Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Who's Online Now
1 members (tif), 34 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30234 03/11/13 04:04 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Quote:
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

I don't think that George is going to appreciate that you characterized his posts as "sledge-hammer harangues"


I wouldn't for an instant put George's posts in the same category as yours smile

And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30236 03/11/13 05:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.


From a man who posts such content rich messages, I will take that as a compliment.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30237 03/11/13 05:42 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Gee Steve, ya think?

Personally, I had never heard of the "dailycurrant". But then again, I haven't heard of most of the 93 Billion websites out there either. I'm guessing that most here have never heard of this site either.

It would have been a big red flag had I read the headlines off to the side. I didn't.

Are you guys even reading what you write before you hit the submit button?

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30239 03/11/13 06:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
wagga Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251
Likes: 1
If nothing else, this thread should underline that in addition to spelling, grammar & syntax, fact checking is fast sinking.

In a respected aviation journal, referencing the two-month old crisis with Boeing's 787:

"Conner said that Boeing has used some 200 engineers to conduct "probably” more than 200,000 hours of analysis and tests to arrive at a "very comprehensive” solution."

Methinks PR just added a zero or 2 to make it look better.


Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wagga #30241 03/11/13 07:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
If nothing else, this thread should underline that in addition to spelling, grammar & syntax, fact checking is fast sinking.


Interesting conclusion

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30245 03/12/13 08:43 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Originally Posted By: KevinR
Originally Posted By: tdtz
Quote:
In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

I don't think that George is going to appreciate that you characterized his posts as "sledge-hammer harangues"


I wouldn't for an instant put George's posts in the same category as yours smile

And perhaps harangues is wrong word. Mindless polemics may be more apt.


Let's see we have someone complaining about harangues and mindless polemics whose contributions to this thread have been...

No need for a quiz. Most of us know that's the party which can propose actual solutions, is able to form sentences beyond two letters, who regard trans-vaginal probes as a part of public policy as an abomination, and who may well hold the Presidency for the next 12 years.

Any questions, Mr West?

---

Interesting graphic from Media Matters

---

Paul Krugman has an interesting piece today in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinio...130308&_r=0

---

Originally Posted By: tdtz
...More later on the Krugman piece. It deserves a spotlight.


It certainly does. He didn't win the Nobel prize because he posted economic gibberish under a pseudonym on an internet BB.

At least there's something I can agree with you on!

---

In case anyone is still reading the sledge-hammer harangues in this thread:

Paul Krugman Declares Personal Bankruptcy

Paul Krugman

_____

I do find more than a bit irony in this.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30246 03/12/13 09:02 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
G
Woodsy Guy
Offline
Woodsy Guy
G
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 202
Must not hit Reply.
Must not hit Reply!!
Ach! Nein, neiiiiiiiiinnnnn!


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.
Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30248 03/12/13 11:20 AM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Another avalanche of snippets, taken out of context from previous posts. This kind of stuff is pointless and endless baiting.

Not one mention of the anything related to the topic whatsoever: Yosemite, Congress or Sequester.

Interesting experiment into political discussion on a hiking forum. The outcome is exactly as expected.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30260 03/12/13 07:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Actually SierraNevada, they are not snippets but entire posts. That's all there is and there is no more.

Maybe, you could tell me where any these offering are on point? Youn know sequestration or reduction in rate of spending growth.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
wbtravis #30265 03/12/13 08:41 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Excuse me for not going back to check if these cut/paste hacks were entire posts or not. Does anyone really care? A shotgun blast of BS is bad form regardless.

IMHO, the best forum for political discussions is climbing up a long hot dusty trail when every word takes effort, and you're heading toward the same destination. If you strip away the party affiliations and the echo chambers, and get down to the basics, people are not all that different. But it's not easy to get past all that when there's so much money to be made by getting people all stirred up.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30272 03/13/13 08:52 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
I have been impressed with your snark over the past few posts. If someone does not agree with you come up with words belittle that person. Words like echo chambers, snippets and hacks rather than address the issue, which if I'm not mistaken is sequestration and budgeting not the musing of Paul Krugman on subjects other than sequestration and budget.

Kevin R has added nothing to this discussion and started it down degradation road early on. I just pointed it out. Sorry, if this offended your tender sensibilities.




Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
SierraNevada #30274 03/13/13 09:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,512
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,512
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
But it's not easy to get past all that when there's so much money to be made by getting people all stirred up.

Over the years, I've had a hard time even listening to the hard-line commentary of so many radio hosts. I really found their abrasiveness irritating. I couldn't understand why there were so many of them.

But now I realize, just as SN's words point out: They're making lots of money stirring people up. It is not in their best interest to find anything resembling a consensus or compromise, because the people that listen to them would no longer listen. And without listeners, they wouldn't have sponsors, and without sponsors....

Politics is completely corrupted by money: from politicians needing all that money to advertise to the masses in those 30-second sound bites, to Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30276 03/13/13 10:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.


