Political Roundtable - Part VII

[Induveca]

Zonk take your meds.

Rare form today my friend. With you on propaganda, goes both ways. But Ukraine you did state it was "the EU's problem". The agreement where the U.S./other NATO Nations/Russia signed in the 90s called for Russia to never annex the Ukraine and respect its sovereignty.

With NATO backing that, it is your problem. Unless of course you'd like to curse/scream your way out of why we shouldn't be engaged.

If NATO loses credibility what signal does it send to Russia/China/ISIS? Are you advocating for isolationism? While I can understand the isolationist stance on ISIS, Russia/China are a much larger problem if they smell weakness. China's is already acting on that in the South China Sea. Russia in the Ukraine.....and if not for our show of force Georgia was already in their sights.

[TheSecretWeapon]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/?iid=ob_homepage_featured_pool&iref=obnetwork

Just go get people more riled up. These are the types of variables, as a scientist, make me question the level of impact humanity has on "climate change". In terms of "solar events" such as the one outlined above, we have zero impact. These events can cause mini ice ages or, in the opposite direction melt polar ice caps. Are these merely checks and balances in a vast organism of which we understand little to nothing?

I don't doubt pollution as being destructive but it's difficult for me to quantify the impact when there is no real consistent "index" of heat emitted by the sun, or at least none that go back further than the 70s. It's still a crapshoot in the scientific community.

The groups that are predicting this to occur, basically are in the camp that greenhouse gases have almost no impact in this scenario. The other camp is screaming a massive decrease in solar output won't matter and we'll keep getting hotter.

For me the math seems pretty easy, 10-15% decrease in solar output will make things colder? All other variables remaining the same.....

Anyways if interested do a search on Valentina Zharkova.

Read this today from Phil Plaitt. It's in response to stuff like this article, to which Plaitt basically says...nah.

[TGW]

socialized medicine scheme, radioactive. Hmm. Fair and balance source I'm sure.

"it also threatens to import violent crime into the suburbs while lowering property values
and negatively impacting local schools."

that has a certain incendiary ring to it.

LOL white people are scared the evil blacks are going to move into their neighborhood?

Popper is getting more pathetic as this thread goes on.

[popper]

socialized medicine scheme, radioactive. Hmm. Fair and balance source I'm sure.

"it also threatens to import violent crime into the suburbs while lowering property values
and negatively impacting local schools."

that has a certain incendiary ring to it.

LOL white people are scared the evil blacks are going to move into their neighborhood?

Popper is getting more pathetic as this thread goes on.

Maybe you'd be kind enough TGW to screen my articles for the thread before I post them. We can call this the TGW Approved Political Round-table. I don't deserve all the blame though for posting the article. Shouldn't the reporter that wrote it be fired? Shouldn't the publisher be boycotted, fined, or driven out of business? It's truly pathetic when people present viewpoints that don't comport with our own.

[dobrojim]

Popper, you should feel entitled to post whatever you want. You should also be prepared to accept
other's comments/criticisms on what you posted. Maybe each side can learn something useful from
the other.

[Zonkerbl]

It's a false equivalence to say that the deliberate manipulation of the truth perpetrated by the right is at all comparable to desperate attempts to defend the truth by progressives.

Two completely different things.

It's also a false choice to say that if we don't send american soldiers over to die meaninglessly in Ukraine we are not supporting our agreements in NATO. It's such an idiotic argument, Indu, I'm surprised someone as smart as you would even propose it.

And before you protest that's not what you said, pot, consider who you are labeling black.

You can't put me on the defensive on this issue. I will not apologize for demanding a strong national interest argument for sending american soldiers to die. We owe it to them to assign the value to their lives that their honor and service deserves. To do any less is un-american. And you're goddam right I get angry about it. I grew up near Wright Pat air force base - basically all of my friends growing up are from families who served or served themselves. I take it very personally when people apparently don't give a **** about them. **** you and your cavalier attitude towards committing us to needless military adventurism.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Agree completely with dobro's thoughts, popper. Post whatever you like, but understand that people will comment and/or criticize.

[dobrojim]

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

[popper]

Popper, you should feel entitled to post whatever you want. You should also be prepared to accept
other's comments/criticisms on what you posted. Maybe each side can learn something useful from
the other.

Appreciate that jim. I enjoy this thread and the debates that ensue from competing viewpoints. Unfortunately, there are several participants on this thread that resort to name calling and personnel attacks when I introduce an article or idea that they take issue with. I'm a big boy and laugh it off most of the time but it does get old. It's also very immature. I've been called pathetic, racists, and other names just for holding a different viewpoint.

Another thing that gets old - I don't think I've ever posted an article from Fox News nor have I ever quoted from an interview that took place on Fox News. As I've stated here before, I don't even watch Fox News nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh. Yet every time I post a conservative viewpoint here I get the same old "he's just regurgitating something he saw on Fox". It's an ignorant response and allows the accuser to dodge any real debate on the substance of my post. How would they like it if every time they post something I bleat out "he's just repeating MSNBC propaganda" As I said, it's an ignorant way to engage others in any kind of serious discussion.

[Induveca]

It's a false equivalence to say that the deliberate manipulation of the truth perpetrated by the right is at all comparable to desperate attempts to defend the truth by progressives.

Two completely different things.

It's also a false choice to say that if we don't send american soldiers over to die meaninglessly in Ukraine we are not supporting our agreements in NATO. It's such an idiotic argument, Indu, I'm surprised someone as smart as you would even propose it.

And before you protest that's not what you said, pot, consider who you are labeling black.

You can't put me on the defensive on this issue. I will not apologize for demanding a strong national interest argument for sending american soldiers to die. We owe it to them to assign the value to their lives that their honor and service deserves. To do any less is un-american. And you're goddam right I get angry about it. I grew up near Wright Pat air force base - basically all of my friends growing up are from families who served or served themselves. I take it very personally when people apparently don't give a **** about them. **** you and your cavalier attitude towards committing us to needless military adventurism.

Protecting our allies as promised? Living up to obligations of signed treaties? Keeping Russia boxed in until Putin either backs down or is ousted?

55,000 U.S. troops are sitting in Germany and Italy on standby for NATO missions. They are *already* deployed, and have been for 60 years. Placing them strategically on Eastern European borders (which we're already doing) is a responsible, logical chess move.

[popper]

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

When I drive down to my friend’s hunting cabin south of Lake Anna I pass a trailer park. It’s inhabited almost exclusively by white people. There is a ton of crime that takes place there and the Sheriffs are in and out of the place on an almost daily basis. If the President were to have instructed HUD to integrate the residents of the trailer park into the middle of Lake Anna’s most affluent neighborhood then one would logically conclude that crime will probably go up and property values will probably go down. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the pathologies associated with poverty, drugs and the lack of education. Should a reporter not comment on the likely outcome of such a policy? I don’t know.

[nate33]

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

Here's a start:

[dckingsfan]

I am not sure how I feel about this. I like that we are enforcing the rules - I don't like that the windfall goes to the prosecutors. I feel it is a little like the Ferguson, MO issue where the fines were used to support local government (one-fifth of total operating revenue).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-money-laundering-case-yields-116-million-bounty-for-queens-d-a-1436891783

[dobrojim]

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

When I drive down to my friend’s hunting cabin south of Lake Anna I pass a trailer park. It’s inhabited almost exclusively by white people. There is a ton of crime that takes place there and the Sheriffs are in and out of the place on an almost daily basis. If the President were to have instructed HUD to integrate the residents of the trailer park into the middle of Lake Anna’s most affluent neighborhood then one would logically conclude that crime will probably go up and property values will probably go down. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the pathologies associated with poverty, drugs and the lack of education. Should a reporter not comment on the likely outcome of such a policy? I don’t know.

