Thread: Bottom of the Barrel

alloak41 - 7/3/2014 at 03:00 PM

Obama has been voted as the worst President since WWII...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/nation al/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056


BoytonBrother - 7/3/2014 at 05:22 PM

quote:
From June 24 - 30, 2014 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters


So it must be true! Look no further folks, the proof is right here. But wait, I thought American voters were low info and didn't know anything? So which is it? Are these 1,446 people low info voters, or are they educated assessments?


gondicar - 7/3/2014 at 06:18 PM

quote:
Obama has been voted as the worst President since WWII...

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/nation al/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056


The only thing he's been voted recently is POTUS. This was an opinion poll (and a pretty narrow one based on sample size), not a vote. It is also not as cut-and-dried as our friend alloak would have us believe with his nifty one-liner. When you start to break down the info presented with this poll, there are a lot of things that you can read into it, including that W and Obama find themselves together at the bottom of the barrel in this poll, which shouldn't be all that surprising to anyone given two major wars that still linger after 10+ years, an near-complete economic meltdown that started in 2008 and continues, and the bitter partisanship that had gridlocked Washington and manifests itself in the general electorate as well, as clearly indicated by this poll.

I thought this section was interesting:
quote:
Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 - 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 - 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 - 7 percent and independent voters say 41 - 31 percent. Democrats say 78 - 4 percent that he is better.

Voters say by a narrow 37 - 34 percent that Obama is better for the economy than Bush.



I also thought this was interesting...while GOP candidates continue to make repeal of Obamacare a campaign focus (when I was in FL for 10 days during primaries back in March, it was the ONLY issue many were running on), it doesn't seem to be a real high priority for the people surveyed in this particular poll:
quote:
The economy and jobs are the most important problems facing the country today, 35 percent of voters say, with 12 percent listing politicians/campaigns/corruption, 6 percent each for healthcare and foreign affairs, 5 percent for the budget and 4 percent each for education and immigration.


Interesting that more people in this survey think Obama is better for the economy than his predecessor, and they also rank the economy as the most important issue facing the country.


BoytonBrother - 7/3/2014 at 07:42 PM

1,446 people. That's roughly the size of 3 movie theaters.


OriginalGoober - 7/4/2014 at 12:46 AM

yes, 1,500 people is only an afternoon at the border.


alloak41 - 7/4/2014 at 12:52 AM

quote:
quote:
From June 24 - 30, 2014 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters


So it must be true! Look no further folks, the proof is right here. But wait, I thought American voters were low info and didn't know anything? So which is it? Are these 1,446 people low info voters, or are they educated assessments?



Obviously, if they were all low information voters Obama wouldn't have finished dead last.

Thank you. Go ahead a tee up another one..


alloak41 - 7/4/2014 at 01:01 AM

quote:
1,446 people. That's roughly the size of 3 movie theaters.


Yeah, what does QUINNIPIAC know about polling? They should stick to things they know something about!


Peachypetewi - 7/4/2014 at 12:43 PM

Quinnipiac has a long history of not only being the most conservatively biased polling organization. These are the same clowns that had Romney 6 points ahead of Obama.

[Edited on 7/4/2014 by Peachypetewi]


MartinD28 - 7/4/2014 at 01:50 PM

quote:
Quinnipiac has a long history of not only being the most conservatively biased polling organization. These are the same clowns that had Romney 6 points ahead of Obama.

[Edited on 7/4/2014 by Peachypetewi]


Makes me think back to this special moment by "the brain" compliments of FOX.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/fox-news-argues-obama-ohio_n_20858 17.html


alloak41 - 7/4/2014 at 02:53 PM

At this rate after a few more responses, you guys will have it totally transformed into this being great news for Obama. Wouldn't expect any less!


BillyBlastoff - 7/4/2014 at 03:15 PM

I don't think the news of this poll will impact the President's 4th of July. I think he will celebrate the birth of a great nations while others will wallow in their belief that America is a terrible country, with a terrible leader.

Me? I'm celebrating.

Glad we have the FDA so I can grill up some salmonella free meat.


alloak41 - 7/4/2014 at 03:21 PM

quote:
I don't think the news of this poll will impact the President's 4th of July. I think he will celebrate the birth of a great nations while others will wallow in their belief that America is a terrible country, with a terrible leader.



We're still a great nation, the absolute greatest ever to appear on Earth. Right now we have a terrible leader.


BoytonBrother - 7/4/2014 at 04:29 PM

quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
From June 24 - 30, 2014 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



So it must be true! Look no further folks, the proof is right here. But wait, I thought American voters were low info and didn't know anything? So which is it? Are these 1,446 people low info voters, or are they educated assessments?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Obviously, if they were all low information voters Obama wouldn't have finished dead last.

Thank you. Go ahead a tee up another one..


So then you're saying these people are informed and educated. But you've said many times that Obama got re-elected because America's voters are low-info. Don't you contradict yourself here?


Muleman1994 - 7/4/2014 at 08:17 PM

The Quinnipiac poll results are what they are.
The Obama Presidency has been a complete failure.

The liberals, aka low information voters, do not like the results.
Unable to craft an intelligent response they attack the pollster.

Apparently liberals are not fond of their well earned low information voter label but they are the democrat’s bread and butter. How else could Obama, with no professional experience and a socialist political agenda get elected in the first place?

It is all good. Come November when Harry Reid loses his control of The Senate (just like Pelosi did in The House in 2010, the American People will be able to stop the damage to our nation by Obama.



BillyBlastoff - 7/4/2014 at 09:06 PM

quote:
a socialist political agenda


Wow.


pops42 - 7/4/2014 at 09:44 PM

quote:
The Quinnipiac poll results are what they are.
The Obama Presidency has been a complete failure.

The liberals, aka low information voters, do not like the results.
Unable to craft an intelligent response they attack the pollster.

Apparently liberals are not fond of their well earned low information voter label but they are the democrat’s bread and butter. How else could Obama, with no professional experience and a socialist political agenda get elected in the first place?

It is all good. Come November when Harry Reid loses his control of The Senate (just like Pelosi did in The House in 2010, the American People will be able to stop the damage to our nation by Obama.



So YOU vote for the party who: is against raising minimum wage, against labor [unions] and working people in general, against woman's rights, against people having quality healthcare at an affordable price??? unless you are wealthy, you are voting against your own economic self interests. you mule man are UNINFORMED> youse a chicken voting for colonel sanders.


BoytonBrother - 7/4/2014 at 10:05 PM

quote:
The liberals, aka low information voters, do not like the results.


Are you saying they didn't poll liberals?



BoytonBrother - 7/4/2014 at 10:08 PM

Conservatives are funny people. It's well-documented that the most educated people in America - professors, doctors, lawyers, etc, are mostly liberal. But yet they now try to pin liberals as "low-info". Insecurity at its finest.


alloak41 - 7/4/2014 at 10:13 PM

quote:
quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
From June 24 - 30, 2014 Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,446 registered voters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



So it must be true! Look no further folks, the proof is right here. But wait, I thought American voters were low info and didn't know anything? So which is it? Are these 1,446 people low info voters, or are they educated assessments?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Obviously, if they were all low information voters Obama wouldn't have finished dead last.

Thank you. Go ahead a tee up another one..


So then you're saying these people are informed and educated. But you've said many times that Obama got re-elected because America's voters are low-info. Don't you contradict yourself here?


No. I haven't made either one of those statements. I haven't made any inference regarding the intelligence of the poll respondents. Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.





[Edited on 7/4/2014 by alloak41]


BillyBlastoff - 7/4/2014 at 11:00 PM

quote:
Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.



C'mon alloak... for the debate to move forward we need honesty.

I've seen you post many times about low information voters. Were you talking about voters in some other country?


BillyBlastoff - 7/4/2014 at 11:02 PM

quote:
Are you saying they didn't poll liberals?


Heheheheh. Kinda squashes the point of the original post along with the validity of the poll.

Good one BB!


Muleman1994 - 7/4/2014 at 11:48 PM

Quote:
"So YOU vote for the party who: is against raising minimum wage, against labor [unions] and working people in general, against woman's rights, against people having quality healthcare at an affordable price???"

An interesting diatribe and follows the liberals talking points quite well.

Sadly it is loaded with false assumptions and liberal spin.

But then again, liberals are so easily lead by the nose.


BoytonBrother - 7/5/2014 at 12:47 AM

quote:
So then you're saying these people are informed and educated. But you've said many times that Obama got re-elected because America's voters are low-info. Don't you contradict yourself here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


No. I haven't made either one of those statements. I haven't made any inference regarding the intelligence of the poll respondents. Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.


Fair enough. So then what caused his re-election?


Muleman1994 - 7/5/2014 at 01:26 AM

quote:
quote:
So then you're saying these people are informed and educated. But you've said many times that Obama got re-elected because America's voters are low-info. Don't you contradict yourself here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


No. I haven't made either one of those statements. I haven't made any inference regarding the intelligence of the poll respondents. Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.


Fair enough. So then what caused his re-election?




If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


pops42 - 7/5/2014 at 01:26 AM

quote:
Quote:
"So YOU vote for the party who: is against raising minimum wage, against labor [unions] and working people in general, against woman's rights, against people having quality healthcare at an affordable price???"

An interesting diatribe and follows the liberals talking points quite well.

Sadly it is loaded with false assumptions and liberal spin.

But then again, liberals are so easily lead by the nose.

So conservatives are FOR those things quoted above??? you may be the most uninformed chicken head on here.


BillyBlastoff - 7/5/2014 at 01:43 AM

quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.


Muleman1994 - 7/5/2014 at 01:51 AM

quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




My naivate?
Of the 329 million people who live in the U.S., how many are registered to vote and of that number, how many actually vote?

The pollster in this case in a well recognized and independent.

Your argument would be more valid if you used factual information.


2112 - 7/5/2014 at 02:28 AM

So all the Republicans are unified that they love Reagan and hate Obama. Shocking! While the Democrats split their love and hate among multiple presidents. Notice Obama is also listed as the 4th best president. Not exactly surprising results, or results that really mean anything.


BillyBlastoff - 7/5/2014 at 03:19 AM

There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


alloak41 - 7/5/2014 at 04:22 AM

quote:
quote:
Nor have I ever said America's voters are low-info.



C'mon alloak... for the debate to move forward we need honesty.

I've seen you post many times about low information voters. Were you talking about voters in some other country?


No problem with honesty here...I have posted many times about low information voters as a subset, but I've never said America's voters are low-info. That would be unfair to say and I don't believe that to be true. You see what you want to see, apparently.


alloak41 - 7/5/2014 at 04:25 AM

quote:
The liberals....do not like the results.
Unable to craft an intelligent response they attack the pollster.



You were expecting something else?


BillyBlastoff - 7/5/2014 at 06:04 AM

A subset of American voters are still American voters. Every single time you talk about low information voters you are saying American voters are low information.

Words mean stuff.


Jerry - 7/5/2014 at 11:45 AM

quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.





Well, that's different. You seem to put a lot of stock in a poll that had a responding base of 9 people. Do you still back up that poll?


Muleman1994 - 7/5/2014 at 12:40 PM

quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.

I am not on the Q-pac polling system. I do participate in the Gallup system.
Generally I do not respond to the heavily biased polls such as The ABC News/Washington Post. Their polls are intentionally crafted to solicite a particular result.


DougMacKenzie - 7/5/2014 at 12:43 PM

quote:
quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.


This is true.


Peachypetewi - 7/5/2014 at 01:36 PM

Nothing Obama has done is worse than ignoring the National Security Czar that a terrorist attack was imminent then lying to the country and the UN to start two pointless wars and getting thousands of people killed then adhering to financial deregulation policies that crash the world economy. There is no way Obama's presidency is worse than the legitimately horrific presidency of George W. Bush.


Muleman1994 - 7/5/2014 at 01:50 PM

quote:
Nothing Obama has done is worse than ignoring the National Security Czar that a terrorist attack was imminent then lying to the country and the UN to start two pointless wars and getting thousands of people killed then adhering to financial deregulation policies that crash the world economy. There is no way Obama's presidency is worse than the legitimately horrific presidency of George W. Bush.


The American People disagree with you.
But that is cool. You do have a right to express your opinion.
BTW - Republicans will not require you to go stand in a "free speech zone".


BoytonBrother - 7/5/2014 at 01:55 PM

quote:
If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


So were the results of the last Presidential election.


alloak41 - 7/5/2014 at 02:06 PM

quote:
A subset of American voters are still American voters. Every single time you talk about low information voters you are saying American voters are low information.



Some are. Without question.


MartinD28 - 7/5/2014 at 02:51 PM

quote:
quote:
There were 130,292,355 votes counted in the 2012 Presidential election.

Does that make my argument less valid?

Have you ever been polled Muleman?


You are missing the point.
Your post regarding the number of people polled vs. the nation's population is irrelevant.
Pull out a book on statistics and analysis and you see that the number of people polled is just about the right size sample to get an accurate reading.

I am not on the Q-pac polling system. I do participate in the Gallup system.
Generally I do not respond to the heavily biased polls such as The ABC News/Washington Post. Their polls are intentionally crafted to solicite a particular result.




Although I disagree with several of the comments you've made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results.

There is another factor that goes into polling, and that is the way the question is asked or the particular wording. The same basic question asked in 2 different ways can result in 2 different answers.


BillyBlastoff - 7/5/2014 at 02:54 PM

quote:
BTW - Republicans will not require you to go stand in a "free speech zone".


WRONG. Wow. Dead wrong.

From Wiki:

quote:
Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[3][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[16][17] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[18][19]


MartinD28 - 7/5/2014 at 02:54 PM

quote:
quote:
If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


So were the results of the last Presidential election.



We've all seen in many threads you refer to low info voters - particularly when trying to criticize those who voted for or support Obama.

I'm curious where your quantification for this comes from. Can you point us to some source that might drill down to statistics that support this notion? If so, can you provide the breakdown on a party by party basis & include independents as well?


Jerry - 7/5/2014 at 03:18 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Well, that's different. You seem to put a lot of stock in a poll that had a responding base of 9 people. Do you still back up that poll?



Billy, do you still think we should base the economic future of nations based on a survey of 7 people? You keep referring to it in almost every thread on global warming.
Don't you think that's a very small number to figure 97% of the worlds' scientists on, or are you just being naive?


BillyBlastoff - 7/5/2014 at 05:21 PM

I guess I'm naive because I don't know what you are talking about.


BillyBlastoff - 7/6/2014 at 03:24 AM

Jerry - I think you are talking about scientist who agree that global warming is man-made?

I don't know where you get the number 9. Maybe the Beatles White Album?

But this is from NASA. The folks who brought us the Moon landing.

quote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf


References

1
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

2
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

3
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

4
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

5
Human?Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

6
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

7
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

8
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

9
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

10
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

11
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

12
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

13
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

14
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)


You do believe we landed on the Moon, don't you?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Peachypetewi - 7/6/2014 at 01:46 PM

quote:
I guess I'm naive because I don't know what you are talking about.


I have no clue what he is talking about either undoubtedly something he heard on Fox News or Limbaugh pulled directly from their sphincter. In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). But hey never let the facts get in the way of a good made up email chain letter.


Muleman1994 - 7/6/2014 at 03:10 PM

Enter the Global Warming wack-jobs.

In the mid-1970s the pseudo-“scientists” screamed that the next ice age was upon us. Crops will not grow and everyone will die.
When it didn’t happen, the pseudo-“scientists” went back to groveling for grant money.

Next up was acid rain. Same “we are all going to die” rhetoric.
When it didn’t happen, the pseudo-“scientists” went back to groveling for grant money.

Next up Global Warming.
When the facts didn’t support this scam, they changed the label to Climate Change.
Al Gore and his carbon-credits exchange money con didn’t work.

Yes, the earth’s climate is changing. It has been since the beginning of time. Yes, man’s presents on earth does contribute to climate change. Nobody denies this.

Everybody and their mother’s “committee of”, “agency for” who issue a report in support of this hoax are receiving millions of tax-payer dollars to write these tales by the Al Gore types.
How do you think their reports will read when they are paid to make such conclusions?

Yet there are no credible facts to support impending doom… again. In the last 15 years, NASA and NOAA also report that the earth’s temperature has not changed more than 1 percent.

None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.

Have a nice day.


BillyBlastoff - 7/6/2014 at 03:19 PM

quote:
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.


So says your very ill-informed opinion.

I hate to be put in a position to defend President Obama. He is far from the ideal that ran for President. But he is not the worst President since WWII.

Of course you think he is a Socialist. What supports that idiotic assertion?

Why has acid rain fallen off the radar? Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act that required reductions in the emissions that cause acid rain. A working Government protected the environment.

But don't let me stop your ill-informed ranting. You have every right to try to bequeath your children and grand children a poisonous environment in which to raise their children. Good on ya! I hope they show their appreciation.

I bet you think nuclear energy is safe as well.


Muleman1994 - 7/6/2014 at 04:02 PM

Don't get your panties in a wad son.

The Clean Air Act and The EPA has helped and they were brought to us by a Republican President.

And on your nuclear comment,
In the 1970s, the liberals and environmental wack-jobs all screamed the "we all gonna die" from these nuclear power plants.
How many people have died in the U.S. by nuclear energy?
Don't think about it too hard, the answer is zero.