Steve, some may be willing to admit that Limbaugh and his politics are so-called nutcase hardline rightwing if some on the other side are willing to admit that Obama and his politics are just as nutcase abnormal but on the left. This apparently is the impasse.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30278 03/13/13 10:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,512
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,512
Likes: 103
It is pretty difficult to agree with that when the President was elected by a majority of voters in this country. There are extremists on the right and on the left. There is no way I'd label any President that way, no matter how much I disliked him.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30279 03/13/13 11:37 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Quote:
Politics is completely corrupted by money: from politicians needing all that money to advertise to the masses in those 30-second sound bites, to Limbaugh and so many other extremists pandering to the wingnuts.


No kidding, we have people like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Al Sharpton, Candy Crowley, Bill Maher and all of the daytime chat shows like "the View" feeding the uninformed voting public a bunch of sensationalist pablum to keep the ratings up.

Politics in general is corrupt. That is why it is a good idea to give our politicians less power, not more. It's also a good idea to have a budget and to require our government to operate with fiscal responsibility. If they don't, we should demand that they start making cuts. Especially in areas were they have strayed off into areas where they have no constitutional right or power to spend money.

I believe that a strong case can be made to justify the activities of the Department of the Interior and specifically the National Parks and National Forests. And there just isn't a whole lot of fiscal abuse going on in the DoI.

We should all be screaming at our government for destroying our economy with out of control entitlement programs. These are exacerbated with lax border security and an illegal immigrant policy that allows illegal immigrants to stay and we reward them with various entitlement benefits.

Because of our entitlement programs and illegal immigrant policies we lose legitimate services for legitimate citizens.

But if y'all want to keep all of those entitlement programs, then something has got to give. And it looks like our government has chosen the national parks as one of the unessential services. It is the people voting for entitlement programs who are putting access to Yosemite and the White House at jeopardy.

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
tdtz #30286 03/13/13 03:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
This evening MSNBC is airing the Ed Shultz' interview with the fellow who recorded the "47%" speech Mitt Romney gave at a private fundraiser. Just wanted to point that out for all you 'baggers. :grin:

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
KevinR #30287 03/13/13 03:43 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
T
Offline
T
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 511
Isn't that special.

-just teabaggin liberals whenever I see em!

Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Steve C #30291 03/13/13 04:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
H
Offline
H
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: Steve C
It is pretty difficult to agree with that when the President was elected by a majority of voters in this country. There are extremists on the right and on the left. There is no way I'd label any President that way, no matter how much I disliked him.


Just as not all Repub voters are teabaggers, not all Dem voters are extremists like their president. If anyone does not agree that our president is an extremist, then the Emperor has no clothes.

I had hoped that enough "Blue Dog" Democrat voters (like my cousin) would have jumped ship because of the fiscal irresponsibility (the original topic here). I had hoped that enough traditional but unhappy Democrat voters (like one of my employees) had changed sides. She did. Apparently there were still plenty that just robotically voting for their party no matter what ("Yellow Dog Democrats"). Yes, I have voted on both sides, so I can say that I have put my money where my mouth is.

On that note, I think it is time to sign off.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30292 03/13/13 05:02 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
Originally Posted By: Harvey Lankford
Just as not all Repub voters are teabaggers, not all Dem voters are extremists like their president. If anyone does not agree that our president is an extremist, then the Emperor has no clothes.


Harvey - to call President Obama an extremist is completely ludicrous. If I were to compare his positions to long-established politicians, then Bob Dole comes immediately to mind. Dole was a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican.


Re: Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering
Harvey Lankford #30297 03/13/13 09:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,158
As Steve wrote, no President could really be called an extremist, especially when they win re-election. The majority opinion is, by definition, normal. If normal appears extreme, it's because the viewer is looking at reality from an extreme position, far right or far left.

As for fiscal irresponsibility, Reagan and Bush Jr. are clearly the champs at this, despite the rhetoric. Both of them reversed a positive trend and put us on a steep trajectory of increasing debt. One quote says it all, by Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." That is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility in my opinion.

Actually, I defend Reagan for using Keynesian economic theory to jump start the economy in the early 80's with deficit spending (tax cuts and military build up). Unfortunately, he didn't adjust course once the economy got moving. That is the tricky part, to start paying down the debt once the economy recovers. In the end, he tripled the national debt in 8 years from about $1 trillion to $3 trillion.

I also defend Reagan for being flexible on taxes, both raising and lower them as he saw fit. He tinkered with capitol gains, income rates, payroll taxes, and deductions going both up and down. With such a flexible approach to tax policy, he could never win a nomination in today's Republican party. Ironically, as Governor of California he proposed the largest tax increase in state history.

The best chance we ever had at paying down our debt was at the end of the Clinton administration. The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever. In 2001, Bush's budget estimated that there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next ten years. Instead of staying the course and paying down the national debt, he doubled the debt from $5.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion.

So if you're worried about national debt, look at the champs who got us where we are today. It's absurd that the obstructions are crying about the debt while preventing a balanced approach to the problem - the only approach that actually worked in recent history.

Last edited by SierraNevada; 03/13/13 10:25 PM.
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.071s Queries: 55 (0.063s) Memory: 0.6896 MB (Peak: 0.8427 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-22 20:32:23 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS