-man]

So, attack the messenger. Classic!

What happened to that "honest" conversation?

As soon as you show any inclination to be honest, I'll be happy to have a rational discussion on the issue. But as long as you spout the kind of garbage you have been posting here, don't expect to be treated any differently than you are treating others.

[Strange Brew]

As soon as you show any inclination to be honest, I'll be happy to have a rational discussion on the issue. But as long as you spout the kind of garbage you have been posting here, don't expect to be treated any differently than you are treating others.

What did I say that wasn't true?

[NY44]

Not sure if Burlington Northern RR is union or not. Couldn't find verification.

My point being that the pipeline probably would help make jobs, but it would also hurt others just like you're concerned with. Especially if you couple this with the fact that oil sands may not be economically viable for years to come. I think the President is looking at this issue's long-term scenario. Which, to me, the main issues are a) Oil-sands are being priced out of the market and b) it would be a government commitment to environmentally unfriendly (long and short term) business. Also, to put it plainly, we need to cut our addiction to oil. This would be a backwards step in that process.

[X-man]

What did I say that wasn't true?

Try reading all your posts beginning with #14 without a partisan eye, and you will figure it out.

[GoMuskies]

a government commitment

How so? This isn't a government project.

[NY44]

How so? This isn't a government project.

true. Endorsement of*

[GoMuskies]

I don't think approving a permit is an endorsement.

[GoMuskies]

Would people be happier if a year ago we committed $7 Billion to build an economically non-viable pipeline?

In the same vein, why would we care? It's TransCanada's $7 billion.

[NY44]

In the same vein, why would we care? It's TransCanada's $7 billion.

As I said before, this was a bill which would force the construction of it, having it bypass the State Department's review.

[GoMuskies]

It wouldn't force us to build it. It would just give TransCanada the right to build it without State's approval. Either way, we're not spending $7 billion on it.

[NY44]

It wouldn't force us to build it. It would just give TransCanada the right to build it without State's approval. Either way, we're not spending $7 billion on it.

No one said we're building it or paying for it. I'm saying the bill was a motion favorable to environmentally unfriendly business. If Strange Brew wants to attack the veto as business motivated, he should also note that it is equally as likely that it was brought to the floor with business motivations. Obama didn't veto a business as usual bill here. This is Congress pushing a bill to rush construction and then claiming that the President is letting process get in the way of normal business. When in fact, Congress is allowing business to get in the way of normal process.

[blobfan]

...I'm leery of the efficacy of most polls due to the Leftist or Rightist leanings of the polling groups. I much prefer results from the voting booth than from biased pollsters, whichever way they lean.

This. A lot of effort has gone into finding ways to influence poll outcomes. Ask people 5 questions about their opinion on pipeline leaks and oil spills and then ask if they are for the pipeline, they'll say no. Ask them 5 questions about their opinion on jobs for US workers and the negative effects of government involvement in business and they say they are for it.

[GoMuskies]

No one said we're building it or paying for it.

You sorta did imply that when you talked about us committing $7 billion. Perhaps you work for TransCanada.


a bill to rush construction

I find this quite amusing. The process has taken a ridiculously long time. State is dragging its feet in a big way.

[Masterofreality]

I'm leery of the efficacy of most polls due to the Leftist or Rightist leanings of the polling groups. I much prefer results from the voting booth than from biased pollsters, whichever way they lean.

Precisely why I quoted a poll from CNN.. Not exactly a bulwark of Conservatism.(

[Strange Brew]

Try reading all your posts beginning with #14 without a partisan eye, and you will figure it out.

You said honest. Did you mean civil?

Again, what have I posted that isn't true.

Why do you think the President vetoed a bi-partisan bill that even your poll illustrates a majority of Americans want?

[Strange Brew]

Yeah, that Steyer guy and his wife are terrible people. They have limited their gifts to charities to a mere $800,000,000, half their fortune of $1.6 B. To be totally fair, the Koch brothers have also given or pledged $600,000,000 to legitimate charities.


So what is your point? On top of the ridiculously generous giving, the Kochs own companies that provide tens of thousands of jobs and produce products people use. Steyer is a former Wall Street hedge fund manager turned green industry rent seeker.

Choke on facts in the House of Smack (:smile:): http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php

Care to weigh in on the former nazi stooge Soros and his ties to regulation of the internet?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

[X-man]

So what is your point? On top of the ridiculously generous giving, the Kochs own companies that provide tens of thousands of jobs and produce products people use. Steyer is a former Wall Street hedge fund manager turned green industry rent seeker.

Choke on facts in the House of Smack (:smile:): http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php

Care to weigh in on the former nazi stooge Soros and his ties to regulation of the internet?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

So that announced $1 billion contribution to all things Republican from the Kochs isn't rent-seeking? What the hell is it for then?. Can't you see the problems with your posts? It's hard to take anything you say seriously in your political posts when they have such partisan nonsense embedded in them.

[NY44]

I find this quite amusing. The process has taken a ridiculously long time. State is dragging its feet in a big way.

Gotta be honest. I don't know enough about the normal process of building international pipelines to comment on that. The main issue here is how it's been twisted in the press. The President didn't kill the pipeline yesterday; he just killed a bill which would basically force an executive order to bypass the State Department and go against his party's beliefs. McConnell can tout this as a 'no brainer', but he is, and has been, well aware that it wouldn't be one for the President.

[GoMuskies]

That I can agree with. The bill in question was DOA, and everyone knew it. It was olitical gamesmanship for sure.

[muskienick]

Precisely why I quoted a poll from CNN.. Not exactly a bulwark of Conservatism.(

But some have, in the past, linked CNN in with the "Liberal Media." I dislike all polls, those from both liberal and conservative sources. What's your point?

[muskienick]

So what is your point? On top of the ridiculously generous giving, the Kochs own companies that provide tens of thousands of jobs and produce products people use. Steyer is a former Wall Street hedge fund manager turned green industry rent seeker.

Choke on facts in the House of Smack (:smile:): http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/the-epic-hypocrisy-of-tom-steyer.php

Care to weigh in on the former nazi stooge Soros and his ties to regulation of the internet?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702

Tom Steyer's company, Farallon, not only employed many people to staff 8 offices globally but also brought good returns to its many investors even during down-turns in the economy. His company was so successful in bringing wealth to its clients (a somewhat obvious positive factor that you conveniently left out of his resume) that he was able to sell it and dedicate his life to good works. Among them was the founding of One PacificCoast Bank with his wife. That community development bank provides commercial loans to otherwise under-served businesses, individuals, and non-profits. They put up over $20 million of their own money to start the bank but take nothing out of its profits including salary or the repayment of their initial start-up funding.

You want to talk about George Soros? OK! You called him a Nazi --- absolutely false. He was only 14 years old when WWII ended but he had endured Nazi reprisals against Jews in his native Hungary. As a young man he worked as a waiter, porter, and other menial jobs and finally graduated in 1954 with a PhD from the London School of Economics. Soros' Quantum Fund is the most successful of all hedge funds of all times. It has made a lot of people very wealthy (including himself). Although he was convicted of insider trading in France 14 years after the regulatory agency of the French Stock Exchange had found no evidence of his guilt, the French Supreme Court reduced the fine against him and there were no punitive penalties sought in the action. As early as 2003, it was estimated that Soros had donated at least $4 Billion to non-political good causes and since then his Open Society Foundation is making annual philanthropic investments of $500 Million. Of course he is now being demonized by the Right because he has consistently made large donations to Democratic and Progressive PAC's.

I am just as disgusted by the Left that demonizes the Koch Brothers who are also wonderful philanthropists while supporting Conservative and Republican PAC's.

[NY44]

The FCC will vote to regulate the Internet tomorrow

Crappy week for Americans. I wonder if my company will let me work remotely from Costa Rica

Net neutrality is another great topic. I'm not sure what side you're on by this post. It's a complicated issue that's hard to get a grasp of, but at my level of understanding I'm on the side saying leave it be. Equal internet speed for everyone.