The article you quoted specifically talked about race. That's what it was about. It was pure racially based fear mongering.

It said nothing about socio-economic status.

Bias: The Big Three news networks all punted on covering one of the Obama regime's most radical policies: New rules forcing cities to redraw the racial makeup of suburban neighborhoods. Why the hush-up? Politics.

[popper]

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

When I drive down to my friend’s hunting cabin south of Lake Anna I pass a trailer park. It’s inhabited almost exclusively by white people. There is a ton of crime that takes place there and the Sheriffs are in and out of the place on an almost daily basis. If the President were to have instructed HUD to integrate the residents of the trailer park into the middle of Lake Anna’s most affluent neighborhood then one would logically conclude that crime will probably go up and property values will probably go down. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the pathologies associated with poverty, drugs and the lack of education. Should a reporter not comment on the likely outcome of such a policy? I don’t know.

The article you quoted specifically talked about race. That's what it was about. It was pure racially based fear mongering.

It said nothing about socio-economic status.

Bias: The Big Three news networks all punted on covering one of the Obama regime's most radical policies: New rules forcing cities to redraw the racial makeup of suburban neighborhoods. Why the hush-up? Politics.

That's because Obama's new HUD policy is specifically about race. How else could the reporter address the issue?

[dobrojim]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

[TheSecretWeapon]

When I drive down to my friend’s hunting cabin south of Lake Anna I pass a trailer park. It’s inhabited almost exclusively by white people. There is a ton of crime that takes place there and the Sheriffs are in and out of the place on an almost daily basis. If the President were to have instructed HUD to integrate the residents of the trailer park into the middle of Lake Anna’s most affluent neighborhood then one would logically conclude that crime will probably go up and property values will probably go down. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the pathologies associated with poverty, drugs and the lack of education. Should a reporter not comment on the likely outcome of such a policy? I don’t know.

The article you quoted specifically talked about race. That's what it was about. It was pure racially based fear mongering.

It said nothing about socio-economic status.

Bias: The Big Three news networks all punted on covering one of the Obama regime's most radical policies: New rules forcing cities to redraw the racial makeup of suburban neighborhoods. Why the hush-up? Politics.

That's because Obama's new HUD policy is specifically about race. How else could the reporter address the issue?

Have you actually read any of the primary source info on AFFH, or just what the conservative media says is in it?

[popper]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

The point I was trying to make was that if the new HUD policy moved the white trailer park inhabitants into affluent white neighborhoods the reporter could/would make the same exact observation (i.e. crime rates will likely go up and property values will likely go down).

[TheSecretWeapon]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Having read the actual rule, it seems like some conservative media sources are doing what partisans often do -- twisting what's there to sound sinister and scary. Basically, the rule is providing information to localities to increase compliance with the Fair Housing Act, which passed in 1968. A review in 2010 found inconsistent enforcement in local jurisdictions around the country, which (in plain English) means the review found that there was housing discrimination. Which means that while there are laws on the books intended to desegregate society, those laws aren't being enforced, and the result is that society remains segregated in ways that have significant affects on the peoples' lives. "People" meaning, primarily, people of color.

There's nothing in the rule about forcing neighborhoods to desegregate. There's nothing that will require local jurisdictions to move blacks into white neighborhoods. It's just not there. Except via the contortions of partisan media.

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

Yeah.

[popper]

The article you quoted specifically talked about race. That's what it was about. It was pure racially based fear mongering.

It said nothing about socio-economic status.

That's because Obama's new HUD policy is specifically about race. How else could the reporter address the issue?

Have you actually read any of the primary source info on AFFH, or just what the conservative media says is in it?

I haven't read the bill but have read half a dozen articles on it. I think the concept of removing hidden barriers to fair housing for minorities and disabled individuals has merit. I'm not sure why the FEDS need to be involved. Can't the individual states decide how best to integrate their communities? Like most big govt. solutions I doubt it will work out well. It reminds me of the busing fiasco of yesteryear.