BillyBlastoff - 7/6/2014 at 06:19 PM

quote:
And on your nuclear comment,
In the 1970s, the liberals and environmental wack-jobs all screamed the "we all gonna die" from these nuclear power plants.
How many people have died in the U.S. by nuclear energy?
Don't think about it too hard, the answer is zero.


Panties... meet wad.

quote:
Chernobyl disaster[edit]
4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]
Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]
Fukushima disaster[edit]
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has no confirmed casualties from radiation exposure.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), released a report on the Fukushima accident April 2nd, 2014. It stated that the scientists have found no evidence to support the idea that the nuclear meltdown in Japan in 2011 will lead to an increase in cancer rates or birth defects.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html
None of the workers at the plant have died from acute radiation poisoning.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/05/25/news/radiation-didnt-cause-fuku shima-no-1-deaths-u-n/#.U2--DyiJvM0
Kyshtym disaster[edit]
The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[9] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[10] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[10] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[11] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[12]
Windscale fire[edit]
33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[13][14] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. Fire ignites plutonium piles and contaminates surrounding dairy farms.[13][14] Windscale was an air-cooled graphite-moderated reactor with no containment structure. A significant contributing factor was that the graphite caught fire.
Other accidents[edit]
17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[15][16]
13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a Cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[17]
11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[18]
10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[19]
10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from Cobalt-60 source.[16][20]
9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[16]
8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[18]
8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[21]
7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[16][20]
5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[16]
4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[22]
4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[23]
4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[24]
2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[25]
2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[26]
1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[24]
1 fatality – Daigo Fukury? Maru March 1, 1954
1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[27]
1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[26]
1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[26]
1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[26]
1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.[26]
See also[edit]
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
Nevada Test Site
Semipalatinsk Test Site
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), p. 1806.
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 396.
Jump up ^ "IAEA Report". In Focus: Chernobyl. Retrieved 2008-05-31.
Jump up ^ Hallenbeck, William H (1994). Radiation Protection. CRC Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-87371-996-4. "Reported thus far are 237 cases of acute radiation sickness and 31 deaths."
Jump up ^ "Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident". Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts. Retrieved 2011-04-15.
Jump up ^ "Torch: The Other Report On Chernobyl- executive summary". European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner - Chernobylreport.org. April 2006. Retrieved 2011-08-20.
Jump up ^ "The Chernobyl Catastrophe - Consequences on Human Health". Greenpeace. 18 April 2006. Retrieved 15 December 2008.
Jump up ^ Alexey V. Yablokov; Vassily B. Nesterenko; Alexey V. Nesterenko (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences) (paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-57331-757-3.
Jump up ^ Schlager, Neil (1994). When Technology Fails. Detroit: Gale Research. ISBN 0-8103-8908-8.
^ Jump up to: a b Standring, William J.F.; Dowdall, Mark and Strand, Per (2009). "Overview of Dose Assessment Developments and the Health of Riverside Residents Close to the "Mayak" PA Facilities, Russia". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6 (1): 174–199. doi:10.3390/ijerph6010174. ISSN 1660-4601. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
Jump up ^ "The Southern Urals radiation studies: A reappraisal of the current status". Journal of Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 41. 2002.
Jump up ^ Gusev, Igor A.; Gus?kova, Angelina Konstantinovna; Mettler, Fred Albert (28 March 2001). Medical Management of Radiation Accidents. CRC Press. pp. 15–29. ISBN 978-0-8493-7004-5. Retrieved 11 June 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Perhaps the Worst, Not the First TIME magazine, May 12, 1986.
^ Jump up to: a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 393.
Jump up ^ Investigation of an accidental Exposure of radiotherapy patients in Panama - International Atomic Energy Agency
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Johnston, Robert (September 23, 2007). "Deadliest radiation accidents and other events causing radiation casualties". Database of Radiological Incidents and Related Events.
Jump up ^ Medical management of radiation accidents pp. 299 & 303.
^ Jump up to: a b Strengthening the Safety of Radiation Sources p. 15.
Jump up ^ The Worst Nuclear Disasters
^ Jump up to: a b Ricks, Robert C. et al. (2000). "REAC/TS Radiation Accident Registry: Update of Accidents in the United States". International Radiation Protection Association. p. 6.
Jump up ^ Lost Iridium-192 Source
Jump up ^ Facts and Details on Nuclear energy in Japan
Jump up ^ The Radiological Accident in Goiania p. 2.
^ Jump up to: a b Pallava Bagla. "Radiation Accident a 'Wake-Up Call' For India's Scientific Community" Science, Vol. 328, 7 May 2010, p. 679.
Jump up ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 399.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e István Turai and Katalin Veress (2001, Vol.7. No.1.:3-14). "Radiation Accidents: Occurrence, Types, Consequences, Medical Management, and the Lessons to be Learned". CEJOEM.
Jump up ^ McInroy, James F. (1995), "A true measure of plutonium exposure: the human tissue analysis program at Los Alamos", Los Alamos Science 23: 235–255


quote:
The Clean Air Act and The EPA has helped and they were brought to us by a Republican President.


So because one Republican President signed a bill that was good for the Earth you think now it is OK to ignore clear scientific data about carbon emissions?

Hope your kids are proud.

[Edited on 7/6/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


Muleman1994 - 7/6/2014 at 06:22 PM

I said the U.S.

The Russians do not have or practice our level technology.


BillyBlastoff - 7/6/2014 at 06:28 PM

Dude... GE designed the Fukishima plant. It is exactly the same technology used in most of the Nuclear Power Plants now operating in the US.

Radiation effects the entire planet. It doesn't matter where the accidents happen.

Have you forgotten about Three Mile Island? How did our technology work out there?

Do you know the tax payers financed that plant? Do you also know it was the American tax payer who paid to clean up the accident?

Not very Republican of you to be supporting welfare.

Oh, I forgot, you guys love you some corporate welfare.

And speaking of tax payers subsidizing nuclear energy - what is your solution for the waste problem?


BoytonBrother - 7/6/2014 at 09:49 PM

quote:
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.


Obviously this is a subjective topic, no matter how you slice and dice it. A poll does not prove truth.

Hypothetically, even if he is the worst President since WWII, it would be due to his inability to get his ideas and projects approved and completed. Aside from Obamacare, just about everything he wanted to do was blocked by Republicans - and this is where some valid criticisms come into play. He has been too inactive and too polarizing. Ideal Presidents appeal to both sides of the aisle and get sh*t done, and he was never able to do that. Despite my belief that the polarization is an unfair byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs that he is an African Muslim socialist secretly infiltrating our government to Islamatize the U.S. and redistribute white wealth to his own kin folk, any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable, but because our nation sadly isn't evolved enough.



Lissajess - 7/6/2014 at 10:59 PM

This is not a poll, just food for thought. It's just a few reminders about Dubya.


50 Reasons You Despised George W. Bush's Presidency: A Reminder on the Day of His Presidential Library Dedication
He's one of the worst presidents ever.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/50-reasons-you-despised-george-w- bushs-presidency-reminder-day-his-presidential

[Edited on 7/6/2014 by Lissajess]


MartinD28 - 7/7/2014 at 12:00 AM

quote:
quote:
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.


Obviously this is a subjective topic, no matter how you slice and dice it. A poll does not prove truth.

Hypothetically, even if he is the worst President since WWII, it would be due to his inability to get his ideas and projects approved and completed. Aside from Obamacare, just about everything he wanted to do was blocked by Republicans - and this is where some valid criticisms come into play. He has been too inactive and too polarizing. Ideal Presidents appeal to both sides of the aisle and get sh*t done, and he was never able to do that. Despite my belief that the polarization is an unfair byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs that he is an African Muslim socialist secretly infiltrating our government to Islamatize the U.S. and redistribute white wealth to his own kin folk, any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable,





Totally agree with you on the subjectivity concept.

Am a bit unsure of your larger paragraph. If I read it correctly, the implication is that society is just not ready for him & his views. I can't buy the polarization yet not his fault concept. He was elected in a national election by the American voters & in spite of a spiteful GOP HOR never accepting his legitimacy. Therefore they punish his agenda and do practically nothing to take care of the peoples' business. This is sad given your closing line "any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable".

So we are to give up because the society that elected him is not ready for him? That just doesn't jell and is in itself self contradicting. And given that your theory is correct???????.....what can we expect should a woman be elected as president some day? Are we to expect that society is not ready for this also, and we will see a whole new set of variables, rejections, and push back that are labeled as polarizing due to in your words "byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs"? And for sake of discussion, lets make this a generic question & not assume that it is Hillary.


alloak41 - 7/7/2014 at 12:12 AM

quote:
.......any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable, but because our nation sadly isn't evolved enough.



Still blaming it on his skin color? You need to add an "s" to "attribute."







[Edited on 7/7/2014 by alloak41]


Jerry - 7/7/2014 at 12:24 AM

quote:
quote:
I guess I'm naive because I don't know what you are talking about.


I have no clue what he is talking about either undoubtedly something he heard on Fox News or Limbaugh pulled directly from their sphincter. In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). But hey never let the facts get in the way of a good made up email chain letter.


Actually Peachy, it comes from the people who took the survey, and I found out the numbers 7 and 6 weren't working much on my old keyboard, so I replaced it.
(The actual numbers should be 76 of 79, and 75 of 77.) respectively.)

But, here again is the survey, with the figures, from the University of Illinois.

tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


Drag and drop the url to your browser bar. For some reason it won't take you to the link.

By the way, the survey was sent to 10,257 (not over 12,000, don't know what e-mail you got that figure from) recipients, only 3,146 responded, only 79 claimed they were "climatologists" or in a climate related field.
Peer reviewed? Check the paragraph that starts "With 3146 individuals" and check what percentage had peer reviewed papers on climate change.. Give you a hint-a fair amount less than 10%.
Now QUOTING FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS.
"Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79), answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77), answered yes to question 2"

And then again, I've posted this survey before, but even though it's the survey that's used to support the climate change debate, most of you won't read what it says.

Post Script: Fox News actually put the survey on air when it came out so people could read it, and understand it. No other news outlet that I now of gave the links to the survey, just the headlines and almost no facts on the survey.

Now, the question was, do you still think the survey was a good cross section
with only 79 responses, and if so, why do you think that a survey with 1,446 responses is not a good cross section?


2112 - 7/7/2014 at 12:50 AM

I find the results of best president interesting:

1. Regean
2. Clinton
3. Kennedy
4. Obama

Now what I find interdsting is the lack of respect for Truman in this poll.


BillyBlastoff - 7/7/2014 at 01:23 AM

quote:
Now, the question was, do you still think the survey was a good cross section
with only 79 responses, and if so, why do you think that a survey with 1,446 responses is not a good cross section?


Is it a poll or a survey?

Regardless 79 responses, depending on who is polled or surveyed, is not a cross section in my opinion.

However, NASA, shows data from far more than 79 scientific respondents. Not just Scientist but professional scientific organizations.

But I can't change the opinions of anti-environmentalist. I'm sorry you think that mankind can keep spewing toxic pollutants into the atmosphere with no consequence. I've seen the world change in my lifetime. I remember what the paper mill in Macon used to smell like. Don't you? If not for government action you'd still be smelling that horrendous stench.

I can't believe you prefer poisonous air to clean air. I think less emissions are a good thing.


Jerry - 7/7/2014 at 01:25 AM

quote:
Jerry - I think you are talking about scientist who agree that global warming is man-made?

I don't know where you get the number 9. Maybe the Beatles White Album?

But this is from NASA. The folks who brought us the Moon landing.

quote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.


AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Human?induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse?gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf


References

1
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

2
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

3
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

4
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

5
Human?Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

6
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

7
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

8
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

9
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

10
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

11
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

12
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

13
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

14
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)


You do believe we landed on the Moon, don't you?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


And they got the 97% figure from the survey I've tried to get the climate alarmists to read. 97% of 77 is 75 respondents. Not a very large number to call for mass change in economic and global policy is it.


BillyBlastoff - 7/7/2014 at 01:26 AM

Do you not think that there are more than 75 people in all those cited organizations?


BoytonBrother - 7/7/2014 at 04:00 AM

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Obviously this is a subjective topic, no matter how you slice and dice it. A poll does not prove truth.

Hypothetically, even if he is the worst President since WWII, it would be due to his inability to get his ideas and projects approved and completed. Aside from Obamacare, just about everything he wanted to do was blocked by Republicans - and this is where some valid criticisms come into play. He has been too inactive and too polarizing. Ideal Presidents appeal to both sides of the aisle and get sh*t done, and he was never able to do that. Despite my belief that the polarization is an unfair byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs that he is an African Muslim socialist secretly infiltrating our government to Islamatize the U.S. and redistribute white wealth to his own kin folk, any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable,



--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Totally agree with you on the subjectivity concept.

Am a bit unsure of your larger paragraph. If I read it correctly, the implication is that society is just not ready for him & his views. I can't buy the polarization yet not his fault concept. He was elected in a national election by the American voters & in spite of a spiteful GOP HOR never accepting his legitimacy. Therefore they punish his agenda and do practically nothing to take care of the peoples' business. This is sad given your closing line "any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable".

So we are to give up because the society that elected him is not ready for him? That just doesn't jell and is in itself self contradicting. And given that your theory is correct???????.....what can we expect should a woman be elected as president some day? Are we to expect that society is not ready for this also, and we will see a whole new set of variables, rejections, and push back that are labeled as polarizing due to in your words "byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs"? And for sake of discussion, lets make this a generic question & not assume that it is Hillary.


Maybe I should've phrased it differently. He won in a landslide in both elections. The majority of American people spoke. It means the majority of our society is ready for him. But the minority group, the right wingers, were not ready, and still not ready. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of US Presidents. They shouted profanities and racial slurs at Jackie Robinson, threw objects at him, and did not welcome him in baseball, but he paved the way for an eventual acceptance. Obama is experiencing the same treatment by the GOP, and it's affecting his ability to get things done. What I am trying to say is that, while I admire his ground-breaking achievements, a black President probably cannot be effective right now because a large minority simply isn't ready for it. However, it had to start sometime and I'm glad Obama did it in 2008. The sooner it happened, the sooner America as a whole can learn to accept and embrace it.


BillyBlastoff - 7/7/2014 at 04:57 AM



Bottom of the barrel? Worst President ever? Socialist?

In my opinion there is plenty wrong with the above chart. There is also a lot of improvement over the last Republican administration.


Peachypetewi - 7/7/2014 at 10:40 AM

And they got the 97% figure from the survey I've tried to get the climate alarmists to read. 97% of 77 is 75 respondents. Not a very large number to call for mass change in economic and global policy is it.




Again if you would like to stick to facts and reality the 97% figure really came from.

In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).


A new analysis of scientists’ articles on global warming and climate change has found almost unanimous agreement that humans are the main cause.

The comprehensive examination of peer-reviewed articles on global warming showed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that much of the recent warming is anthropogenic—the result of human activities.

The study, led by Skeptical Science’s John Cook from the University of Queensland’s Global Climate Institute, saw an international team of 24 scientists and volunteer researchers analyze 11,944 international scientific abstracts published over the last 21 years.

The researchers identified 4,000 abstracts that stated an opinion on whether humans were causing climate change and found 97.1 percent endorsed the theory.

Cook says:

The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97 percent.

While the vast majority of those that discussed whether or not humans are changing the climate agreed they were, the vast majority of the papers—nearly two thirds—did not express any view on the cause of the climate change. The researchers say this shows that scientists believe the debate has “moved on” and now treat the issue as a given.

Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study is the most comprehensive of its kind to date.

While it cements the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-induced global warming, it also highlights the yawning gap between the science and public perception of it, and how this uncertainty is holding back action.

Cook says:

There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and public perception. When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.

Experts have attributed this gap to effective misinformation techniques employed by vested interests such as fossil fuel companies and the climate change denier movement.

This comprehensive study shows that policy makers and business can no longer hide behind any perceived or alleged uncertainty, as the science is unequivocal.






[Edited on 7/7/2014 by Peachypetewi]


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:40 PM

quote:
quote:
The Quinnipiac poll results are what they are.
The Obama Presidency has been a complete failure.

The liberals, aka low information voters, do not like the results.
Unable to craft an intelligent response they attack the pollster.

Apparently liberals are not fond of their well earned low information voter label but they are the democrat’s bread and butter. How else could Obama, with no professional experience and a socialist political agenda get elected in the first place?

It is all good. Come November when Harry Reid loses his control of The Senate (just like Pelosi did in The House in 2010, the American People will be able to stop the damage to our nation by Obama.



So YOU vote for the party who: is against raising minimum wage, against labor [unions] and working people in general, against woman's rights, against people having quality healthcare at an affordable price??? unless you are wealthy, you are voting against your own economic self interests. you mule man are UNINFORMED> youse a chicken voting for colonel sanders.


Interesting. Will have to check the GOP platform. I didn't realize they called for opposition to quality healthcare at an affrodable price, women's rights and labor unions. They are probably also against Santa Claus, Fireworks displays and nudity on cable tv.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:41 PM

quote:
Conservatives are funny people. It's well-documented that the most educated people in America - professors, doctors, lawyers, etc, are mostly liberal. But yet they now try to pin liberals as "low-info". Insecurity at its finest.