[Strange Brew]

Tom Steyer's company, Farallon, not only employed many people to staff 8 offices globally but also brought good returns to its many investors even during down-turns in the economy. His company was so successful in bringing wealth to its clients (a somewhat obvious positive factor that you conveniently left out of his resume) that he was able to sell it and dedicate his life to good works. Among them was the founding of One PacificCoast Bank with his wife. That community development bank provides commercial loans to otherwise under-served businesses, individuals, and non-profits. They put up over $20 million of their own money to start the bank but take nothing out of its profits including salary or the repayment of their initial start-up funding.

You want to talk about George Soros? OK! You called him a Nazi --- absolutely false. He was only 14 years old when WWII ended but he had endured Nazi reprisals against Jews in his native Hungary. As a young man he worked as a waiter, porter, and other menial jobs and finally graduated in 1954 with a PhD from the London School of Economics. Soros' Quantum Fund is the most successful of all hedge funds of all times. It has made a lot of people very wealthy (including himself). Although he was convicted of insider trading in France 14 years after the regulatory agency of the French Stock Exchange had found no evidence of his guilt, the French Supreme Court reduced the fine against him and there were no punitive penalties sought in the action. As early as 2003, it was estimated that Soros had donated at least $4 Billion to non-political good causes and since then his Open Society Foundation is making annual philanthropic investments of $500 Million. Of course he is now being demonized by the Right because he has consistently made large donations to Democratic and Progressive PAC's.

I am just as disgusted by the Left that demonizes the Koch Brothers who are also wonderful philanthropists while supporting Conservative and Republican PAC's.

You left out that Soros in a 60 Minutes interview was unapologetic about collaborating with the Nazis as a teenager. I understand he may of had to do what he had to to but to be unapologetic or to have no remorse years later tells me he's not someone to be celebrated. Honestly, I don't care about Steyer's money. I brought it up b/c I always here about the rights ties to Wall Street and Big Oil but in this case the Presidents veto and feet dragging on the pipeline appears to have been bought by Wall Street big wigs and extreme left wing environmentalists. The hypocrisy is funny to me.

[Strange Brew]

Net neutrality is another great topic. I'm not sure what side you're on by this post. It's a complicated issue that's hard to get a grasp of, but at my level of understanding I'm on the side saying leave it be. Equal internet speed for everyone.

Eureka!! We agree on something. Leave it alone. It is one of the last enterprises relatively free of government intervention.

[blobfan]

Net neutrality is another great topic. I'm not sure what side you're on by this post. It's a complicated issue that's hard to get a grasp of, but at my level of understanding I'm on the side saying leave it be. Equal internet speed for everyone.


Eureka!! We agree on something. Leave it alone. It is one of the last enterprises relatively free of government intervention.
As I understand it, net neutrality rules would guarantee equal speed but the current rules do not. Companies are claiming to self-regulate but in reality are just playing games. I'm not a fan of government regulation but when industry is being dishonest, government needs to step in and I believe that is currently the case with internet service providers.

Or do you think it's ok for companies like Time Warner to charge an exorbitant rate for 50 mps internet speed while guaranteeing none? That's the status quo. With few exceptions, and especially during peek hours, people are not getting what they think they are paying for. During the time we had their service I don't think our speed ever got faster than 10 mps. And now that most providers are also in the business of creating content, there is a conflict of interest that requires independent oversight.

[muskienick]

You left out that Soros in a 60 Minutes interview was unapologetic about collaborating with the Nazis as a teenager. I understand he may of had to do what he had to to but to be unapologetic or to have no remorse years later tells me he's not someone to be celebrated. Honestly, I don't care about Steyer's money. I brought it up b/c I always here about the rights ties to Wall Street and Big Oil but in this case the Presidents veto and feet dragging on the pipeline appears to have been bought by Wall Street big wigs and extreme left wing environmentalists. The hypocrisy is funny to me.

None of these folks are pure as the driven snow but to demonize Soros for whatever he may (or may not) have done as a 13 year-old child is just ridiculous. I know I screwed up royally a number of times as a youngster of that age. I assume you didn't if you're willing to cast stones at the 13 year-old Soros.

[NY44]

As I understand it, net neutrality rules would guarantee equal speed but the current rules do not. Companies are claiming to self-regulate but in reality are just playing games. I'm not a fan of government regulation but when industry is being dishonest, government needs to step in and I believe that is currently the case with internet service providers.

Or do you think it's ok for companies like Time Warner to charge an exorbitant rate for 50 mps internet speed while guaranteeing none? That's the status quo. With few exceptions, and especially during peek hours, people are not getting what they think they are paying for. During the time we had their service I don't think our speed ever got faster than 10 mps. And now that most providers are also in the business of creating content, there is a conflict of interest that requires independent oversight.

There's 2 issues here. Net neutrality and who has the right to provide service. The FCC just overruled laws limiting municipal broadband growth in two states. Helping local service providers compete with the likes of Comcast.

Net neutrality is up next. If it's your thing you can watch it live now here (http://www.fcc.gov/live).

[bjf123]

I am just as disgusted by the Left that demonizes the Koch Brothers who are also wonderful philanthropists while supporting Conservative and Republican PAC's.
Sadly, most of my friends on the Left don't seem to feel the same. To them, Soros, labor unions, etc., are pure as the driven snow, while anything the Koch brothers, or anyone one or Right, touch is inherently evil.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PM Thor]

Well, since I lean left on a lot of issues, I'll respond BJF.

I think Soros and the Koch brothers are full of crap, it's just I can handle only so much crap. I would be all for a constitutional amendment banning PACs, political donations to parties or candidates, Hell basically taking money out of our political system altogether. I know it won't happen, because "FREE SPEECH! I VOTE WITH MY MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS!" BS, but this stuff from both sides has perverted our political system to near oligarchy status.

[RealDeal]

Well, since I lean left on a lot of issues, I'll respond BJF.

I think Soros and the Koch brothers are full of crap, it's just I can handle only so much crap. I would be all for a constitutional amendment banning PACs, political donations to parties or candidates, Hell basically taking money out of our political system altogether. I know it won't happen, because "FREE SPEECH! I VOTE WITH MY MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS!" BS, but this stuff from both sides has perverted our political system to near oligarchy status.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

[muskienick]

Sadly, most of my friends on the Left don't seem to feel the same. To them, Soros, labor unions, etc., are pure as the driven snow, while anything the Koch brothers, or anyone one or Right, touch is inherently evil.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is certainly a widely held perspective of the Right. A large number from the Left believe that Conservatives think that the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and all Tea Partiers should be nominated for sainthood immediately and without any proof of at least two miracles (attributed to them) or having lived an exemplary life.

So what you say few people on the Left believe also holds true among those on the Right. It's all one's perspective and when one perceives things always from a Leftist or Rightist point of view, there is little likelihood that (s)he would be able to see the "other side of the coin."

[MADXSTER]

Well, since I lean left on a lot of issues, I'll respond BJF.

I think Soros and the Koch brothers are full of crap, it's just I can handle only so much crap. I would be all for a constitutional amendment banning PACs, political donations to parties or candidates, Hell basically taking money out of our political system altogether. I know it won't happen, because "FREE SPEECH! I VOTE WITH MY MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS!" BS, but this stuff from both sides has perverted our political system to near oligarchy status.

I'm not a big fan of PAC's etc. but what has really perverted our politcal system is accepting money from foreign countries/overseas accounts.

[bjf123]

That is certainly a widely held perspective of the Right. A large number from the Left believe that Conservatives think that the Koch Brothers, Big Oil, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and all Tea Partiers should be nominated for sainthood immediately and without any proof of at least two miracles (attributed to them) or having lived an exemplary life.

So what you say few people on the Left believe also holds true among those on the Right. It's all one's perspective and when one perceives things always from a Leftist or Rightist point of view, there is little likelihood that (s)he would be able to see the "other side of the coin."

I agree completely. Many on the Right take anything Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, say as Gospel. I have Conservative friends who fall squarely into this category. While I consider myself a Conservative, I think many things said by the talking heads on the Right are equally ridiculous. Both sides of the political spectrum care only about themselves, the extreme part of their base, and getting re-elected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PM Thor]

Oh and Net neutrality?

