Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

by **slugsrbad** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 16:54:21

pacino wrote:10 months straight of 200K+ jobs added, longest streak since 1995

Thanks Republican Congress!!!

by **drsmooth** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 19:53:26

TomatoPie wrote:Bit of a non sequitur, doc. Sure, price is relative. But even more certainly, markets respond to price fluctuations. Govt don't

oh for god's sake this is hopeless

by **drsmooth** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 19:56:54

Cassidy defeats Landrieu & immediately demonstrates he has no business holding any position of responsibility, let alone a US Senate seat

Cassidy, who toppled Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in Saturday’s runoff election, says his top priority is to tackle Obamacare.

by **TomatoPie** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 21:51:39

drsmooth wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:Bit of a non sequitur, doc. Sure, price is relative. But even more certainly, markets respond to price fluctuations. Govt don't

oh for god's sake this is hopeless

You're almost as smart as the average bear, yet you draw fantastic conclusions.

Your arguments fail on more than substance - you are intentionally obtuse. Give your fans something they can understand. Then I will deconstruct it.

by **Werthless** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 23:25:59

drsmooth wrote:Some people find good data more persuasive than crappy data

Monkeyboy wrote:and recent data better than old data.

I am confused why you would make these statements that no disagrees with, without posting better data yourself. Did I miss an earlier post?

by **swishnicholson** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 02:33:33

Werthless wrote:
drsmooth wrote:Some people find good data more persuasive than crappy data

Monkeyboy wrote:and recent data better than old data.

I am confused why you would make these statements that no disagrees with, without posting better data yourself. Did I miss an earlier post?

Here's an article from the Commie rag Business Week, incorporating some more recent and projected data.

China has earned a reputation as the world’s worst polluter. But if the International Energy Agency is right, the Asian nation is on course to set an example for the rest of the planet on the use of energy from renewable sources over the next quarter-century.

Here's a pretty picture, that isn't really all that comprehensible to me, but it is colorful:

TP is driving me up the wall again because he seems to find it irksome to allow that China, with a managed economy, is incorporating renewable energy sources into overall production faster than the United States, even though I get the sense that he doesn't actually want the United States to incorporate renewable energy sources faster since it's not economically efficient. I'm really not sure why he's not gloating over the fact instead. It's like the old joke about the two ladies complaining about a restaurant: "The food is awful here!" says one. "Yes," says the other. "And the portions are so small."

Neither country can be considered the leader in using renewable sources as a high percentage of total energy output. Everyone seems to agree on this too.

Tl;dr version

China better than US in using renewable energy. Both need to get much better. What exactly is the argument?

by **TomatoPie** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 08:03:42

swishnicholson wrote:
Werthless wrote:
drsmooth wrote:Some people find good data more persuasive than crappy data

Monkeyboy wrote:and recent data better than old data.

I am confused why you would make these statements that no disagrees with, without posting better data yourself. Did I miss an earlier post?

Here's an article from the Commie rag Business Week, incorporating some more recent and projected data.

China has earned a reputation as the world’s worst polluter. But if the International Energy Agency is right, the Asian nation is on course to set an example for the rest of the planet on the use of energy from renewable sources over the next quarter-century.

Here's a pretty picture, that isn't really all that comprehensible to me, but it is colorful:

TP is driving me up the wall again because he seems to find it irksome to allow that China, with a managed economy, is incorporating renewable energy sources into overall production faster than the United States, even though I get the sense that he doesn't actually want the United States to incorporate renewable energy sources faster since it's not economically efficient. I'm really not sure why he's not gloating over the fact instead. It's like the old joke about the two ladies complaining about a restaurant: "The food is awful here!" says one. "Yes," says the other. "And the portions are so small."

Neither country can be considered the leader in using renewable sources as a high percentage of total energy output. Everyone seems to agree on this too.

Tl;dr version

China better than US in using renewable energy. Both need to get much better. What exactly is the argument?

Thanks - you've helped to clarify here.

Yes - China is better than the US in renewable energy.

The argument - and I was hoping SOMEBODY (Doc) would get the Billy Preston reference - is that Monkey and others are focused on the growth of renewable energy instead of the total amount.

Without parsing the actual numbers, it's like two obese guys who eat pizza and Mcdonalds every meal, and chicken wings for dinner. One eats a celery stick with wings, the other eats half a celery stick. It's not time yet to celebrate the healthy living of the guy who ate an entire celery stick.

China's token use of renewables is laudable, but meaningless in relation to its fossil fuel use. And trees don't grow to the sky. Renewables are not remotely capable of meeting China's blossoming energy needs.

by **Bucky** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 08:54:39

remember before incandescents were outlawed CFL bulbs cost $30 and LEDs required a second mortgage?

by **pacino** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 09:05:03

but where's our freedom

THINK ABOUT THAT

by **The Crimson Cyclone** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:08:35

torture report coming out soon, exciting

by **dajafi** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:17:58

I'm no fan of Feinstein, but she's done righteous work in making sure this comes out.

It amazes me, though maybe it shouldn't, how none of the pundits seem to grasp that the point of releasing the report is to increase the odds we won't torture again.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:40:50

Hydro may be strictly speaking "renewable" but it's not exactly always environmentally friendly. We need more nukes.

by **dajafi** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:41:01

Pretty interesting historical argument: The Overdue Death of the Southern Democrats

I think Chait is kind of doing the same thing he's accusing others of: looking at the long sweep of history through the perspective of the moment. Yes, Andrew Jackson looks like a reactionary by certain 2014 standards… but he also expanded the franchise way beyond its previous limits and was unambiguous on the question of federal supremacy (just ask John C. Calhoun).

And while race relations and perceptions is probably the biggest driver of the historical course of southern politics, it was also the case that they shamelessly suckled the federal teat all through the New Deal and at least in some senses beyond (defense/aerospace investments in the post-WWII years).

To me a lot of it goes back to Jefferson and Hamilton. What I find enduringly fascinating about those two geniuses is that you can perceive roots of both our major ideologies and the parties that have swapped them over the centuries within each guy.

by **pacino** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:35:47

a map of every single New Deal project

by **pacino** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:58:46

an update on how it's going in Iraq

the public doesnt know veterans anymore

by **CalvinBall** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 14:10:50

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:torture report coming out soon, exciting

whats the big deal? i call hummus in my rectum a weekend.

by **pacino** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 14:18:57

torture. we tortured people.

by **swishnicholson** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 15:02:54

pacino wrote:torture. we tortured people.

Humbug. I don't see one reference to torture in that article, other than in characterizing "critics claims."

by **drsmooth** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 17:36:02

TomatoPie wrote:The argument - and I was hoping SOMEBODY (Doc) would get the Billy Preston reference - is that Monkey and others are focused on the growth of renewable energy instead of the total amount.

the total indicates where we are. the growth rates indicate where we're going, and relatively how fast.

and somehow I'm "obtuse", ffs.

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin', yer highness

but your static viewpoint's a minus

by **drsmooth** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 18:05:51

CalvinBall wrote:
The Crimson Cyclone wrote:torture report coming out soon, exciting

whats the big deal? i call hummus in my rectum a weekend.

you're really progressing rapidly with that gal

Archived

Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.

Re: Ink up your Veto Pens this is the POLITICS thread.