Show us that documentation. And define mostly.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:42 PM

quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:44 PM

quote:
quote:
If you look at the actual poll data in the link at the top, you will see that the people who participated are broken down by party affiliation and gender.

The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.


So were the results of the last Presidential election.



That was nearly two years ago. A lot of buyer's remorse.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:48 PM

quote:
quote:
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.


Obviously this is a subjective topic, no matter how you slice and dice it. A poll does not prove truth.

Hypothetically, even if he is the worst President since WWII, it would be due to his inability to get his ideas and projects approved and completed. Aside from Obamacare, just about everything he wanted to do was blocked by Republicans - and this is where some valid criticisms come into play. He has been too inactive and too polarizing. Ideal Presidents appeal to both sides of the aisle and get sh*t done, and he was never able to do that. Despite my belief that the polarization is an unfair byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs that he is an African Muslim socialist secretly infiltrating our government to Islamatize the U.S. and redistribute white wealth to his own kin folk, any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable, but because our nation sadly isn't evolved enough.





Without getting back into the blame game the poll reveals exactly one thing, a plurality of the electorate NOW thinks Obama is the worst president since WWII. The fact that ANY think that outside of hard core Republicans should be (and I'm sure is) alarming to Obama and his political operatives. That is all the poll means. It is a reflection of public opinion at this time. Whether he is or is not the worst or best president is obviously a subjective opinion and cannot be proven in any way at any time.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:50 PM

quote:
I find the results of best president interesting:

1. Regean
2. Clinton
3. Kennedy
4. Obama

Now what I find interdsting is the lack of respect for Truman in this poll.

That is natural. Most Americans younger than 50 have little knowledge of who Truman was or what he did. Kennedy remains well known because of the circumstances of his death. Note Eisenhower's relative absence as well.


dougrhon - 7/7/2014 at 04:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
None of this changes the fact that Obama is the worst President since WWII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Obviously this is a subjective topic, no matter how you slice and dice it. A poll does not prove truth.

Hypothetically, even if he is the worst President since WWII, it would be due to his inability to get his ideas and projects approved and completed. Aside from Obamacare, just about everything he wanted to do was blocked by Republicans - and this is where some valid criticisms come into play. He has been too inactive and too polarizing. Ideal Presidents appeal to both sides of the aisle and get sh*t done, and he was never able to do that. Despite my belief that the polarization is an unfair byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs that he is an African Muslim socialist secretly infiltrating our government to Islamatize the U.S. and redistribute white wealth to his own kin folk, any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable,



--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Totally agree with you on the subjectivity concept.

Am a bit unsure of your larger paragraph. If I read it correctly, the implication is that society is just not ready for him & his views. I can't buy the polarization yet not his fault concept. He was elected in a national election by the American voters & in spite of a spiteful GOP HOR never accepting his legitimacy. Therefore they punish his agenda and do practically nothing to take care of the peoples' business. This is sad given your closing line "any person that possesses an attribute that causes such extreme polarization that we see today should not be President - not because they are incapable".

So we are to give up because the society that elected him is not ready for him? That just doesn't jell and is in itself self contradicting. And given that your theory is correct???????.....what can we expect should a woman be elected as president some day? Are we to expect that society is not ready for this also, and we will see a whole new set of variables, rejections, and push back that are labeled as polarizing due to in your words "byproduct of ignorant close-minded beliefs"? And for sake of discussion, lets make this a generic question & not assume that it is Hillary.


Maybe I should've phrased it differently. He won in a landslide in both elections. The majority of American people spoke. It means the majority of our society is ready for him. But the minority group, the right wingers, were not ready, and still not ready. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of US Presidents. They shouted profanities and racial slurs at Jackie Robinson, threw objects at him, and did not welcome him in baseball, but he paved the way for an eventual acceptance. Obama is experiencing the same treatment by the GOP, and it's affecting his ability to get things done. What I am trying to say is that, while I admire his ground-breaking achievements, a black President probably cannot be effective right now because a large minority simply isn't ready for it. However, it had to start sometime and I'm glad Obama did it in 2008. The sooner it happened, the sooner America as a whole can learn to accept and embrace it.




Landslide? You have a funny definition of landslide. What was his percentage of the popular vote in 2012? Reagan and Bush senior won in Landslides.


Muleman1994 - 7/7/2014 at 05:44 PM

Quote:
“Maybe I should've phrased it differently. He won in a landslide in both elections. The majority of American people spoke. It means the majority of our society is ready for him. But the minority group, the right wingers, were not ready, and still not ready. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of US Presidents. They shouted profanities and racial slurs at Jackie Robinson, threw objects at him, and did not welcome him in baseball, but he paved the way for an eventual acceptance. Obama is experiencing the same treatment by the GOP, and it's affecting his ability to get things done. What I am trying to say is that, while I admire his ground-breaking achievements, a black President probably cannot be effective right now because a large minority simply isn't ready for it. However, it had to start sometime and I'm glad Obama did it in 2008. The sooner it happened, the sooner America as a whole can learn to accept and embrace it.”

What a load of crap.

There was no landslide win.

The majority of Americans did not vote.

Playing the race card yet again? The GOP never did. It was Obama himself who invoked race into his campaign with his “people that look like me” comment. Not once did any GOP’er ever make a remark about his race. Bill Clinton did.

Obama has no ability to get anything done. He has no resume with professional experience outside of being a community agitator.

His “ground breaking achievements” do not exist.

“A large minority simply isn't ready for it” is wrong. The American People reject his socialist, far-left political agenda.

The GOP has passed many bills in Congress to help create real jobs, protect our nation and get the government out of the people’s lives. Harry Reid, who controls the Senate, simply will not allow any bill coming out of the House to come up for a vote.

Obama’s presidency will end in November when Harry Reid loses his position in the Senate and The American People can begin to repair our Nation from the damage done by Obama.

Obama’s presidency is so bad that even Hillary is criticizing his economic, foreign policy and inability to work with Congress. Obama is in real trouble when Hillary openly rejects him.


alanwoods - 7/7/2014 at 05:57 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-dr iving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure .html


BillyBlastoff - 7/7/2014 at 05:59 PM

OK. You guys win. He is the worst President ever. Woohoo! Yeah! You Guys are the Winners! Yay! You won!

USA! USA! USA!


pops42 - 7/7/2014 at 06:06 PM

quote:
Quote:
“Maybe I should've phrased it differently. He won in a landslide in both elections. The majority of American people spoke. It means the majority of our society is ready for him. But the minority group, the right wingers, were not ready, and still not ready. Obama is the Jackie Robinson of US Presidents. They shouted profanities and racial slurs at Jackie Robinson, threw objects at him, and did not welcome him in baseball, but he paved the way for an eventual acceptance. Obama is experiencing the same treatment by the GOP, and it's affecting his ability to get things done. What I am trying to say is that, while I admire his ground-breaking achievements, a black President probably cannot be effective right now because a large minority simply isn't ready for it. However, it had to start sometime and I'm glad Obama did it in 2008. The sooner it happened, the sooner America as a whole can learn to accept and embrace it.”

What a load of crap.

There was no landslide win.

The majority of Americans did not vote.

Playing the race card yet again? The GOP never did. It was Obama himself who invoked race into his campaign with his “people that look like me” comment. Not once did any GOP’er ever make a remark about his race. Bill Clinton did.

Obama has no ability to get anything done. He has no resume with professional experience outside of being a community agitator.

His “ground breaking achievements” do not exist.

“A large minority simply isn't ready for it” is wrong. The American People reject his socialist, far-left political agenda.

The GOP has passed many bills in Congress to help create real jobs, protect our nation and get the government out of the people’s lives. Harry Reid, who controls the Senate, simply will not allow any bill coming out of the House to come up for a vote.

Obama’s presidency will end in November when Harry Reid loses his position in the Senate and The American People can begin to repair our Nation from the damage done by Obama.

Obama’s presidency is so bad that even Hillary is criticizing his economic, foreign policy and inability to work with Congress. Obama is in real trouble when Hillary openly rejects him.


You sir, know nothing.


Muleman1994 - 7/7/2014 at 06:13 PM

The good news is that football season starts soon!


MartinD28 - 7/7/2014 at 06:25 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


Muleman1994 - 7/7/2014 at 07:12 PM

We should really stop picking on the Polls.

Wonderful people, country and food!
While most Americans may know of the pierogi dish, their golabki and Ch?opski Posi?ek are fantastic.

The folks who live in central Jersey and Chicago know this!




BoytonBrother - 7/7/2014 at 07:16 PM

Doughron, by popular vote, Reagan won in the largest landslide, but Obama comes in 2nd since '84. He won by 5 million votes in 2012 and 10 million in 2008. Bush Sr and Clinton never won by that much, I believe.


mainebigdog - 7/7/2014 at 10:45 PM

To weed out the low info voters the pollsters first asked who the president was.


Jerry - 7/8/2014 at 12:28 AM

quote:
And they got the 97% figure from the survey I've tried to get the climate alarmists to read. 97% of 77 is 75 respondents. Not a very large number to call for mass change in economic and global policy is it.


Again if you would like to stick to facts and reality the 97% figure really came from.

In reality the 97% is based on over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).


A new analysis of scientists’ articles on global warming and climate change has found almost unanimous agreement that humans are the main cause.

The comprehensive examination of peer-reviewed articles on global warming showed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that much of the recent warming is anthropogenic—the result of human activities.

The study, led by Skeptical Science’s John Cook from the University of Queensland’s Global Climate Institute, saw an international team of 24 scientists and volunteer researchers analyze 11,944 international scientific abstracts published over the last 21 years.

The researchers identified 4,000 abstracts that stated an opinion on whether humans were causing climate change and found 97.1 percent endorsed the theory.

Cook says:

The importance of raising awareness of the scientific consensus on climate change cannot be overstated. Typically, the general public think around 50 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. The Consensus Project has shown that the reality is 97 percent.

While the vast majority of those that discussed whether or not humans are changing the climate agreed they were, the vast majority of the papers—nearly two thirds—did not express any view on the cause of the climate change. The researchers say this shows that scientists believe the debate has “moved on” and now treat the issue as a given.

Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study is the most comprehensive of its kind to date.

While it cements the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-induced global warming, it also highlights the yawning gap between the science and public perception of it, and how this uncertainty is holding back action.

Cook says:

There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and public perception. When people understand that scientists agree on global warming, they’re more likely to support policies that take action on it.

Experts have attributed this gap to effective misinformation techniques employed by vested interests such as fossil fuel companies and the climate change denier movement.

This comprehensive study shows that policy makers and business can no longer hide behind any perceived or alleged uncertainty, as the science is unequivocal.
[Edited on 7/7/2014 by Peachypetewi]


Question: If you say the 97% figure came from a study done in 2013, what did the climate alarmists use for the years before that study came pout to get their 97% from, and where did all the news outlets get their stories from back in 2009? Hint, from the 2009 survey, as stated in the study you are referring to.

The study you refer to: skepitcalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
gives the factors of where that 97% figure you refer to comes from. It's not a survey or poll, but a keyword search done on papers with the words "global warming" and "global climate change" found in the ISI Web Of Science. 12,000 papers were found in that search.

I'm going to quote the study, and let you see how biased it is.
"The 97% Consensus Results
Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self ratings , nearly 1,400 were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human caused global warming.

We found that two-thirds of the papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological report to note in it's abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?" End quoting article.

I'd hate to remind a well know scientific person such as the author that the Earth isn't a sphere, but actually an ovoid shape.

So the 97% is based on 34% of 12,000 papers. Or you could say it's actually 33% of the papers used in the study?


Jerry - 7/8/2014 at 01:20 AM

If you want to take time to read a more thorough version, with more explanations of the breakdowns on the papers, and actual numbers and percentages, go to: iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Believe it, or not, it's actually easier reading this article.


dougrhon - 7/8/2014 at 04:20 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.


dougrhon - 7/8/2014 at 04:33 PM

quote:
Doughron, by popular vote, Reagan won in the largest landslide, but Obama comes in 2nd since '84. He won by 5 million votes in 2012 and 10 million in 2008. Bush Sr and Clinton never won by that much, I believe.


Raw votes (which I don't have in front of me) are irrelevant as the population has consistently increased. What is relevant is percentage of the vote.

In 1980 Reagan won by 9 percentage points. Bear in mind the presence of John Anderson which likely held down Reagan's vote. In 1984 Reagan won by EIGHTEEN percentage ponts. In 1988 Bush won by 7 percentage points. In 1992 Clinton won by 6.5 percentage points. Bear in mind the presence of Ross Perot which likely held down Clinton's vote. In 1996 Clinton won by 8 percentage points. We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points. Of these years the ones that could be reasonably classified as popular landslides are 1980 and 1984. Electoral is a different story. 1980, 1984, 1988 were historical landslides comparable to the 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964 and 1972 elections. Obama's don't come close to this. His election in 2008 was extremely comfortable. His re-election was close though not as cloe as Bush's re-election. Note of the four president's re-elected in the years I cover here, Obama is the only one whose popular vote went down, and it went down by a lot, three full percentage points.


MartinD28 - 7/8/2014 at 06:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.


I'll answer your later point first where you said, "But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample." Really, Doug...go back and read my post from 07/05 in this thread where I stated in response to someone else, “Although I disagree with several of the comments you’ve made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results”. So, you must be confused or confusing me with someone else.

As far as your first few lines where you stated, "I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong." Well, I think you're parsing words here. That's a fine line you're walking. I'd have to go back into the vaults from almost 2 years ago and find your exact wording, but either way you were dismissive regardless of the terminology you want to throw after the fact.


alloak41 - 7/9/2014 at 02:08 AM

Just one more example of Democrats cheapening and watering down the true meaning of words......Racist, extremist, landslide...


BoytonBrother - 7/9/2014 at 11:40 PM

quote:
We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points.


Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.


alloak41 - 7/10/2014 at 05:21 PM

Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.




Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."





[Edited on 7/10/2014 by alloak41]


dougrhon - 7/10/2014 at 05:29 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The results of the poll are a fair representation of American voters.



There are nearly 320 million people in the United States.

You actually think a sample size of 1446 can accurately and fairly represent 320 million people?!?

Wow. I'm gob smacked by your naiveté.




Do you entirely reject the use of polling to reflect current public opinion? Because the politicans sure don't. They spend millions on their own internal polls. Or do you only reject it when it says what you don't like.


Interesting comment. Isn't that exactly what you did in the presidential election of 2012? I remember bantering with you on this very point. Didn't you claim that the polls would be proven wrong (I'm guessing) because you were against Obama?


I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong. Never for one second did I say that a scientific sampling of public opinion was inaccurate because it only questions a small number of people. That is what you seem to be doing. There are lots of a reasons a poll might be inaccurate and obviously when predicting what action people will actually take going forward it can be even more inaccurate. But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample.


I'll answer your later point first where you said, "But your rejection appears to be due to the sample size which would essentially reject any and all polls since by definition they take a statistical sample." Really, Doug...go back and read my post from 07/05 in this thread where I stated in response to someone else, “Although I disagree with several of the comments you’ve made in this thread, I do agree with you on the sampling size concept. This poll is a reasonable size. It along with most other polls would have a plus & minus factor for its results”. So, you must be confused or confusing me with someone else.

As far as your first few lines where you stated, "I never said the polls were inaccurate. I said they would not prove to be true come election day. I was wrong." Well, I think you're parsing words here. That's a fine line you're walking. I'd have to go back into the vaults from almost 2 years ago and find your exact wording, but either way you were dismissive regardless of the terminology you want to throw after the fact.


I may be confusing you with someone else. I don't feel like going back and checking who in this thread attacked a sampling of only 1,000 people. As for my statement, I don't think it's parsing. I felt that the polls, while accurately reflecting opinion at that point would not represent the result of the election weeks later. As I said I was wrong. But there is a big difference between that and saying "How can you only ask 1,000 people and have that mean anything?"


dougrhon - 7/10/2014 at 05:45 PM

quote:
quote:
We know what happened in 2000. It was a statistical tie. In 2004 Bush won by 2.5 percentage points. In 2008 Obama won by 7 percentage points. In 2012 Obama won by 4 percentage points.


Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



That doesn't make it a landslide by any definition of the word. Words have meaning.


MartinD28 - 7/10/2014 at 05:46 PM

quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

[Edited on 7/10/2014 by alloak41]


Ah...the "low information type" comment coming from you. It's good to see you're digging into that deep bag of reasoning & coming up with something fresh & new.


gondicar - 7/10/2014 at 09:41 PM

quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.


2112 - 7/11/2014 at 12:44 AM

quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



I'm confussed. Low-information type? celebrity? When did Sarah Palin enter this discussion?


pops42 - 7/11/2014 at 01:01 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



I'm confussed. Low-information type? celebrity? When did Sarah Palin enter this discussion?


OriginalGoober - 7/11/2014 at 01:47 AM

Now available in black:




pops42 - 7/11/2014 at 02:32 AM

Carter is an admirable man, a class act [unlike ronnie reagan, hw bush and dumbya]


BillyBlastoff - 7/11/2014 at 02:43 AM

What a great picture of JC Goober. Thanks!

