The New American Politics thread

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama isn't the problem, just like Bush wasn't the problem, or Clinton wasn't the problem, or any other President before then. Congress is the problem as has been for years.

All the good any President wants to do they corrupt, and replace it with their heavily influenced and paid for by big business policies.

Until THAT changes, nothing will be fixed.

Everything isn't black and white. Sometimes it's the President and Bush was the problem.

[Thor]

Enjoyed this article.

Independence Day Special: Thirteen Facts About America Conservatives Would Like You to Forget

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...-You-to-Forget

1. Conservatives opposed the Founding Fathers, the American Revolution and a lot of other righteous stuff as well.
By definition a conservative is one who wishes to preserve and/or restore traditional values and institutions, i.e. to “conserve” the established order. No surprise then that 18th century American conservatives wanted no part of breaking away from the British Empire and the comforting bonds of monarchical government. Those anti-revolutionary conservatives were called Tories, the name still used for the conservative party in England. The Founding Fathers? As radically left-wing as they came in the 1770s. The Boston Tea Party? The "Occupy Wall Street" of its day.

Some of the other "traditional" values supported by conservatives over the course of American history have included slavery (remember that the Republican Party was on the liberal fringe in 1860), religious persecution, the subjugation of women and minorities, obstacles to immigration, voter suppression, prohibition and segregation. Conservatives started off on the wrong side of American history, and that's where they've been ever since.

[CaramonLS]

Conservatives are purposely making their cars spew Black Smoke to protest Obama and the Environment

Pickup trucks customized to spew black smoke into the air are quickly becoming the newest weapon in the culture wars.

"Coal Rollers" are diesel trucks modified with chimneys and equipment that can force extra fuel into the engine causing dark black smoke to pour out of the chimney stacks. These modifications are not new, but as Slate's Dave Weigel pointed out on Thursday, "rolling coal" has begun to take on a political dimension with pickup drivers increasingly viewing their smokestacks as a form of protest against environmentalists and Obama administration emissions regulations.

...

"I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all," the salesperson said. "If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that. To get a single stack on my truck—that’s my way of giving them the finger. You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you."

http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...k-smoke-2014-7

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Conservatives are purposely making their cars spew Black Smoke to protest Obama and the Environment

http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...k-smoke-2014-7

We were talking about Jimmy Carter earlier and here's another example of where he was proven correct.

Had the US continued to implement his vehicle mileage standards, consumption of oil, foreign and domestic, would be drastically reduced by this point.

'Coal Rollers' wouldn't exist.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Some Redneck

"You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you."

I wonder if these people understand they have to breathe it too.

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I would think it would be a "land of opportunity" that come to the country legally. These people are coming up to the US illegally. I don't argue that the laws need to be changed, however, until the laws are changed than the current laws should be followed.

Most of what I've seen/heard from Perry strikes me that he's anti-immigration in general.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Conservatives are purposely making their cars spew Black Smoke to protest Obama and the Environment

http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...k-smoke-2014-7

I like to tell people like that to pretend their garage is the earths atmosphere. Burn through a tank of gas while sitting in the vehicle windows open and all the garage doors closed

[Thor]

Wow, just when you think these idiots can't get any stupider.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

We were talking about Jimmy Carter earlier and here's another example of where he was proven correct.

Had the US continued to implement his vehicle mileage standards, consumption of oil, foreign and domestic, would be drastically reduced by this point.

'Coal Rollers' wouldn't exist.

At the time of this legislation change, and the removal of lead from gasoline, the new cars suffered from worse fuel mileage than before, as well as horrid performance. To combat this, the industry started lowing compression in their naturally aspirated engines to at least attempt to burn off all the unleaded fuel and to stop detonation, thus turning them all into gutless pigs. Technology has caught up now though.

There really is no need for fossil fuels anymore when it comes to the transportation sector (almost), however our economy simply cannot walk away from oil and gas. However if we really want to make a change for the better for mother earth than we have some hard choices to make.

And no, I'm not talking about a carbon tax or how many carbon credits David Suzuki should buy before flashing up the tour bus.

[Azure]

I dunno. While I don't always agree with regulations, I do think they can be done in a way that benefits almost everyone. The economy, the environment, cost aspect, labor aspect, etc, etc.

Where would transportation be if there would have been stricter mileage standards 50 years ago?

Tax more of the things we don't want, and subsidize the things we do want. One of the Google co-founders said that yesterday at a fireside chat. Makes sense, really. Carbon tax, and subsidize self driving or electric cars because it calls for not only a benefit to the environment, but more efficient transportation systems, which is also a benefit for the environment and the economy if you really think about. Traffic jams(who turns off their vehicle)....one car per person which is highly inefficient and dumb if you ask me, less work time, wasted resources, etc, etc.

The problem is pushing companies to innovate that way, which seems to be a huge problem.

Why are we still subsidizing oil and gas companies? We should be taxing them and subsidizing companies like Tesla and the arm of Google that does self driving cars. All the government would need to do is divert the resources.

Of course, the carbon capture and storage part of a oil and gas company could be subsidized, while the oil exploration part of a company could be taxed.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Thor

Wow, just when you think these idiots can't get any stupider.

Don't forget childish and pathetic.