Example. Comcast is a huge internet provider, also owns NBC. So who do you think will benefit when "fast lanes" are approved? NBC, or a competitor like Netflix? But what about a startup who goes against those guys who can't afford to pay for a "fast lane"?

I am exceedingly glad the interwebs is now regulated as a utility.

[Strange Brew]

None of these folks are pure as the driven snow but to demonize Soros for whatever he may (or may not) have done as a 13 year-old child is just ridiculous. I know I screwed up royally a number of times as a youngster of that age. I assume you didn't if you're willing to cast stones at the 13 year-old Soros.

Soros has shown no remorse for what he admitted he did as a 13 year old. At least Democratic Senator (until 2010) Robert Byrd admitted that being a leader in the klan was wrong in his elder years.

[Strange Brew]

I am exceedingly glad the interwebs is now regulated as a utility.

Why exactly?

[Strange Brew]

Now this is funny. Well done Verizon.

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet

[muskienick]

Soros has shown no remorse for what he admitted he did as a 13 year old. At least Democratic Senator (until 2010) Robert Byrd admitted that being a leader in the klan was wrong in his elder years.

I puked on my Mom's clothes a lot also as a baby, but I never felt compelled to apologize or feel remorse for it as an adult. Kids --- all kids --- do things they would not do as adults. That's what becoming an adult is supposed to be about. Since that is a universal fact, adults should understand that they were going through a learning process and, as such, they should not have to show either sorrow or remorse for any mistakes they made in that maturing process.

Was Robert Byrd 13 years old when he was the leader of the Klan? You are reaching, SB!

[Strange Brew]

I puked on my Mom's clothes a lot also as a baby, but I never felt compelled to apologize or feel remorse for it as an adult. Kids --- all kids --- do things they would not do as adults. That's what becoming an adult is supposed to be about. Since that is a universal fact, adults should understand that they were going through a learning process and, as such, they should not have to show either sorrow or remorse for any mistakes they made in that maturing process.

Was Robert Byrd 13 years old when he was the leader of the Klan? You are reaching, SB!

So you're comparing puking on your Mom as a infant to sending Jews to the gas chambers and stealing their property as a 13 year old. Also, I knew right from wrong by the time I was a teenager and would at least as an adult admit I shouldn't have done terrible things when I was younger. But I guess a felon (in France) who nearly collapsed the Pound for his own personal profit doesn't really care about ethics anyway.

No on Byrd, I brought him up to point out the blatant racism of the Democrat party. Party of the Confederacey, Jim Crow, Eugenics, Segregation and Internment of folks who don't look like them.

[PM Thor]

Why exactly?

Because labelling the internet as a utility, or rather, information services, will most likely keep monopolies (like Comcast has in some instances now) from overcharging for services rendered. Also, this FCC ruling stops mobile carriers from throttling peoples data too, which, under prior rules the FCC couldn't enforce, it was just a suggestion to not do it, with no ramifications for doing it. Now they can stop those shenanigans. Also, now that it is a utility, people actually have a jurisdictional entity in the FCC that they can complain to about services or problems. Before, no governmental agency had authority to fine ISPs, and I have no doubt there is a correlation to why Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner are all ranked as some of the worst in terms of customer satisfaction.
Another added bonus is that with the utility classification, it makes it easier for competitors to move into a market controlled by a competitor. Meaning, if existing infrastructure is controlled by a competitor, they cannot overcharge the use of that infrastructure, since it is now a utility. An example is Google Fiber. I have forgotten where exactly, but the case involved AT&T owning a percentage of the poles in an area, and were denying use of those poles to Google (or were charging an exorbitant amount, I have forgotten which) . The utility classification now makes that illegal and stops redundant infrastructure from being built. Just a couple quick reasons. Edit, that happened in Austin, Texas.

[Kahns Krazy]

Because labelling the internet as a utility, or rather, information services, will most likely keep monopolies (like Comcast has in some instances now) from overcharging for services rendered..

Yeah.... Duke has a spotless record of not overcharging for electric services :blink:

While I tend to agree that - for now at least - the good outweighs the bad, regulated utilities do not serve to drive down prices, ever.

[PM Thor]

Is Duke a monopoly though? I have had 3 different electrical providers hit me up to switch.