That is a man I really admire. He has done so much for so many both here and around the world.

A real American Hero.

And an Allman Brothers fan.


nebish - 7/11/2014 at 03:35 AM

Something that I think about and I'd like you to comment...the vast expansion in the US oil and gas production and the vast job growth seen in this field, the economic and hiring effect from this industry is very substantial.




Of course that chart does not show public sector employment. So I ask your opinion...the private sector job growth we have seen is it happening in spite of Obama's policies or because of them and can you support your position? We know that he never meant what he said on supporting coal from the 2008 election, but we don't have expanded oil and gas production as a staple of the Democrat party either. Imagine if there was a emphasis on say creating a competitive transportation fuel for gasoline/diesel that can actually move the vehicles on our roads that matter, the heavy vehicles that transport the products our country needs. That fuel is natural gas. Nothing wrong with electric cars, but your delivery trucks aren't going to be running on electric any time soon.

All of this expansion in an industry that some would rather see shrinking rather than growing, but it is growing and contributing to the job numbers of our country. What if the environmentalists had their way and US wasn't king of natural gas and didn't nearly double our oil production in the last several yaers? What do you think the job growth numbers would be? That chart from the EIA implies they'd be very underwhelming. Job growth on Obama's watch..to his credit or just right place right time?

[Edited on 7/11/2014 by nebish]


alloak41 - 7/11/2014 at 04:17 AM

quote:
quote:
Maybe in the grand scheme of things in overall US history, it was not a landslide. But according to these numbers above, he sure laid a whoopin on W's numbers.



Even though I predicted that Obama would win, I thought it would be a little closer. But Obama was able to better utilize the internet/social media to lure a the low-information type that wouldn't normally vote, but wanted to vote for a "celebrity."

If this were posted by anyone else, I would have assumed it was a joke and laughed.



Sure you would..

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/a/Who-Are-The-Low-Informa tion-Voters.htm


pops42 - 7/11/2014 at 05:35 AM

How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?, or fox, or am hate radio? those who make 9 bucks an hour, are on food stamps, get their health care from [state access] and are anti- union and vote republican cause rushbo told em too. these are the informed geniuses among us right?.


alloak41 - 7/11/2014 at 12:42 PM

quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?


pops42 - 7/11/2014 at 03:29 PM

quote:
quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?
No. YOU, mr low info voter.


alloak41 - 7/11/2014 at 03:50 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?
No. YOU, mr low info voter.


Try me.


gondicar - 7/11/2014 at 05:39 PM

Speaking of polls...


Republicans Who Signed Up For Obamacare This Year Are Pretty Happy

The Huffington Post | By Paige Lavender

Republicans who signed up for Obamacare this year are liking their new insurance coverage, according to a new survey.

A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then.



But the survey wasn't all good news. HuffPost's Jeffrey Young reports that more than one-third of the lowest-income residents in states that didn't take up the Obamacare Medicaid expansion at the beginning of this year remain uninsured. That rate is virtually unchanged from last year, even as millions gained coverage elsewhere.

For more on the survey, visit the Commonwealth Fund.


Peachypetewi - 7/11/2014 at 06:43 PM

Obama is the first president in my life time where the other party from day 1 decided to do all they could to obstruct and block every single initiative he brought forth even if it meant millions of people would suffer and it would severely cripple the country as a whole. All the while never offering a single jobs or infrastructure improvement bill or alternative solutions to anything for that matter.
He governed like a moderate republican but they completely ignored reality and facts and called him every name in the book Nazi, Communist, Fascist , Socialist (although this is really a compliment) and I won't even get into all the racist smears.
The so called liberal main stream media in their quest for higher ratings facilitated this horrific treatment by giving a forum to the imbeciles like Donald Trump, Orly Tait, Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin to spout their delusional nonsense.
Similar to Jackie Robinson breaking through the color barrier in major league baseball the Obama presidency has certainly shown any student of history that the country was not and is not ready for a black president even if he governs like a moderate republican.
In ways never seen in this country before the right has done everything in their power to render him ineffective and powerless at the expense of millions.


playallnite - 7/12/2014 at 03:45 PM

Republicans appeal to stupid people and the numbers prove it.


pops42 - 7/12/2014 at 06:55 PM

quote:
Republicans appeal to stupid people and the numbers prove it.
Right on!. The wealthy and greedy rich, the racists, the religious fanatics, the wilfully ignorant, and the STUPID, and lets not forget [those that keep the gun industry wealthy by having to own 100 guns, ammo up to the ceiling, because obama is gonna take my guns away ]


BillyBlastoff - 7/12/2014 at 08:00 PM

quote:
Socialist (although this is really a compliment)


Jesus was a Socialist.


nebish - 7/13/2014 at 03:47 AM

quote:
quote:
Socialist (although this is really a compliment)


Jesus was a Socialist.


Is Jesus real?


BillyBlastoff - 7/13/2014 at 04:18 AM

quote:
Is Jesus real?


I believe there is historic evidence that supports the existence of person named Jesus who lived approximately 2000 years ago.

No?


MartinD28 - 7/13/2014 at 04:25 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Socialist (although this is really a compliment)


Jesus was a Socialist.


Is Jesus real?


I guess we could ask Charlie Daniels that very question. Lyric from one of his tunes follows:

Preacher man talking on TV, puttin' down the rock and roll
Wants me to send a donation, 'cause he's worried about my soul
He said, "Jesus walked on the water.", and I know that it's true
But sometimes I think that preacher man, would like to do a little walkin' too


DougMacKenzie - 7/14/2014 at 03:35 AM

quote:
quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?

Doesn't everyone?


dougrhon - 7/14/2014 at 04:54 PM

quote:
quote:
Socialist (although this is really a compliment)


Jesus was a Socialist.


WTF does that even frigging mean? Socialism was invented by Karl Marx in the 19th century. God I can't take this much longer.


Sang - 7/14/2014 at 05:04 PM

quote:
quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?



Thanks for the shoutout, eeyore!

I certainly don't get my "news" from right wing blogs, but I do a lot of reading. I sometimes like to see what the "other" side is saying, although I get physically ill reading some of their posts. I fear for the education level of our country when I read some of the posts.

I find it funny that some on here refuse to acknowledge or believe that there is racism and hatred behind some of the conservative (and tea party) treatment of Obama. Just read any comment section that has something to do with Obama - you will get to read that he is a Muslim, the Muslim Brotherhood runs the White House, he should be impeached, he is gay and Michelle (usually spelled Moochelle) is a tranny. Their family looks like monkeys, the kids aren't theirs, the kids are ugly, Michelle is ugly, they take too many vacations on our dollar, he isn't a legal president, and then of course whatever the argument of the day is on Fox - the immigrants are rushing our borders because of something he said, etc.

I don't get "news" from there, but I certainly can get a feeling for how people feel & think - and there is a lot of hatred there - whether you want to believe it or not.

[Edited on 7/14/2014 by Sang]


BillyBlastoff - 7/14/2014 at 06:46 PM

quote:
WTF does that even frigging mean? Socialism was invented by Karl Marx in the 19th century. God I can't take this much longer.


Really? You took that as me referring to Jesus's actual political philosophy? Wow Doug.

I think, from what I've read, that Jesus cared about the welfare of the many more than he cared about the welfare of the few. I thought that might be a tenet of Christianity. Sorry to upset you.

Peace!


sixty8 - 7/14/2014 at 07:18 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
How about idiots who get their "news" from Facebook right wing news feed?


You calling Sang an idiot?



Thanks for the shoutout, eeyore!

I certainly don't get my "news" from right wing blogs, but I do a lot of reading. I sometimes like to see what the "other" side is saying, although I get physically ill reading some of their posts. I fear for the education level of our country when I read some of the posts.

I find it funny that some on here refuse to acknowledge or believe that there is racism and hatred behind some of the conservative (and tea party) treatment of Obama. Just read any comment section that has something to do with Obama - you will get to read that he is a Muslim, the Muslim Brotherhood runs the White House, he should be impeached, he is gay and Michelle (usually spelled Moochelle) is a tranny. Their family looks like monkeys, the kids aren't theirs, the kids are ugly, Michelle is ugly, they take too many vacations on our dollar, he isn't a legal president, and then of course whatever the argument of the day is on Fox - the immigrants are rushing our borders because of something he said, etc.

I don't get "news" from there, but I certainly can get a feeling for how people feel & think - and there is a lot of hatred there - whether you want to believe it or not.

[Edited on 7/14/2014 by Sang]




You hit it on the head Sang. If there aren't racict overtones in the right's over the top attack machine that started on day one of Obama's presidency then I must be missing something. The over the top rhetoric and over the top obstruction even on issues previously supported by the right have made the right's hatred of Obama quite obvious. Has Obama been great, no he hasn't been great on every topic but he hasn't been even remotely close to as bad as those on the right claim he is. Thank God the majority of Americans didn't fall for the right's propoganda and didn't elect Flip Romney who would have had us neck deep in war by now and who would be doling out more corporate tax welfare to the big wealthy companies who in turn either lowball their work force or outsource all of their middle class jobs overseas.

Bottom line is if the Republicans continue the over the top rhetoric which fair minded people can see through as the bulls_it it is they will never win back the White House. Yeah, they might be able to control the Congress and the Senate through the fillibuster but they will never win back the White House. Too many Americans are too smart to fall for the right wing over the top rhetoric and propoganda. It is why the Republican led US Congress has an approval rating somewhere south of 15% which is the lowest ever in our history. Pathetic.


alloak41 - 7/15/2014 at 04:54 AM

quote:
I find it funny that some on here refuse to acknowledge or believe
that there is racism and hatred behind some of the conservative (and tea party)
treatment of Obama.


Who here has refused to acknowledge that there is racism and
hatred behind some of the treatment of Obama? Of course some
of it is due to racism. Kind of goes without saying.

Why it's necessary to continuously point out the obvious is the
question. What does it accomplish? Does it mean he gets some
kind of free pass? None of it has any bearing on his poor record.
The record is color blind.

One could also say that his skin color has insulated him from a
lot of criticism. People don't like being called racists for simply
voicing an opinion.



















[Edited on 7/15/2014 by alloak41]


BillyBlastoff - 7/15/2014 at 05:42 AM

quote:
None of it has any bearing on his poor record.


Have you seen the latest deficit projections?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/14/white-house-trims-2014-deficit-projec tion-to-583-billion/

Have you noticed the number of uninsured Americans is dropping?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.htm l

How's the Dow Jones treating you?


dougrhon - 7/15/2014 at 04:09 PM

quote:
quote:
WTF does that even frigging mean? Socialism was invented by Karl Marx in the 19th century. God I can't take this much longer.


Really? You took that as me referring to Jesus's actual political philosophy? Wow Doug.

I think, from what I've read, that Jesus cared about the welfare of the many more than he cared about the welfare of the few. I thought that might be a tenet of Christianity. Sorry to upset you.

Peace!


liberals care about that as well. And by liberal I mean believers in individual liberty. That includes economic liberty and the right to make aliving free of government profit. Jesus did not oppose any of those things. I understand that you think it is a trusim that those who believe in Capitalism as a system are selfish **** s but I don't accept that premise and never will. Capitalism has proven to be the best engine in human history to elliviate suffering and raise the living standard of people. The Torah which is the book Jesus learned and taught from teaches that the wealthy must be charitable. Wealthy capitalists like the hated Koch brothers give millions and millions of dollars every year to charitable endeavors. From my outsider reading of his message, Jesus hated hypocrisy most of all. I don't think he would fit in with today's left any better than you think he would fit in with today's right.


BillyBlastoff - 7/15/2014 at 05:02 PM

quote:
I don't think he would fit in with today's left any better than you think he would fit in with today's right.


I agree 100% Doug.

quote:
I understand that you think it is a trusim that those who believe in Capitalism as a system are selfish **** s but I don't accept that premise and never will. Capitalism has proven to be the best engine in human history to elliviate suffering and raise the living standard of people.


I don't think the system we have in the United States is capitalism. Where is the competition when big box stores wipe out small business? How can our system be market based when cable companies and telecommunication giants divvy up service areas and set prices? How can we have economic freedom when a handful of companies control all of our gas, oil, and energy? How can we experience consumer sovereignty when the majority of Americans have to buy what is offered instead of demanding better choices?

I know you believe in Laissez Faire economics. I believe that, without government regulation, corporations will endanger human health and life in exchange for profit. We can look back to Dow Chemical and Bhopal, or more recently look to GM, for examples of corporations caring more about profits than people. I accept that you have a different view.

I don't disagree that Capitalism has proven to be a great engine for raising the living standard of some people. I think the elevating suffering assumption overlooks the sweat shops and horrendous working and environmental conditions in places outside of America that produce the goods that drive our economic engine.

quote:
That includes economic liberty and the right to make aliving free of government profit.


Does the Federal Government make a profit?


dougrhon - 7/16/2014 at 04:51 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't think he would fit in with today's left any better than you think he would fit in with today's right.


I agree 100% Doug.

quote:
I understand that you think it is a trusim that those who believe in Capitalism as a system are selfish **** s but I don't accept that premise and never will. Capitalism has proven to be the best engine in human history to elliviate suffering and raise the living standard of people.


I don't think the system we have in the United States is capitalism. Where is the competition when big box stores wipe out small business? How can our system be market based when cable companies and telecommunication giants divvy up service areas and set prices? How can we have economic freedom when a handful of companies control all of our gas, oil, and energy? How can we experience consumer sovereignty when the majority of Americans have to buy what is offered instead of demanding better choices?

I know you believe in Laissez Faire economics. I believe that, without government regulation, corporations will endanger human health and life in exchange for profit. We can look back to Dow Chemical and Bhopal, or more recently look to GM, for examples of corporations caring more about profits than people. I accept that you have a different view.

I don't disagree that Capitalism has proven to be a great engine for raising the living standard of some people. I think the elevating suffering assumption overlooks the sweat shops and horrendous working and environmental conditions in places outside of America that produce the goods that drive our economic engine.

quote:
That includes economic liberty and the right to make aliving free of government profit.


Does the Federal Government make a profit?


I don't believe in laizez Faire capitalism. I believe in reasonable government regulation. As I have said many times I am a small l liberal. I believe in the role in government to regulate for safety and to keep competition free. I believe in maximum competition. To the extent the government prevents robust competition (like with cable television for example) I oppose it. I don't have a problem with big box stores. They keep prices down and help consumers. If left alone, competitors eventually arise. Those who can't compete die off. That benefits society in the long run. It's the creative destruction of capitalism and its why we drive cars and fly in planes and do all kinds of things that exist because some industries were destroyed over the past 100 years. When cell phones became universal, the pay phone industry died. There are many other examples. Too many today who call themselves liberal are actually socialists of some sort or another who don't really believe in free enterprise, think it's inherently unfair and think those who make a profit are somehow bad. That's no ideology on which to run a modern society.

I don't know why I said government profit. Obviously that was a typo of some sort. The government doesn't make a profit. ANy enterprise the government runs loses massive amounts of money. I remember when the City of New York ran a gambling outfit known as OTB. Only the government could lose money being the house in a gambling outfit.


Peachypetewi - 7/16/2014 at 04:52 PM




I understand that you think it is a trusim that those who believe in Capitalism as a system are selfish **** s but I don't accept that premise and never will. Capitalism has proven to be the best engine in human history to elliviate suffering and raise the living standard of people.


Then you aren't much of a student of history. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison were all selfish **** s who paid their workers poorly and didn't give a flying fvck about workers safety. Capitalism has gotten us where we are today. 1% of the population controlling 95 % of the wealth. No better than communism.


pops42 - 7/16/2014 at 05:05 PM

Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.


gotdrumz - 7/16/2014 at 05:08 PM

quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.


I don't think anybody disagrees with you. I don't. Yet there is another entity doing similar if not worse things with money they stole from us. The U.S Government.

See it works both ways, there can be more than one villain.


BillyBlastoff - 7/16/2014 at 05:26 PM

quote:
I don't have a problem with big box stores. They keep prices down and help consumers. If left alone, competitors eventually arise. Those who can't compete die off. That benefits society in the long run.


Don't the big box stores keep prices down because they are able to negotiate better deals than Mom and Pop stores? Then, once the Mom and Pop stores, the competition, goes out of business don't the larger corporations become monopolies? Once they become monopolies where does capitalism fit in?

I am an unapologetic socialist of some sort of another. Probably a Star Trek socialist.

Certainly an idealist who knows my ideals won't be adopted in this lifetime.

I do appreciate the debate.

And I also cannot believe OTB lost money. They certainly made money off me.


Brendan - 7/16/2014 at 06:09 PM

I too am an OTB liberal. I miss that place every single day of my life.


mainebigdog - 7/16/2014 at 06:20 PM

quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.