[PeteMoss]

You always hear about the gun control debate in the US when there's a mass shooting, but this just blew my mind:

82 people shot, 14 fatally in Chicago over the July 4th weekend (five by police).

82 people!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5439185.story

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You always hear about the gun control debate in the US when there's a mass shooting, but this just blew my mind:

82 people shot, 14 fatally in Chicago over the July 4th weekend (five by police).

82 people!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5439185.story

dat comment section

[Hemi-Cuda]

So more people died by gunshot in Chicago on a weekend than get murdered by any means in Calgary over an entire year. Mind blowing

[wittynickname]

Gotta love a country that wants to strictly restrict access to birth control, but sees no need to have any control over firearms. Pro-life indeed.

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

gotta love a country that wants to strictly restrict access to birth control, but sees no need to have any control over gangs. Pro-life indeed.

fyp

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

fyp

[ernie]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You always hear about the gun control debate in the US when there's a mass shooting, but this just blew my mind:

82 people shot, 14 fatally in Chicago over the July 4th weekend (five by police).

82 people!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5439185.story

Chicago is the example used to show why gun control doesn't work. 'Cause you know Chicago has gun control and it doesn't work....surrounding cities, counties, states etc as obvious reasons why one single entity having gun control can not work be damned.....

The best part is I have guys here at work that point to this and on one hand to say "See gun control doesn't work!" and in the same breath say "if Chicago didn't have gun control a guy carrying could have taken out those responsible!"

[Shnabdabber]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why don't you go get all indignant with Chicago PD? They blame the weekend shooting rampage on gang activity, the drug trade and illegally obtained firearms used in the commission of crimes by gang members. Chicago PD couldn't care less about legitimate firearms owners, about four years ago they refocused their efforts on combating gangs and illegal possession of a firearm, ie dudes with a violent criminal history and the results have been quite positive with a steady decline in homicide in the last 4 years or so. To date in 2014 Chicago is enjoying its lowest homicide rate since 1963.

As well, those that qualify in Chicago can legally obtain a concealed carry permit. In fact, just over a year ago when CC returned to Chicago, the first week saw more applicants for concealed carry than for Obama care. Concealed carry has not shown to be a problem whatsoever, over the weekend in question it saved four lives in one incident.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5324984.story

HemiCuda brought up a point regarding the rate of violence in Calgary compared to a place like Chicago. Really, you would be hard pressed to find a better city to live in than Calgary. But if you were to compare the social structure, demographics and employment opportunities, it would paint a much different picture between the two cities. Recognize that and you may recognize that in Chicago there is a social problem, not a gun problem.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Why don't you go get all indignant with Chicago PD? They blame the weekend shooting rampage on gang activity, the drug trade and illegally obtained firearms used in the commission of crimes by gang members. Chicago PD couldn't care less about legitimate firearms owners, about four years ago they refocused their efforts on combating gangs and illegal possession of a firearm, ie dudes with a violent criminal history and the results have been quite positive with a steady decline in homicide in the last 4 years or so. To date in 2014 Chicago is enjoying its lowest homicide rate since 1963.

As well, those that qualify in Chicago can legally obtain a concealed carry permit. In fact, just over a year ago when CC returned to Chicago, the first week saw more applicants for concealed carry than for Obama care. Concealed carry has not shown to be a problem whatsoever, over the weekend in question it saved four lives in one incident.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5324984.story

HemiCuda brought up a point regarding the rate of violence in Calgary compared to a place like Chicago. Really, you would be hard pressed to find a better city to live in than Calgary. But if you were to compare the social structure, demographics and employment opportunities, it would paint a much different picture between the two cities. Recognize that and you may recognize that in Chicago there is a social problem, not a gun problem.

Those numbers are complete BS. The police have been switching homicides to manslaughters instead, just to reduce the #'s. There is no drop in murders at all.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Why don't you go get all indignant with Chicago PD? They blame the weekend shooting rampage on gang activity, the drug trade and illegally obtained firearms used in the commission of crimes by gang members. Chicago PD couldn't care less about legitimate firearms owners, about four years ago they refocused their efforts on combating gangs and illegal possession of a firearm, ie dudes with a violent criminal history and the results have been quite positive with a steady decline in homicide in the last 4 years or so. To date in 2014 Chicago is enjoying its lowest homicide rate since 1963.

Yay? It's still deplorable, even though it's getting better. This attitude is like refusing to remove booze from an AA meeting because one of the addicts had 10 beers one day vs. 11.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

As well, those that qualify in Chicago can legally obtain a concealed carry permit. In fact, just over a year ago when CC returned to Chicago, the first week saw more applicants for concealed carry than for Obama care. Concealed carry has not shown to be a problem whatsoever, over the weekend in question it saved four lives in one incident.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5324984.story

HemiCuda brought up a point regarding the rate of violence in Calgary compared to a place like Chicago. Really, you would be hard pressed to find a better city to live in than Calgary. But if you were to compare the social structure, demographics and employment opportunities, it would paint a much different picture between the two cities. Recognize that and you may recognize that in Chicago there is a social problem, not a gun problem.

Your first para there brightly highlights the existing culture issue the U.S. has. A deeply violent, irrational culture.

Your second para- it is a social problem and a gun problem.