Get off the Koch Brothers already. Which elections did they buy? What about Tom Steyer??
A billionaire that opposes the xl pipeline for his own interests. It's politics. Put in term limits to curb the influence of big money. It's the only way. My point is that it happens on both sides. A little about Tom Steyer:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/tom-steyer-the-shady-billionaire-with-mil lions-of-reasons-to-kill-keystone-xl/


BillyBlastoff - 7/16/2014 at 07:31 PM

quote:
Get off the Koch Brothers already. Which elections did they buy? What about Tom Steyer??
A billionaire that opposes the xl pipeline for his own interests. It's politics. Put in term limits to curb the influence of big money. It's the only way. My point is that it happens on both sides. A little about Tom Steyer:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/tom-steyer-the-shady-billionaire-with-mil lions-of-reasons-to-kill-keystone-xl/


I don't have time right now to research Tom Steyer. I do know I oppose the XL Pipeline primarily because of the failure of the Exxon/Mobile pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas that caused the evacuation of more than 20 households in an upper middle class neighborhood. Exxon was able to block reporting of the event and even able to secure a no fly zone. There has been very little news about the event.

That is not the only pipeline to have ruptured and leaked. If we can't count on the media to report on these catastrophic failures how can we count on them to give us accurate information concerning the XL Pipeline?

Regarding the Koch Brothers buying elections - I know they contributed plenty in dark money to Eric Cantor's campaign. Was it illegal? I'm guessing no. Does it promote democracy? Not in my view.

Then there is the funding of the "educational program" outline in the following article.

quote:

christina.wilkie@huffingtonpost.com
Joy.resmovits@huffingtonpost.com

Koch Heads: How The Koch Brothers Are Buying Their Way Into The Minds Of Public School Students
Posted: 07/16/2014 12:57 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago

In the spring of 2012, Spenser Johnson, a junior at Highland Park High School in Topeka, Kansas, was unpacking his acoustic bass before orchestra practice when a sign caught his eye. "Do you want to make money?" it asked.

The poster encouraged the predominantly poor students at Highland Park to enroll in a new, yearlong course that would provide lessons in basic economic principles and practical instruction on starting a business. Students would receive generous financial incentives including startup capital and scholarships after graduation. The course would begin that fall. Johnson eagerly signed up.

In some ways, the class looked like a typical high school business course, taught in a Highland Park classroom by a Highland Park teacher. But it was actually run by Youth Entrepreneurs, a nonprofit group created and funded primarily by Charles G. Koch, the billionaire chairman of Koch Industries.

The official mission of Youth Entrepreneurs is to provide kids with "business and entrepreneurial education and experiences that help them prosper and become contributing members of society." The underlying goal of the program, however, is to impart Koch's radical free-market ideology to teenagers. In the last school year, the class reached more than 1,000 students across Kansas and Missouri.

Lesson plans and class materials obtained by The Huffington Post make the course's message clear: The minimum wage hurts workers and slows economic growth. Low taxes and less regulation allow people to prosper. Public assistance harms the poor. Government, in short, is the enemy of liberty.

Though YE has avoided the public spotlight, the current structure of the program began to take shape in November 2009, documents show, when a team of associates at the Charles G. Koch Foundation launched an important project with Charles Koch's blessing: They would design and test what they called "a high school free market and liberty-based course" with support from members of the Koch family's vast nonprofit and political network. A pilot version of the class would be offered the following spring to students at the Wichita Collegiate School, an elite private prep school in Kansas where Koch was a top donor.

First, the Koch team chose its mascot: a golden eagle holding a knife in its beak. They also assigned each other nicknames: Ol' Mucky Terrahawk, Mighty Killer, Big Gay Mule, Midnight Bandit and the Erratic Assassin. The group dubbed itself the "Wu-Teach Clan."

Over the next six months, members of the Wu-Teach Clan exchanged hundreds of emails with one another and with Koch lieutenants. They hashed out a strategy to infiltrate public schools after surveys showed that the wealthy prep school students largely failed to absorb their libertarian message. We know all this because the Wu-Teach Clan used a Google group that it had left open to the public.

The emails show that Charles Koch had a hands-on role in the design of the high school curriculum, directly reviewing the work of those responsible for setting up the course. The goal, the group said flatly, was to turn young people into "liberty-advancing agents" before they went to college, where they might learn "harmful" liberal ideas.

The Koch Foundation did not respond to requests for comment.

Charles Koch founded Youth Entrepreneurs in 1991 with his wife, Elizabeth Koch, who serves as chairman of the group's board. For much of the past two decades, YE offered little more than a pilot program teaching basic business skills -- and seemed an afterthought compared to the Kochs' massive investments in the political sphere. But the Kochs have renewed their focus on YE in recent years, pumping millions of dollars into it, expanding it considerably and molding it to project their worldview.

In 2007, YE reported assets of just over $450,000. In 2012, its assets topped $1.45 million. The lion's share of this growth was fueled by Koch family foundations.

During the 2012-2013 school year, YE's credit-bearing class reached more than 1,000 students in 29 schools in Kansas and Missouri, according to the group's annual report. Vernon Birmingham, YE's director of curriculum and teacher support, told HuffPost that the course will be in 42 schools in the coming school year. An offshoot in Atlanta, YE Georgia, reported being in 10 schools in the 2011-2012 school year. Since 2012, YE has also launched three major new initiatives: an online version of its course, an affiliate program to help rural schools access the class, and an after-school program, YE Academy, which served more than 500 students in its first year.

With spending on public education under heavy assault -- in large part by Koch-funded organizations and politicians they support -- the nation's poorest school districts are in desperate need of resources, making the free Koch curriculum an attractive alternative to nothing.

While the Kochs are perhaps best known for their support of conservative political candidates and causes, they have a longstanding interest in education. Charles and his brother David Koch were longtime supporters of the Libertarian Party before becoming Republican kingpins. David Koch won the party's nomination for vice president in 1980. That year, its platform proposed a drastic revision of the American education system: “We advocate the complete separation of education and state. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

In recent years, through private charitable foundations, the Koch brothers have funneled tens of millions of dollars to colleges and universities -- most recently, a $25 million donation to the United Negro College Fund. They are also funding advocacy groups that are waging a widespread campaign to fight the Common Core State Standards, a set of benchmarks for public K-12 education adopted by most states. But YE is the most direct example of their growing imprint on American classrooms.

Koch-funded think tanks provide many of YE's course materials. Teachers are trained at Koch Industries headquarters and are required to read Charles Koch's book The Science of Success.

The focus on high school students is a key part of the Kochs' long-term effort to create a libertarian-minded society from the ground up.

"We hope to develop students' appreciation of liberty by improving free-market education," the Koch associates wrote during the program's initial planning stages. "Ultimately, we hope this will change the behavior of students who will apply these principles later on in life."


From the outset, the Koch associates identified the importance of recruiting teachers who would support the program's goals. "Relationships with teachers will be essential, as they will be the key conduits for getting the curriculum into the schools," they wrote in a December 2009 document describing their goals.

According to notes from a meeting with Koch associates in January 2010, executives from Koch-funded groups were concerned about how teachers might view the course. "What if teachers are unwilling? What incentives do teachers have?" associate Bethany Lowe wrote in an email, summarizing the discussion. "How will they not be scared of it?"

To find "liberty-minded" teachers who might be predisposed to help them, the team reached out to the network of libertarian groups that benefit from Koch family funding. Many of these groups, including the Institute for Humane Studies, the Bill of Rights Institute and the Market-Based Management Institute, host seminars and conferences specifically for teachers, and they were happy to help the team.

"Send me the language you want, I'll send it to our list!" wrote a marketing director at the Institute for Humane Studies in February 2010. A marketing employee at the Bill of Rights Institute said, "I would love to chat with you to help in any way possible with your project."

In addition, the Koch associates suggested looking for teachers who might be persuaded to teach the course. "Younger teachers might be more open to new ideas," Lowe wrote in the January 2010 meeting minutes. Lowe could not be reached for comment for this story.

Taylor Davis, the teacher in charge of the YE course at Highland Park High School, was one such Koch recruit. A first-year teacher at the time, Davis had received his public school education in affluent Olathe, Kansas. Motivated by a desire to teach inner-city kids, he earned two education degrees at the University of Kansas before landing a job as a history teacher at Highland Park in 2011.

As Davis recalls, YE -- in its earlier, more basic iteration -- had "died out" at his school. After Davis' first year at Highland Park, Vernon Birmingham approached him and his principal about bringing the course back. "They [YE] were brought in as a nonprofit to basically pitch and sell the curriculum," Davis said in an interview with HuffPost.

Birmingham saw Davis teach, and though he was not a business teacher, Birmingham told him he'd be a good candidate for the YE course.

"When I watched him in a classroom, I could see students respond to him," Birmingham said. "I immediately said Taylor's our guy -- he's energetic, he's young, students listen, he's garnered respect."

"We always say within our program ... we don't care if it's a music teacher, but if it's a teacher who can motivate students, who can move them from point A to B," Birmingham said. "They're exciting and they're passionate -- teachers who tell us that if they could teach YE all day, they would. We really look for teachers who are able to motivate and move students, move the needle."

Birmingham would become a frequent presence in Davis' classroom, keeping tabs on his lessons from the back of the room. "He would be out there quite a bit, coming into the classes," Davis said. "He was the guru of the Topeka region when I was there."

As Davis saw it, the purpose of the course was to teach teens how to become self-sufficient small business owners.

"He introduced it as giving kids real-world opportunity," Davis said of Birmingham. "YE definitely backed that up. It was a very student-centered approach that they brought me, a lot of real-world, project-based activities."

Typical lesson plans included "developing your business idea" and the "invention game."

Many students reported enjoying the course, according to Davis, and he told HuffPost that he liked teaching it. "You see students who are C or D level ... who are so bright and the traditional school system isn't working for them," Davis said, describing the program's appeal. "The idea that your actions and creativity could make you money right out of high school was a very sophisticated idea [for them] to latch onto."

In fact, Davis liked the program so much that he wants to bring it to Texas where he now works.

Before Davis taught the course for the first time in the fall of 2012, he spent an August week in a basement room at Koch Industries in Wichita, where he and about 20 other teachers learned from YE staffers and veteran instructors how to teach the class.

YE supplied Davis with a syllabus, timeline and "all the handouts that you would need," he told HuffPost. Before the school year started, he was given a thick binder of lesson plans, as well as flash drives containing quizzes and worksheets. There were also videos, PowerPoint presentations and scores of documents in Microsoft Word. Davis posted many of these resources online, offering the public a rare glimpse inside the highly structured curriculum.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/koch-brothers-education_n_5587577. html?page_version=legacy&view=print&comm_ref=false

Follow the link if you would like to read the rest of the article.


piacere - 7/16/2014 at 08:08 PM

quote:
I too am an OTB liberal. I miss that place every single day of my life.


except on Sunday's in football season when you've laid a double c-note on the Eagles...


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:04 PM

quote:



I understand that you think it is a trusim that those who believe in Capitalism as a system are selfish **** s but I don't accept that premise and never will. Capitalism has proven to be the best engine in human history to elliviate suffering and raise the living standard of people.


Then you aren't much of a student of history. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison were all selfish **** s who paid their workers poorly and didn't give a flying fvck about workers safety. Capitalism has gotten us where we are today. 1% of the population controlling 95 % of the wealth. No better than communism.




At least you are honest about your beliefs. Those beliefs are deranged but thank you for your honesty. I just love people who live in a nation where the poorest have a higher living standard than 99 percent of the rest of the world and then attack it as no better than communism.


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:06 PM

quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.



How ridiculous. Just believe everything the DNC tells you to. Gotta have an evil villain. What a joke. I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers except for the fact that their charitable institutions donate hundreds of millions of dollars a year to important charities. But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Bhawk - 7/17/2014 at 05:09 PM

quote:
But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Sure you have. There's an entire media and political machine that's been cultivated for well over twenty years that demonizes liberals and Democrats every hour of every day. But, that's OK, right? Or, let me guess, it doesn't exist?


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:13 PM

quote:
quote:
I don't have a problem with big box stores. They keep prices down and help consumers. If left alone, competitors eventually arise. Those who can't compete die off. That benefits society in the long run.


Don't the big box stores keep prices down because they are able to negotiate better deals than Mom and Pop stores? Then, once the Mom and Pop stores, the competition, goes out of business don't the larger corporations become monopolies? Once they become monopolies where does capitalism fit in?

I am an unapologetic socialist of some sort of another. Probably a Star Trek socialist.

Certainly an idealist who knows my ideals won't be adopted in this lifetime.

I do appreciate the debate.

And I also cannot believe OTB lost money. They certainly made money off me.


The point is that the Mom and Pop stores are not efficient enough to compete with the Big Box stores. So the competition for the Big Box Stores will be other Big Box Stores. If you create a system where you prop up weak and failing businesses then you hurt the consumer. Monopolies are illegal. I oppose them. Walmart is not a monopoly. Neither is Microsoft. or any other highly succesful company. There was a time when there was a good living to be made repairing televisions. Now they are so inexpensive (thanks to massive competition) that it makes more sense to throw a broken one out and buy another. Who does that hurt except those who repaired televisions. Today those tv repairmen or their successors are probably computer repairmen. That's how it works. As soon as the government gets involved in deciding what prices ought to be or who's industry ought to be protected, everything gets screwed up. (And yes our own country is far from a perfect example of free enterprise) The irony is that socialist theories of economics have proven failures as an economic model everywhere they've been tried while free enterprise models are provably responsible for the almost remarkable rise in living standards we have. Even our imperfect system is large enough to support over 300 million people in a lifestyle kings would have dreamed about two centures ago. Malthus predicted mass starvation. He didn't foresee the massive advances in agricultural science that free enterprise helped bring about.

And yes OTB lost money. Go figure.


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:13 PM

quote:
quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.


Get off the Koch Brothers already. Which elections did they buy? What about Tom Steyer??
A billionaire that opposes the xl pipeline for his own interests. It's politics. Put in term limits to curb the influence of big money. It's the only way. My point is that it happens on both sides. A little about Tom Steyer:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/tom-steyer-the-shady-billionaire-with-mil lions-of-reasons-to-kill-keystone-xl/



There's got to be a villain. That's how they operate nowadays.


Bhawk - 7/17/2014 at 05:17 PM

"They"


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:17 PM

quote:
quote:
But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Sure you have. There's an entire media and political machine that's been cultivated for well over twenty years that demonizes liberals and Democrats every hour of every day. But, that's OK, right? Or, let me guess, it doesn't exist?


Demonizing individuals like the Koch Brothers because they are politically active and are libertarian and use their money to support causes they believe in is disgusting. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well. It has reached the point where left wing idiots were protesting outside a NYC hospital that David Koch donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. Those fools get their marching orders directly from the DNC and the likes of Harry Reid. I've seen their mailings. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well.

Have you EVER condemned anything the left has done?


dougrhon - 7/17/2014 at 05:19 PM

quote:
"They"



Democrats


Gloucester-mass - 7/17/2014 at 05:20 PM

quote:
Then you aren't much of a student of history. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison were all selfish **** s who paid their workers poorly and didn't give a flying fvck about workers safety. Capitalism has gotten us where we are today. 1% of the population controlling 95 % of the wealth. No better than communism.



Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!


gondicar - 7/17/2014 at 05:40 PM

quote:
Those fools get their marching orders directly from the DNC and the likes of Harry Reid. I've seen their mailings. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well.

You say "show me", but rather than showing anything you simply say "I've seen their mailings" and leave it at that. Well, your just going to have to accept that there is nothing one-sided about these types of communications.

And in honor of #tbt, here is an oldie but a goodie from some of our GOP friends...

In 2008 a local California GOP women’s organization’s newsletter claimed that if Obama was elected, his face would appear on food stamps, rather than dollar bills like other presidents. This is the mockup they sent around:


gondicar - 7/17/2014 at 05:42 PM

quote:
quote:
"They"



Democrats

Just democrats? That's rich.


BoytonBrother - 7/17/2014 at 06:20 PM

[But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country.]

So do you feel this way about Cheney and Boehner when they attack Obama daily, and blame him for Iraq and the immigration crisis, and anything bad that happens not only here in the US but in foreign countries?


Peachypetewi - 7/17/2014 at 07:28 PM

quote:
quote:
Then you aren't much of a student of history. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison were all selfish **** s who paid their workers poorly and didn't give a flying fvck about workers safety. Capitalism has gotten us where we are today. 1% of the population controlling 95 % of the wealth. No better than communism.



Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!



I should have clarified. This comment is only in terms of wealth distribution, and it is a fact that capitalism is no better in terms of the tiny percentage of people controlling all the wealth. This comment had nothing to do with personal freedom.


BillyBlastoff - 7/17/2014 at 08:03 PM

quote:
Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!


Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom. Ask the child laborers who make your shirts or the Chinese workers building our televisions and computers if they feel free.


Gloucester-mass - 7/17/2014 at 08:24 PM

quote:

Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom


I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more. Milton Friedman once wrote about economic freedom as both a necessary freedom and also as a vital means for political freedom. “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both”


pops42 - 7/17/2014 at 08:55 PM

quote:
quote:

Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom


I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more. Milton Friedman once wrote about economic freedom as both a necessary freedom and also as a vital means for political freedom. “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both”
You'll never have TRUE freedom without equality.


2112 - 7/17/2014 at 08:58 PM

quote:
quote:

Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom


I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more. Milton Friedman once wrote about economic freedom as both a necessary freedom and also as a vital means for political freedom. “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both”


I think most people who live in many socialist countries (Norway, Denmark, Canada) would laugh at you if told them that the USA offers more freedom than they do. These are the countries that Americans fled to to escape the draft in the USA. Was the draft freedom? Those countries don't limit what you do for a living, where you live, where you can travel (which the USA does), and they all have a higher standard of living than the USA. They all have freedom of speech and freedom of religion (more than we have). Truth is that most first world countries have a mixture of socialist and capitalist policies. Most Americans seem to confuse socialism and communism, which are completely different animals. Socialist countries do not necessarily limit freedom no more than living in the bible belt might limit some of your freedom. Freedom and the economic system really don't have anything to do with each other. Take Alaska, which is undeniably the most socialist state in the USA given that the state sends each man, woman and child a check each year from oil royalties. Do you honestly believe people in Alaska are less free than people in Kansas?


pops42 - 7/17/2014 at 09:10 PM

quote:
quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.



How ridiculous. Just believe everything the DNC tells you to. Gotta have an evil villain. What a joke. I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers except for the fact that their charitable institutions donate hundreds of millions of dollars a year to important charities. But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.
Carnagie, rockefellar and the rest of them had charitable foundations too, did that give them a pass for all the evil deeds they perpetrated? Carnagie was responsible for wiping out the whole town of [johnstown pa.] killing everyone. they donate to charity for tax breaks and good P.R. not because they give a Sh!t about anyone or anything. they only care about themselves and their bottom line.

[Edited on 7/17/2014 by pops42]


Muleman1994 - 7/17/2014 at 09:40 PM

quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.

Curiously you did not mention George Zoros, Obama’s French, socialist billionaire buddy who has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaigns and funds his political action “non-profits” such a Move On.org.
That would be one of those non-profits PACs not attacked by the IRS…




BillyBlastoff - 7/17/2014 at 10:06 PM

quote:
Curiously you did not mention George Zoros, Obama’s French, socialist billionaire buddy who has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaigns and funds his political action “non-profits” such a Move On.org.
That would be one of those non-profits PACs not attacked by the IRS…


How do you define "attacked"? What do you think the IRS did? You do know more liberal and marijuana organizations were scrutinized than conservative groups... don't you?

Or is there just too much echo in your chamber for you to actually find out what happened?


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

quote:
A series of IRS documents, provided to ThinkProgress under the Freedom of Information Act, appears to contradict the claims by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only Tea Party organizations applying for tax-exempt status “received systematic scrutiny because of their political beliefs.” The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.




The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list.
Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822? for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake.
Other types of groups received explicit scrutiny for longer than “progressive” or “Tea Party” organizations. These included applicants involved with “medical marijuana” but not “exclusively education” (19 appearances in the “watch list” section of the lists), which were to be forwarded to a “group 7888? and groups believed to be possible successor-groups to ACORN, the now-shuttered Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (12 appearances on the “watch list” section). Those applications were also to be elevated to managers for further review. All 22 documents also flagged applicants with Puerto Rico addresses and certain types of “Testamentary Trusts.”
Last year, the IRS acknowledged that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their applications. Rather than addressing the very real problem of political committees masquerading as 501(c)(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names. President Obama and members of both parties in Congress all agree that the IRS acted improperly in singling-out certain groups for more scrutiny than others.
In Issa’s committee’s recent report, “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives,” the Republican majority staffers wrote that while the Be On the Lookout lists’ language was “changed to broader ‘political advocacy organizations,’ the IRS still intended to identify and single out Tea Party applications for scrutiny.” The report goes to great lengths to distinguish the different types of scrutiny provided to each of these types of flagged group. But the actual IRS records indicate that at least some additional scrutiny was required for groups of all types that had names that sounded political — and that the explicit heightened scrutiny for left-leaning groups was even longer-standing than for Tea Party groups.
IRS disclosure manager Bertrand Tzeng noted, in a letter, that these 22 released documents “constitute the set of criteria that were used by IRS employees and which were produced to the investigating congressional committees.” Tzeng added that while his office has been informed that “draft versions of some of these documents may also exist, we understand that such drafts would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption” as simply part of the agency’s deliberative process.
Read the lists.
Note: ThinkProgress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), which has been recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) organization. CAPAF does not endorse candidates, nor does it fund “independent expenditures” or any other kind of candidate-related advertising.



pops42 - 7/17/2014 at 11:01 PM

quote:
quote:
Koch brothers are a modern day version of the "robber barons" mentioned above. spending tens of millions to buy elections, vilify and destroy unions, buying tenures for professors to teach their point of view to students. they would like nothing better than to control this country and bring workers back to the 19th century.

Curiously you did not mention George Zoros, Obama’s French, socialist billionaire buddy who has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to his campaigns and funds his political action “non-profits” such a Move On.org.
That would be one of those non-profits PACs not attacked by the IRS…




You don't know sh!t about Soros, he's a hungarian jew, a capitalist, and YOU tell me what he's done to harm unions or working people, or 99% of americans that YOU vote against.


BillyBlastoff - 7/17/2014 at 11:42 PM

quote:
You don't know sh!t about Soros, he's a hungarian jew, a capitalist, and YOU tell me what he's done to harm unions or working people, or 99% of americans that YOU vote against.


Hey Pops... go easy! Muleman was talking about Zoros.


Muleman1994 - 7/18/2014 at 12:55 AM

Your cute little graph above is a load of crap. Prepared by a left-wing political group and using data supplied by the very corrupt and criminal agency that is under investigation.
Of course no liberal can answer why Lois Lerner is refusing to testify and invoked her 5th amendment right against SELF INCRIMINATION.

The facts are that the IRS went after 238 conservative organizations and only 19 liberal organizations. These facts come from actual under oath testimony and can be found in the congressional records.

Of the 238 conservative organizations attacked, the IRS sent them requests for the member’s names, places of work and wanted to know where they worshiped. They even wanted to know what they prayed about. Many of these organizations were then visited and investigated by the EPA, OSHA and the FBI. Only two of the 238 had their application approved prior to the 2012 election.

Not one of the 19 liberal organizations were subjected to the same scrutiny and abuse. Everyone of the liberal organizations were approved for tax-exempt status long before the 2012 election except one who was apparently too stupid to fill out their application correctly.

You should really learn to use actual facts. The low-information voter is hurting our nation.

Read:

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
LOIS LERNER’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE IRS TARGETING OF
TAX - EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS
MARCH 11, 2014

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lerner-Report1.pdf


TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review
May 14, 2013

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 02:35 AM

quote:
Your cute little graph above is a load of crap. Prepared by a left-wing political group and using data supplied by the very corrupt and criminal agency that is under investigation.
Of course no liberal can answer why Lois Lerner is refusing to testify and invoked her 5th amendment right against SELF INCRIMINATION.

The facts are that the IRS went after 238 conservative organizations and only 19 liberal organizations. These facts come from actual under oath testimony and can be found in the congressional records.

Of the 238 conservative organizations attacked, the IRS sent them requests for the member’s names, places of work and wanted to know where they worshiped. They even wanted to know what they prayed about. Many of these organizations were then visited and investigated by the EPA, OSHA and the FBI. Only two of the 238 had their application approved prior to the 2012 election.

Not one of the 19 liberal organizations were subjected to the same scrutiny and abuse. Everyone of the liberal organizations were approved for tax-exempt status long before the 2012 election except one who was apparently too stupid to fill out their application correctly.

You should really learn to use actual facts. The low-information voter is hurting our nation.

Read:

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
LOIS LERNER’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE IRS TARGETING OF
TAX - EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS
MARCH 11, 2014

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lerner-Report1.pdf


TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION
Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review
May 14, 2013

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf


Has anything been proven?, has anyone been convicted of any wrongdoing????


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 02:38 AM

quote:
You should really learn to use actual facts. The low-information voter is hurting our nation.


Actual facts from Darryl Issa????? TALK ABOUT LOADS OF CRAP! You wouldn't know a fact if it exploded in your echo chamber.

quote:
The facts are that the IRS went after 238 conservative organizations and only 19 liberal organizations. These facts come from actual under oath testimony and can be found in the congressional records.


Issa just suppressed witness testimony that confounds his previous facts.

Look Muleman1994 - I'm happy you found a hero in that carnival barker Darryl Issa. You are free to worship him in anyway you see fit. You seem smart. You must be right.


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 02:52 AM

Speaking of issa http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/martin-bashir-reminds-viewers-darrell-issa s


alloak41 - 7/18/2014 at 03:22 AM

Smear the investigator. A new approach.

What bearing does a dismissed car theft incident 42 years ago have to do with this case?

Especially coming from the exact same person who three posts ago said, "Has
anything been proven. Has anyone been convicted of any wrongdoing?????" WOW!

You see some pretty amazing things on this site.










[Edited on 7/18/2014 by alloak41]


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 05:18 AM

quote:
Smear the investigator. A new approach.

What bearing does a dismissed car theft incident 42 years ago have to do with this case?

Especially coming from the exact same person who three posts ago said, "Has
anything been proven. Has anyone been convicted of any wrongdoing?????" WOW!

You see some pretty amazing things on this site.










[Edited on 7/18/2014 by alloak41]
Issa has nothing, because there is nothing. By golly I just caint wait for the next phony scandal from these republican butt-bunions!

[Edited on 7/18/2014 by pops42]


mainebigdog - 7/18/2014 at 01:34 PM

Why don't you do some research? Issa may be a dope. i suppose a federal judge is too.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-orders-irs-to-explain-lost-emails- 1405015820


mainebigdog - 7/18/2014 at 01:46 PM

quote:
quote:
Get off the Koch Brothers already. Which elections did they buy? What about Tom Steyer??
A billionaire that opposes the xl pipeline for his own interests. It's politics. Put in term limits to curb the influence of big money. It's the only way. My point is that it happens on both sides. A little about Tom Steyer:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/tom-steyer-the-shady-billionaire-with-mil lions-of-reasons-to-kill-keystone-xl/


I don't have time right now to research Tom Steyer. I do know I oppose the XL Pipeline primarily because of the failure of the Exxon/Mobile pipeline in Mayflower, Arkansas that caused the evacuation of more than 20 households in an upper middle class neighborhood. Exxon was able to block reporting of the event and even able to secure a no fly zone. There has been very little news about the event.

That is not the only pipeline to have ruptured and leaked. If we can't count on the media to report on these catastrophic failures how can we count on them to give us accurate information concerning the XL Pipeline?

Regarding the Koch Brothers buying elections - I know they contributed plenty in dark money to Eric Cantor's campaign. Was it illegal? I'm guessing no. Does it promote democracy? Not in my view.

Then there is the funding of the "educational program" outline in the following article.

quote:

christina.wilkie@huffingtonpost.com
Joy.resmovits@huffingtonpost.com

Koch Heads: How The Koch Brothers Are Buying Their Way Into The Minds Of Public School Students
Posted: 07/16/2014 12:57 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago

In the spring of 2012, Spenser Johnson, a junior at Highland Park High School in Topeka, Kansas, was unpacking his acoustic bass before orchestra practice when a sign caught his eye. "Do you want to make money?" it asked.

The poster encouraged the predominantly poor students at Highland Park to enroll in a new, yearlong course that would provide lessons in basic economic principles and practical instruction on starting a business. Students would receive generous financial incentives including startup capital and scholarships after graduation. The course would begin that fall. Johnson eagerly signed up.

In some ways, the class looked like a typical high school business course, taught in a Highland Park classroom by a Highland Park teacher. But it was actually run by Youth Entrepreneurs, a nonprofit group created and funded primarily by Charles G. Koch, the billionaire chairman of Koch Industries.

The official mission of Youth Entrepreneurs is to provide kids with "business and entrepreneurial education and experiences that help them prosper and become contributing members of society." The underlying goal of the program, however, is to impart Koch's radical free-market ideology to teenagers. In the last school year, the class reached more than 1,000 students across Kansas and Missouri.

Lesson plans and class materials obtained by The Huffington Post make the course's message clear: The minimum wage hurts workers and slows economic growth. Low taxes and less regulation allow people to prosper. Public assistance harms the poor. Government, in short, is the enemy of liberty.

Though YE has avoided the public spotlight, the current structure of the program began to take shape in November 2009, documents show, when a team of associates at the Charles G. Koch Foundation launched an important project with Charles Koch's blessing: They would design and test what they called "a high school free market and liberty-based course" with support from members of the Koch family's vast nonprofit and political network. A pilot version of the class would be offered the following spring to students at the Wichita Collegiate School, an elite private prep school in Kansas where Koch was a top donor.

First, the Koch team chose its mascot: a golden eagle holding a knife in its beak. They also assigned each other nicknames: Ol' Mucky Terrahawk, Mighty Killer, Big Gay Mule, Midnight Bandit and the Erratic Assassin. The group dubbed itself the "Wu-Teach Clan."

Over the next six months, members of the Wu-Teach Clan exchanged hundreds of emails with one another and with Koch lieutenants. They hashed out a strategy to infiltrate public schools after surveys showed that the wealthy prep school students largely failed to absorb their libertarian message. We know all this because the Wu-Teach Clan used a Google group that it had left open to the public.

The emails show that Charles Koch had a hands-on role in the design of the high school curriculum, directly reviewing the work of those responsible for setting up the course. The goal, the group said flatly, was to turn young people into "liberty-advancing agents" before they went to college, where they might learn "harmful" liberal ideas.

The Koch Foundation did not respond to requests for comment.

Charles Koch founded Youth Entrepreneurs in 1991 with his wife, Elizabeth Koch, who serves as chairman of the group's board. For much of the past two decades, YE offered little more than a pilot program teaching basic business skills -- and seemed an afterthought compared to the Kochs' massive investments in the political sphere. But the Kochs have renewed their focus on YE in recent years, pumping millions of dollars into it, expanding it considerably and molding it to project their worldview.

In 2007, YE reported assets of just over $450,000. In 2012, its assets topped $1.45 million. The lion's share of this growth was fueled by Koch family foundations.

During the 2012-2013 school year, YE's credit-bearing class reached more than 1,000 students in 29 schools in Kansas and Missouri, according to the group's annual report. Vernon Birmingham, YE's director of curriculum and teacher support, told HuffPost that the course will be in 42 schools in the coming school year. An offshoot in Atlanta, YE Georgia, reported being in 10 schools in the 2011-2012 school year. Since 2012, YE has also launched three major new initiatives: an online version of its course, an affiliate program to help rural schools access the class, and an after-school program, YE Academy, which served more than 500 students in its first year.

With spending on public education under heavy assault -- in large part by Koch-funded organizations and politicians they support -- the nation's poorest school districts are in desperate need of resources, making the free Koch curriculum an attractive alternative to nothing.

While the Kochs are perhaps best known for their support of conservative political candidates and causes, they have a longstanding interest in education. Charles and his brother David Koch were longtime supporters of the Libertarian Party before becoming Republican kingpins. David Koch won the party's nomination for vice president in 1980. That year, its platform proposed a drastic revision of the American education system: “We advocate the complete separation of education and state. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”

In recent years, through private charitable foundations, the Koch brothers have funneled tens of millions of dollars to colleges and universities -- most recently, a $25 million donation to the United Negro College Fund. They are also funding advocacy groups that are waging a widespread campaign to fight the Common Core State Standards, a set of benchmarks for public K-12 education adopted by most states. But YE is the most direct example of their growing imprint on American classrooms.

Koch-funded think tanks provide many of YE's course materials. Teachers are trained at Koch Industries headquarters and are required to read Charles Koch's book The Science of Success.

The focus on high school students is a key part of the Kochs' long-term effort to create a libertarian-minded society from the ground up.

"We hope to develop students' appreciation of liberty by improving free-market education," the Koch associates wrote during the program's initial planning stages. "Ultimately, we hope this will change the behavior of students who will apply these principles later on in life."


From the outset, the Koch associates identified the importance of recruiting teachers who would support the program's goals. "Relationships with teachers will be essential, as they will be the key conduits for getting the curriculum into the schools," they wrote in a December 2009 document describing their goals.

According to notes from a meeting with Koch associates in January 2010, executives from Koch-funded groups were concerned about how teachers might view the course. "What if teachers are unwilling? What incentives do teachers have?" associate Bethany Lowe wrote in an email, summarizing the discussion. "How will they not be scared of it?"

To find "liberty-minded" teachers who might be predisposed to help them, the team reached out to the network of libertarian groups that benefit from Koch family funding. Many of these groups, including the Institute for Humane Studies, the Bill of Rights Institute and the Market-Based Management Institute, host seminars and conferences specifically for teachers, and they were happy to help the team.

"Send me the language you want, I'll send it to our list!" wrote a marketing director at the Institute for Humane Studies in February 2010. A marketing employee at the Bill of Rights Institute said, "I would love to chat with you to help in any way possible with your project."

In addition, the Koch associates suggested looking for teachers who might be persuaded to teach the course. "Younger teachers might be more open to new ideas," Lowe wrote in the January 2010 meeting minutes. Lowe could not be reached for comment for this story.

Taylor Davis, the teacher in charge of the YE course at Highland Park High School, was one such Koch recruit. A first-year teacher at the time, Davis had received his public school education in affluent Olathe, Kansas. Motivated by a desire to teach inner-city kids, he earned two education degrees at the University of Kansas before landing a job as a history teacher at Highland Park in 2011.

As Davis recalls, YE -- in its earlier, more basic iteration -- had "died out" at his school. After Davis' first year at Highland Park, Vernon Birmingham approached him and his principal about bringing the course back. "They [YE] were brought in as a nonprofit to basically pitch and sell the curriculum," Davis said in an interview with HuffPost.

Birmingham saw Davis teach, and though he was not a business teacher, Birmingham told him he'd be a good candidate for the YE course.

"When I watched him in a classroom, I could see students respond to him," Birmingham said. "I immediately said Taylor's our guy -- he's energetic, he's young, students listen, he's garnered respect."

"We always say within our program ... we don't care if it's a music teacher, but if it's a teacher who can motivate students, who can move them from point A to B," Birmingham said. "They're exciting and they're passionate -- teachers who tell us that if they could teach YE all day, they would. We really look for teachers who are able to motivate and move students, move the needle."

Birmingham would become a frequent presence in Davis' classroom, keeping tabs on his lessons from the back of the room. "He would be out there quite a bit, coming into the classes," Davis said. "He was the guru of the Topeka region when I was there."

As Davis saw it, the purpose of the course was to teach teens how to become self-sufficient small business owners.

"He introduced it as giving kids real-world opportunity," Davis said of Birmingham. "YE definitely backed that up. It was a very student-centered approach that they brought me, a lot of real-world, project-based activities."

Typical lesson plans included "developing your business idea" and the "invention game."

Many students reported enjoying the course, according to Davis, and he told HuffPost that he liked teaching it. "You see students who are C or D level ... who are so bright and the traditional school system isn't working for them," Davis said, describing the program's appeal. "The idea that your actions and creativity could make you money right out of high school was a very sophisticated idea [for them] to latch onto."

In fact, Davis liked the program so much that he wants to bring it to Texas where he now works.

Before Davis taught the course for the first time in the fall of 2012, he spent an August week in a basement room at Koch Industries in Wichita, where he and about 20 other teachers learned from YE staffers and veteran instructors how to teach the class.

YE supplied Davis with a syllabus, timeline and "all the handouts that you would need," he told HuffPost. Before the school year started, he was given a thick binder of lesson plans, as well as flash drives containing quizzes and worksheets. There were also videos, PowerPoint presentations and scores of documents in Microsoft Word. Davis posted many of these resources online, offering the public a rare glimpse inside the highly structured curriculum.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/koch-brothers-education_n_5587577. html?page_version=legacy&view=print&comm_ref=false

Follow the link if you would like to read the rest of the article.


you don't have time to do research yet have time to post a lengthy article. By the way what's wrong wrong with teaching students about entrepreneurship? We need a growth industry desperately in this country. It's because of entrepreneurship that i can send this response to begin with.


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 02:17 PM



Let the eat cake.

[Edited on 7/18/2014 by BillyBlastoff]


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 02:34 PM

quote:
Why don't you do some research? Issa may be a dope. i suppose a federal judge is too.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-judge-orders-irs-to-explain-lost-emails- 1405015820
Was anyone convicted?????????????????


Gloucester-mass - 7/18/2014 at 03:36 PM

You have to be either corrupt or a complete moron to think there isn't corruption in the IRS
One question, why won't Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor? . Liberals are liars they don’t care about the truth. The only thing phony about this is the ones defending and covering up for the IRS
And it appears to be every single Democrat. Lois Lerner should be indicted. Instead she collects a pension.


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 03:40 PM

quote:
You have to be either corrupt or a complete moron to think there isn't corruption in the IRS
One question, why won't Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor? . Liberals are liars they don’t care about the truth. The only thing phony about this is the ones defending and covering up for the IRS
And it appears to be every single Democrat. Lois Lerner should be indicted. Instead she collects a pension.

You have to be an imbecile to think that there wasn't a legitimate reason for tea party groups to be targeted by the IRS.


Gloucester-mass - 7/18/2014 at 04:13 PM

they were targeted for solely political reasons. If they had the name tea party or patriot they were flagged. And it was done to suppress these organizations for the elections. In case you are not aware , There are lawsuits going on and that is the only reason we have any of the info coming out.
Like the recent one from Lois Lerner warning people to watch what they put in emails after she found out there was going to be an investigation And of course my dog ate my homework lost email excuse. I have to laugh at "there must have been a legitimate reason to target tea party groups. Yet for the IRS you think "was anyone convicted" It is hard to convict when the attorney General is part of the cover up. Holder should be fired. But that would take a man of integrity in the white house which we don't have

I guess you utopian socialist liberals(sorrow for the redundancy) don't give a damn about the 1st amendment do you? It is all right to attack groups you don't agree with


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 04:24 PM

Organizations that were more likely to cheat on their taxes were scrutinized. Isn't that the IRS's job?

However, if they were breaking the law they should be arrested, tried, and sentenced.

Why has that not happened?

You believe in the 1st Amendment but you don't believe in our judicial process? Are people not innocent until proven guilty?

In my view it is reprehensible to condemn people in public before they are found guilty. I believe that in all cases.

You know stating the Attorney General is "part of the cover up" isn't free speech. Unless you have proof it is libel. That's a pretty heavy charge dude.


MartinD28 - 7/18/2014 at 04:32 PM

quote:
quote:
You don't know sh!t about Soros, he's a hungarian jew, a capitalist, and YOU tell me what he's done to harm unions or working people, or 99% of americans that YOU vote against.


Hey Pops... go easy! Muleman was talking about Zoros.




Billly,

I remember watching Zoro as a kid, but the picture you posted gives me renewed interest. Best post of this thread.


MartinD28 - 7/18/2014 at 04:35 PM

quote:
Liberals are liars they don’t care about the truth.



Ever make any gross generalizations reflecting personal opinion?


alloak41 - 7/18/2014 at 04:35 PM

quote:
Organizations that were more likely to cheat on their taxes were scrutinized. Isn't that the IRS's job?

You know stating the Attorney General is "part of the cover up" isn't free speech. Unless you have proof it is libel. That's a pretty heavy charge dude.


Do you have proof that TP groups are more likely to cheat on their taxes?


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 04:43 PM

quote:
quote:
Organizations that were more likely to cheat on their taxes were scrutinized. Isn't that the IRS's job?

You know stating the Attorney General is "part of the cover up" isn't free speech. Unless you have proof it is libel. That's a pretty heavy charge dude.


Do you have proof that TP groups are more likely to cheat on their taxes?
That will be the unintended consequence of this investigation [I predict] this will be proven.

[Edited on 7/18/2014 by pops42]


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 05:03 PM

quote:
Do you have proof that TP groups are more likely to cheat on their taxes?


Absolutely not. It was not just TP groups. Non profit groups have grown 25% over the ten year time period from 2001 -2011. Why the surge? If you were in charge of collecting revenue for the People of the United States wouldn't you be concerned about explosive growth of organizations exempt from paying taxes?

In 2010 alone non-profits added $779 billion to our GDP. Does that strike you as insignificant?

That is 5.4% of GDP. I assume you pay taxes. Do you want to shoulder that extra 5.4% of GDP that is not getting taxed?


Gloucester-mass - 7/18/2014 at 05:29 PM

Department of Justice: "We Heard About IRS Missing Emails On The News"

Now this is really getting old. So they are the ones who supposedly have been investigating the IRS for over 1 year yet this is the response that was given yesterday. So either the IRS was obstructing justice and criminal charges should be brought or the fix is in.

I have a novel idea why don't they appoint a special prosecutor. That way the truth will come out
if there is no criminal wrong doing why wouldn't you do that?

The FACT is the holder won't do it and the democrats have blocked any resolution calling for one
And this is what you on this site defend.


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 05:40 PM

quote:
The FACT is the holder won't do it and the democrats have blocked any resolution calling for one


Could you please provide a citation documenting where the Democrats have blocked a Congressional resolution to appoint a Special Prosecutor? I missed that news story.


Bhawk - 7/18/2014 at 06:08 PM

At face value, the Legislative Branch cannot appoint a special prosecutor in this instance as the matter in question is an Executive Branch function.

But, it's very complicated. Calls for a special prosecutor last year were rejected by Rep. Issa outright.


Bhawk - 7/18/2014 at 06:12 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Sure you have. There's an entire media and political machine that's been cultivated for well over twenty years that demonizes liberals and Democrats every hour of every day. But, that's OK, right? Or, let me guess, it doesn't exist?


Demonizing individuals like the Koch Brothers because they are politically active and are libertarian and use their money to support causes they believe in is disgusting. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well. It has reached the point where left wing idiots were protesting outside a NYC hospital that David Koch donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. Those fools get their marching orders directly from the DNC and the likes of Harry Reid. I've seen their mailings. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well.

Have you EVER condemned anything the left has done?


I've condemned what individuals have done in many instances. I try to avoid condemning millions of people for anything that individuals or a group of individuals have done, as that would be painting with a broad brush. I have been guilty of that in the past but have been trying very hard to avoid doing it now.

Then again, I also try not to pontificate to all I see as beneath me about demonization then turn around and demonize a group of people all in the same breath.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:13 PM

quote:
[But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country.]

So do you feel this way about Cheney and Boehner when they attack Obama daily, and blame him for Iraq and the immigration crisis, and anything bad that happens not only here in the US but in foreign countries?


Cheney yes. And I've said so. Boehner show me any attack that goes beyond apprpriate criticism of his policies and leadership.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Then you aren't much of a student of history. Rockefeller, JP Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Edison were all selfish **** s who paid their workers poorly and didn't give a flying fvck about workers safety. Capitalism has gotten us where we are today. 1% of the population controlling 95 % of the wealth. No better than communism.



Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!



I should have clarified. This comment is only in terms of wealth distribution, and it is a fact that capitalism is no better in terms of the tiny percentage of people controlling all the wealth. This comment had nothing to do with personal freedom.


A tiny percentage of people do not "control" all the wealth Karl. The purpose of an economy is not to equally distribute all the money.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:16 PM

quote:
quote:
Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!


Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom. Ask the child laborers who make your shirts or the Chinese workers building our televisions and computers if they feel free.


China does not have a system of free enterprise. China is an Oligarchy dictatorship that permits certain favored individuals to make profits and keep them. Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:18 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom


I'm sorry I couldn't disagree with you more. Milton Friedman once wrote about economic freedom as both a necessary freedom and also as a vital means for political freedom. “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both”
You'll never have TRUE freedom without equality.


If you insist on "equality" you will never have any freedom at all. Ever read the story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.?


Gloucester-mass - 7/18/2014 at 06:19 PM

Of course you haven't the news media is a joke
I also apologize two dozen democrats in the house voted with the republicans for a Special prosecutor
A resolution is non binding but it would put pressure on Holder to do it. Eric holder is the one who has to do it and he refuses. This is exactly when one is needed

They voted for it when they voted to put Lerner in contemp. Here is one link about that

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/7/house-votes-find-irss-lois-l erner-contempt-congres/?page=all

But the senate refuses , here is a link about that

http://freebeacon.com/issues/cruz-calls-for-special-prosecutor-to-investiga te-irs/


Not one Democrat in the Senate will call for one that I know of.
Why is that?
The Department of Justice is suppose to be independent , this one is not



dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:22 PM

quote:
Smear the investigator. A new approach.

What bearing does a dismissed car theft incident 42 years ago have to do with this case?

Especially coming from the exact same person who three posts ago said, "Has
anything been proven. Has anyone been convicted of any wrongdoing?????" WOW!

You see some pretty amazing things on this site.










[Edited on 7/18/2014 by alloak41]


Hypocrisy. The tribute vice pays to virtue.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:24 PM

quote:
quote:
You have to be either corrupt or a complete moron to think there isn't corruption in the IRS
One question, why won't Eric Holder appoint a special prosecutor? . Liberals are liars they don’t care about the truth. The only thing phony about this is the ones defending and covering up for the IRS
And it appears to be every single Democrat. Lois Lerner should be indicted. Instead she collects a pension.

You have to be an imbecile to think that there wasn't a legitimate reason for tea party groups to be targeted by the IRS.


If you believe that the IRS really "lost" the missing e-mails you are the biggest imbecile of them all.


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:25 PM

quote:
Organizations that were more likely to cheat on their taxes were scrutinized. Isn't that the IRS's job?

However, if they were breaking the law they should be arrested, tried, and sentenced.

Why has that not happened?

You believe in the 1st Amendment but you don't believe in our judicial process? Are people not innocent until proven guilty?

In my view it is reprehensible to condemn people in public before they are found guilty. I believe that in all cases.

You know stating the Attorney General is "part of the cover up" isn't free speech. Unless you have proof it is libel. That's a pretty heavy charge dude.


It hasn't happened because the investigation has been totally stonewalled every step of the way. I mean isn't that obvious?


dougrhon - 7/18/2014 at 06:27 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Sure you have. There's an entire media and political machine that's been cultivated for well over twenty years that demonizes liberals and Democrats every hour of every day. But, that's OK, right? Or, let me guess, it doesn't exist?


Demonizing individuals like the Koch Brothers because they are politically active and are libertarian and use their money to support causes they believe in is disgusting. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well. It has reached the point where left wing idiots were protesting outside a NYC hospital that David Koch donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. Those fools get their marching orders directly from the DNC and the likes of Harry Reid. I've seen their mailings. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well.

Have you EVER condemned anything the left has done?


I've condemned what individuals have done in many instances. I try to avoid condemning millions of people for anything that individuals or a group of individuals have done, as that would be painting with a broad brush. I have been guilty of that in the past but have been trying very hard to avoid doing it now.

Then again, I also try not to pontificate to all I see as beneath me about demonization then turn around and demonize a group of people all in the same breath.


Well your just the perfect picture of reasoned and enlightened discourse. You are a regular Aristotle. We can all learn so much from you.


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 06:35 PM

quote:
It hasn't happened because the investigation has been totally stonewalled every step of the way. I mean isn't that obvious?


Issa is one subpoena away from issuing his 100th. If Issa were Obama you would be screaming for leadership. Getting stuff done. Being better at his job.

No it isn't obvious.


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 06:38 PM

quote:
Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


So the child and slave laborers used by capitalistic corporations are free? How do you define freedom?


Bhawk - 7/18/2014 at 06:39 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
But this demonization is going to be the downfall of this country. Never seen anything like it.


Sure you have. There's an entire media and political machine that's been cultivated for well over twenty years that demonizes liberals and Democrats every hour of every day. But, that's OK, right? Or, let me guess, it doesn't exist?


Demonizing individuals like the Koch Brothers because they are politically active and are libertarian and use their money to support causes they believe in is disgusting. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well. It has reached the point where left wing idiots were protesting outside a NYC hospital that David Koch donated hundreds of millions of dollars to. Those fools get their marching orders directly from the DNC and the likes of Harry Reid. I've seen their mailings. Show me where the GOP does that and I will condemn it as well.

Have you EVER condemned anything the left has done?


I've condemned what individuals have done in many instances. I try to avoid condemning millions of people for anything that individuals or a group of individuals have done, as that would be painting with a broad brush. I have been guilty of that in the past but have been trying very hard to avoid doing it now.

Then again, I also try not to pontificate to all I see as beneath me about demonization then turn around and demonize a group of people all in the same breath.


Well your just the perfect picture of reasoned and enlightened discourse. You are a regular Aristotle. We can all learn so much from you.


There's nothing anyone can learn from me and I'm by no means perfect, never claimed to be.

Watching you go from the resident lecturer and judge on not insulting people and condemnations of demonization to lobbing as many insults as you can at everyone you come across has been quite the sight, though. Sad to see a once level-headed guy get so consumed by anger and hatred.


gondicar - 7/18/2014 at 06:55 PM

quote:
Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.

Companies, domestic and foreign, have been falling all over themselves to ship tens of thousands of jobs held by freedom-loving Americans off to communist China, shuttering a countless number of mills and other manufacturing enterprises and turning entire communities in ghost towns. Is that the kind of freedom you are talking about?

[Edited on 7/18/2014 by gondicar]


pops42 - 7/18/2014 at 08:24 PM

quote:
quote:
Organizations that were more likely to cheat on their taxes were scrutinized. Isn't that the IRS's job?

However, if they were breaking the law they should be arrested, tried, and sentenced.

Why has that not happened?

You believe in the 1st Amendment but you don't believe in our judicial process? Are people not innocent until proven guilty?

In my view it is reprehensible to condemn people in public before they are found guilty. I believe that in all cases.

You know stating the Attorney General is "part of the cover up" isn't free speech. Unless you have proof it is libel. That's a pretty heavy charge dude.


It hasn't happened because the investigation has been totally stonewalled every step of the way. I mean isn't that obvious?
you are a hateful whiney little stool sample dougie


Jerry - 7/18/2014 at 08:57 PM

quote:
quote:
Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


So the child and slave laborers used by capitalistic corporations are free? How do you define freedom?


Where are these child and slave laborers? Don't they know it's illegal to own slaves and use underage workers?


BillyBlastoff - 7/18/2014 at 09:38 PM

China, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Uzbekistan... lots of corporations use suppliers who employ child labor or conditions tantamount to slave labor.

Haven't you heard about the working conditions at the Chinese factories producing hardware for Apple? Those employees have been driven to suicide. The factories installed nets on the buildings so the employees couldn't jump to their death.

I agree with you Jerry. Now that corporations are people I think it is high time some of these corporations did time. How many years should Apple get for conspiring to enslave people?


Peachypetewi - 7/18/2014 at 09:49 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Capitalism is No better than communism. That is unbelievable that an American can feel that. If a majority of people really believe this we are screwed. Let the state control everything. Power to the politicians and The IRS.. The hell with freedom. So American!

b
Capitalism and freedom are NOT synonymous. Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with freedom. Ask the child laborers who make your shirts or the Chinese workers building our televisions and computers if they feel free.


China does not have a system of free enterprise. China is an Oligarchy dictatorship that permits certain favored individuals to make profits and keep them. Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


Yet both countries have ended up about the same with 10% of the population controlling 90 % of the wealth and the other 90% of the population controlling 10% of the wealth.


DougMacKenzie - 7/18/2014 at 10:24 PM

quote:
Yet both countries have ended up about the same with 10% of the population controlling 90 % of the wealth and the other 90% of the population controlling 10% of the wealth.

True dat. But our 10% translate to a MUCH higher standard of living. Worldwide, if a single earner makes $36K a year they are in the top 1% of income earners. The vast majority of that top 1% live here in the US.


Jerry - 7/19/2014 at 12:44 AM

quote:
China, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Uzbekistan... lots of corporations use suppliers who employ child labor or conditions tantamount to slave labor.

Haven't you heard about the working conditions at the Chinese factories producing hardware for Apple? Those employees have been driven to suicide. The factories installed nets on the buildings so the employees couldn't jump to their death.

I agree with you Jerry. Now that corporations are people I think it is high time some of these corporations did time. How many years should Apple get for conspiring to enslave people?


Depends on how far up their "corporate ladder" the corruption goes. Are the "owners" high ranking officials, military hierarchy, or just friends with plenty of money.

If we went after domestic companies that knowingly use child and/or slave labor through the courts and ban those products with heavy fines placed on the companies, then we will more than likely see those jobs coming back to the US.

BUT, several problems with that scenario. China buys a lot of the US debt, until the government learns to not outspend income, we can't start to repay the debt. China sends a lot of merchandise here, a fair amount of it
is either counterfeit or low quality knock offs-some are even toxic (drywall with high concentrations of formaldehyde is one). We look the other way (mostly) because of China holding a large part of the debt our government keeps raising the limit on. That needs to stop. Soon.
Apple isn't the only company served by that factory. Almost all electronics firms, except for a few (MSI and Asus are a couple) , use chip-sets or components made there. HP is one of their biggest clients after Apple.

It will be a long, hard, and more expensive trail in acquiring the "must haves" of today's' generations who need to be connected from wake to slumber.


BillyBlastoff - 7/19/2014 at 04:14 AM

quote:
It will be a long, hard, and more expensive trail in acquiring the "must haves" of today's' generations who need to be connected from wake to slumber.


That made me chuckle.

quote:
Depends on how far up their "corporate ladder" the corruption goes. Are the "owners" high ranking officials, military hierarchy, or just friends with plenty of money.


That is why I have a problem with the Supreme Court bestowing personhood to corporations. You can't put a corporation in jail. Those high up the corporate ladder are protected from punitive and compensatory damages. The whole concept of corporate personhood floors me.


DougMacKenzie - 7/19/2014 at 02:01 PM

quote:
That is why I have a problem with the Supreme Court bestowing personhood to corporations. You can't put a corporation in jail. Those high up the corporate ladder are protected from punitive and compensatory damages. The whole concept of corporate personhood floors me.

Totally agree, especially when coupled with the ruling on "corporations" and campaign contributions. I have just abou run out of any faith in our system of "checks and balances" as they currently stand.


MartinD28 - 7/19/2014 at 02:22 PM

quote:
quote:
That is why I have a problem with the Supreme Court bestowing personhood to corporations. You can't put a corporation in jail. Those high up the corporate ladder are protected from punitive and compensatory damages. The whole concept of corporate personhood floors me.

Totally agree, especially when coupled with the ruling on "corporations" and campaign contributions. I have just abou run out of any faith in our system of "checks and balances" as they currently stand.


X2 to both posts.

I guess Mitt Romney got it right when he said, "Corporations are people, my friend."

Looks like the Supreme Court was listening. How pathetic.


alloak41 - 7/19/2014 at 07:38 PM

quote:
Companies, domestic and foreign, have been falling all over themselves to ship tens of thousands of jobs held by freedom-loving Americans off to communist China, shuttering a countless number of mills and other manufacturing enterprises and turning entire communities in ghost towns.
[Edited on 7/18/2014 by gondicar]


Do you think that American companies should be prohibited from any operations outside
of the United States?


Jerry - 7/19/2014 at 07:59 PM

quote:
quote:
It will be a long, hard, and more expensive trail in acquiring the "must haves" of today's' generations who need to be connected from wake to slumber.


That made me chuckle.

quote:
Depends on how far up their "corporate ladder" the corruption goes. Are the "owners" high ranking officials, military hierarchy, or just friends with plenty of money.


That is why I have a problem with the Supreme Court bestowing personhood to corporations. You can't put a corporation in jail. Those high up the corporate ladder are protected from punitive and compensatory damages. The whole concept of corporate personhood floors me.


I'm glad I brought you some humor.

In actuality you can put a corporation in jail. The corporate leadership (Board of Directors) direct the corporation in which actions they take. They "speak" for the corporation thus they are the proxy for the personage of that corporation. Much like if they have the power of attorney to conduct business in the name of the corporation. They, being the direction behind the corporation, should be held responsible for the actions those directions take, and should bear the prison time if it is judged needed.
When we start holding those in charge directly responsible for illegal activities, I think you will see more companies take a more civic approach to doing business.


BillyBlastoff - 7/19/2014 at 08:37 PM

Here are some new developments concerning the contempt charges against Lois Lerner.

quote:
Michael McAuliff Become a fan
mike.mcauliff@huffingtonpost.com

Republicans Freak Out At Learning Reagan Decree Protects Lois Lerner

Posted: 07/19/2014 7:30 am EDT Updated: 07/19/2014 7:59 am EDT

WASHINGTON -- Although legal experts warned at the time that little would come of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) attempt to prosecute former IRS official Lois Lerner for contempt of Congress, Republicans on Issa's Oversight and Government Reform Committee were infuriated to learn Thursday that a key obstacle is a Reagan administration legal opinion.

Issa's committee and then the full House voted to hold Lerner in contempt because she twice asserted her Fifth Amendment right in refusing to testify about her role in the IRS's botched screening of political nonprofits. She led the unit that oversees whether such groups get tax breaks, and was in charge when an inspector general found the IRS used "inappropriate" terms that largely singled out conservative groups.

When Congress finds a person in contempt, the matter is referred to federal prosecutors to be brought before a grand jury.

Legal experts advised against taking the step, and one of them, Gregory Gilchrist, told HuffPost at the time that it was unlikely a prosecutor would take up such a case, even though federal law spells out that pathway.

The reason, he said, is that not only were the facts in the case weak, but courts have historically given prosecutors wide leeway in deciding whether to bring cases.

"I just can't imagine that they would proceed with the case," Gilchrist said. "Unless the U.S. attorney takes a different view of the merits than I do, which I don't expect he will, I don't see any way this ends up in an actual charge."

At Thursday's hearing, several Republicans demanded that Deputy Attorney General James Cole explain why prosecutors had not already moved forward.

"This Congress held Lois Lerner in contempt, geez, almost nine weeks ago," Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said, citing the procedure that's spelled out in law that says the prosecutor's duty "shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury."

But Cole noted that the prosecutor still gets to decide.

"My understanding of the law is that it does not strip the U.S. attorney of the normal discretion that the U.S. attorney has," Cole said. "He proceeds with the case if he believes it is appropriate to do so."

His answer infuriated Republicans, especially Issa, who demanded proof.

"If you think that's discretionary, would you please give that back to us in a legal opinion so that we can change the law to make it clear you're wrong," Issa said.

Issa's Democratic counterpart on the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.) was happy to find that opinion himself, written by conservative lawyer Theodore Olson when he worked for President Ronald Reagan's Office of Legal Counsel in 1984.

"What it says is, 'We believe Congress may not direct the executive to prosecute a particular individual without leaving any discretion to the executive to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred.' That's what the opinion says -- a 1984 opinion dated May 30," Cummings said. "This was a contempt citation coming from Congress that he was talking about."

The Obama administration wouldn't be the first to rely on that opinion. The White House also cited it under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. And although Issa described it as a "new" assertion in the hearing, his own committee heard it in 2012 when Congress voted to hold the attorney general himself in contempt. Indeed, the letter asserting it was written by Cole, and Issa was CC'd.

Watch the hearing above.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.


alloak41 - 7/22/2014 at 06:58 PM

Who's writes the headlines at the Huff Po?

"Freak Out?"


Jerry - 7/26/2014 at 07:02 PM

quote:
quote:
Companies, domestic and foreign, have been falling all over themselves to ship tens of thousands of jobs held by freedom-loving Americans off to communist China, shuttering a countless number of mills and other manufacturing enterprises and turning entire communities in ghost towns.
[Edited on 7/18/2014 by gondicar]


Do you think that American companies should be prohibited from any operations outside
of the United States?


No, I don't think that. I think that if they move productive jobs out of country they should have to pay the American minimum wage to those they employ. If not, then a tariff placed on the product to bring the balance up to the cost if the product had been made at a US factory. Hmmm, not a bad way to help balance the budget, is it?


Muleman1994 - 7/26/2014 at 07:26 PM

With a U.S. corporate tax of 35%, the highest in the world, it is no wonder that American companies are leaving.
Of note: General Electric, which has revenue of billions of dollars every year, pays no U.S. taxes.
Pharmaceutical companies are running out of the U.S. fast.
Apple keeps billions of dollars of profits off shore to avoid the excessive U.S. taxes.

The Republicans want to drop the U.S. corporate tax rate to 20% and provide incentives to manufacture goods in The U.S.

The Democrats refuse to even discuss that issue. An attitude similar to the Democrats in The Senate refusing to vote on 331 bills passed by The House of Representatives.

But of course it is "those Republicans" that are obstructing Obama's agenda...



gondicar - 7/26/2014 at 08:40 PM

quote:
The Democrats refuse to even discuss that issue. An attitude similar to the Democrats in The Senate refusing to vote on 331 bills passed by The House of Representatives.

330 of them were to repeal Obamacare.


Muleman1994 - 7/26/2014 at 09:34 PM

"330 of them were to repeal Obamacare."

Wrong son. 39 included language to repeal Obama's Gov't takeover of the healthcare insurance system. The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.

The facts seem to elude you.


BillyBlastoff - 7/26/2014 at 09:35 PM

I love all the folks crying about the Obama economy. People like this idiot from Florida who threatened his employees that they would lose their jobs if Obama were re-elected. How do you think he is doing now?

quote:
FRI JUL 25, 2014 AT 07:32 AM PDT
That FL CEO Who Said He'd FIRE Everyone if Obama Elected? Guess What Happened...
bySemDemFollow
198 Comments / 198 New
"The Queen of Versailles" was a film documentary based on the sleazy time-share mogul, David Siegel, and his wife, Jackie. David had major financial troubles following Bush's 2008 economic crises. He even had to stop work on his private home, dubbed "Versailles", which was to be the largest home in the U.S. Poor guy.

Naturally, Obama was to blame for this. As you may recall during the peak of the presidential campaign, Mr. Siegel penned a letter threatening to fire all his employees and close down his Orlando-based company, Westgate, if Obama was elected. A snippet from the full letter:

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.
So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. While the media wants to tell you to believe the "1 percenters" are bad, I'm telling you they are not. They create most of the jobs. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the "1%"; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country.

You see, I can no longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities. If that happens, you can find me in the Caribbean sitting on the beach, under a palm tree, retired, and with no employees to worry about.

Signed, your boss

Yeah, that happened.
This wasn't the first time either. In 2000, Siegel did something just as slimy. He put negative articles about Gore in every paycheck, and also forced his managers to conduct an inappropriate survey on who was voting for Bush and Gore. Those that said Bush were "required" to register to vote. Ironic, considering how Bush's economy almost put him out of business.

Fortunately for everyone, this time, his despicable letter threatening to fire everyone backfired. Obama won Florida handily. The press mocked Siegel. We all expected this time-share sleazeball to retire and close his company. But then a funny thing happened...

Instead of his company being dragged down by the evil black man in the Oval Office, his company started flourishing again. The Obama recovery saw companies make record profits, and Siegel's was no exception. Today, Westgate is doing better than ever. Under Obama, we also have had the best stock market in history, so investors like Siegel made out like bandits. (Obama=worst socialist ever).

Instead of firing, Siegel has had to hire more people. Since his employees were finally able to get reasonably-priced health insurance, he was free to invest his money in all kinds of things. He bought the Orlando Predators. He also bought a massive hotel/casino in Las Vegas. Saints be praised, he was even able to finally start work again on his gaudy, 90,000 square foot house complete with a bowling alley, a 30-car garage, and a roller-skating rink.

Turns out that he never had any intention to flee to the Caribbean.

Turns out Obama has been great for him.

Turns out he was just another rich, entitled a$$hole.


quote:


BillyBlastoff - 7/26/2014 at 09:37 PM

quote:
The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.

The facts seem to elude you.



Delusional thinking.


gondicar - 7/27/2014 at 01:14 AM

quote:
"330 of them were to repeal Obamacare."

Wrong son. 39 included language to repeal Obama's Gov't takeover of the healthcare insurance system. The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.

The facts seem to elude you.


What facts?


Muleman1994 - 7/27/2014 at 01:25 AM

quote:
quote:
"330 of them were to repeal Obamacare."

Wrong son. 39 included language to repeal Obama's Gov't takeover of the healthcare insurance system. The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.

The facts seem to elude you.


What facts?


_________________________________________

Put your newspaper down and read the Congressional Record.


BillyBlastoff - 7/27/2014 at 01:51 AM

quote:
Wrong son. 39 included language to repeal Obama's Gov't takeover of the healthcare insurance system. The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.


Can you substantiate that claim? Of course you can't. It isn't true.

Regardless. Why do you want to live in a country where people don't have health care?

I don't understand how any human with any compassion would want there fellow humans denied treatment and forced into bankruptcy due to illness.

I find that thinking repulsive.


gondicar - 7/27/2014 at 02:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
"330 of them were to repeal Obamacare."

Wrong son. 39 included language to repeal Obama's Gov't takeover of the healthcare insurance system. The Republican were trying to do what two-thirds of the American people want done.

The facts seem to elude you.


What facts?


_________________________________________

Put your newspaper down and read the Congressional Record.



You first.


dougrhon - 7/28/2014 at 04:55 PM

quote:
quote:
Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


So the child and slave laborers used by capitalistic corporations are free? How do you define freedom?


The right to profit from the use of your own capital. The equal protections of the law with access to independent courts. Among other things. What American companies use slave labor?


sixty8 - 7/28/2014 at 07:31 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Capitalism and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot have enterprise without freedom and you cannot have freedom without enterprise.


So the child and slave laborers used by capitalistic corporations are free? How do you define freedom?


The right to profit from the use of your own capital. The equal protections of the law with access to independent courts. Among other things. What American companies use slave labor?


Try Apple to start. They outsource jobs to China where the workers are treated like animals and forced to work crazy hours for little pay. There were recent reports of high suicide rate among their China employees. I am quite sure there are tons of profitable American companies taking advantage and outsourcing jobs to circumvent workers rights issues and take advantage of slave labor. All to make every last dime profit for their share holders and the largest bonus checks in their pockets at the expense of our US workers. Republicans seem to think it is perfectly fine. That is why many of them want the minimum wage dropped completely. They would love for profitable American companies to be able to pay workers anything they can turning them into slave workers. Why bother having minimum wage if profitable companies don't even want to pay that and send their jobs overseas anyway??? Nothing will change until we punish profitable countries with higher tax rates. Lower rates for companies who keep their work forces here. We need to stop the hypocritical use of slave labor overseas. We have workers rights laws in this country and they should have to be followed regardless of where you set up shop. What we are basically saying now is that slave labor is OK as long as it isn't our people doing it and our companies can circumvent the laws by outsourcing. So they break the law and circumvent the laws by treating foreign workers like animals, something we wouldn't allow in this country??? Hypocrisy at it's very highest level.


BillyBlastoff - 7/28/2014 at 07:49 PM

dougrhon - How have you missed the human rights violations at the FoxConn factory used by Apple?

How have you missed out on all the child labor stories taking place in the garment industry?


pops42 - 7/28/2014 at 08:46 PM

dougie has no use for facts when they don't support his ideology.


MartinD28 - 7/28/2014 at 11:57 PM

quote:
dougie has no use for facts when they don't support his ideology.


C'mon pops, didn't you get his lecture last week on his opinions?


Jerry - 7/29/2014 at 02:07 AM

How about checking what the Democrats in the House are telling the Democrats in the Senate.
They're pissed about the Senate not voting on bills the House passed for Veterans care, protecting females in the military, tobacco smuggling, and other issues.

Seems that there are quite a few bills sponsored by Dems that pass the "Republican controlled House", and get stuck in limbo once they get into the "Democrat controlled Senate".


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
http://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=135750