Originally Posted by Justin '77

You do not. What I pointed out was that the interstate highways (the specific example David used) have come at the cost of severe, but unquantified harm. Certainly a person who believes that carbon dioxide emissions are a source of significant global harm would not argue that measures taken to encourage their use in relatively more widespread, inefficient manner -- and the engender dependency on such use, society-wide -- are a Not-Good?

Long-range Transport / Interstate Highways.

---
-edit-
Even aside from the arguable CO2, there's also the undeniable heavy metals, NOx, hydrocarbon byproducts, etc, etc. Just, you know. That, too.

So you 've decided to subsidize alternate transport. OK, what? I'm OK with rail, but it only works in high density areas. Actually, roads and private cars are the most efficient in low density applications. Other choices? Hover cars maybe?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you're back to the goat trails through the woods. I guess that's OK if like that sort of thing.

At least those don't cause cancer in children. I realize some people might just roll their eyes at such an unserious "consequence", but at least a few others might disagree. In any case, subsidizing stuff is a bad idea in general, since it removes the costs from those using and shifts them onto faceless, invisible others. Meaning more such costs will be incurred in general, since the people choosing to cause them will not have to pay them.

But that's neither here nor there. Allow me to repeat a critical point:

Long-range Transport / Interstate Highways.

There are all manner of options; centralized decision-making does no more than ensure that the paths followed are not the best.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

At least those don't cause cancer in children. I realize some people might just roll their eyes at such an unserious "consequence", but at least a few others might disagree.

Life causes death. There is nothing ... nothing that can be considered truly safe. We can say that the dangerous things of today are better than the dangerous things of the past, because we live longer and better. Of course, you need to lay of the Big Macs.

Originally Posted by Justin '77 ...

But that's neither here nor there. Allow me to repeat a critical point:

Long-range Transport / Interstate Highways.

The best option for long-haul transport is high-speed rail. I don't see that as even possible without a massive involvement by governments at several levels.

come one, come all, to magic pony land

where you too can be intellectually lazy

where the problems are so large

no one can do anything but bitch

about "the other" that made them

where one is free to provide example after example

of all that is amiss

but never offer a detail

of any possible fix

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You do not. What I pointed out was that the interstate highways (the specific example David used) have come at the cost of severe, but unquantified harm. Certainly a person who believes that carbon dioxide emissions are a source of significant global harm would not argue that measures taken to encourage their use in relatively more widespread, inefficient manner -- and the engender dependency on such use, society-wide -- are a Not-Good?

Well, if that's what you're saying, you're making a more narrow argument than I supposed which cannot be extended to public infrastructure projects that don't encourage fossil fuel use. And incidentally, interstate highways don't in themselves have to do that. They just have to do it when combined with internal-combustion technology. If, as I expect, in the future we will be deriving all of our energy from renewable sources and all cars will be either battery-electric or fuel-cell, highways will be climate-change neutral.

The same would apply now to public-transportation systems, and to things like high-speed rail.

CNN reports Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory

On Sunday, Phillips proposed an action plan -- getting Electoral College voters in states won by Romney to boycott the validation of the election result by the December 17 deadline.

"The 12th Amendment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3," Phillips wrote. "In other words, if 17 states refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum."

Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and presumably choose Romney. Phillips acknowledged such a move would set a "dangerous precedent," but added that "the situation is so grim we really have no other choice."

Does this one belong on the possibility of a civil war thread?

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN reports Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory



Does this one belong on the possibility of a civil war thread?

Republicans do that, they immediately become reviled and lose all credibility. If Obama had only won the Electoral Vote and not the Popular Vote, then they could probably pull some hijinks a bit more credibly. But against the person who won the Popular Vote & Electoral Vote? I'd be surprise if there wasn't a revolt. Because that would be the last nail in the coffin on proving that "government" isn't "for the people and by the people." And I would hope that everyone would get upset at that. Sure our choices are pretty much predetermined anyway, but to take away the last pretense of "choice" I would hope finally make things clear.

I would hope that Romney would be magnanimous enough to recognize the dirty dealing of such a deal would completely undermine any authority he'd have and would refuse to accept. Although he made money at the time when dirty dealing was the norm, vagrant and blatant dirty dealing I'd hope would at least trouble his Mormon religion.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by B Butler

CNN reports Archconservatives: anger, denial but no acceptance of Obama's victory



Does this one belong on the possibility of a civil war thread?

A Crisis Era can have the peaceful resolution of potential dangers. One is to legitimize results that one does not like for the time because the institutions of official authority merit preservation. Nullification of an election is appropriate only if the winner has committed electoral fraud or threatens to govern in unconstitutional ways.

If Republicans in some states are unwilling to participate in the legitimization of the Presidential election, then maybe the rival Democratic slate could go by default, and there might be some odd results. I can assure you that Governor Rick Perry (R, TX) would find it embarrassing if a result of his refusal to let Republican electors from Texas participate in the Electoral College that Democratic electors instead go and cast the 38 electoral votes of the state for Barack Obama for President and Joe Biden for Vice-President. President Obama could paradoxically get a landslide in the Electoral College if such happened. Even if the electors from alternative delegations only vote "Present" such would increase the electoral share that President Obama won. Conservatives would be wise to let our electoral institutions operate as one expects them to operate this time as liberals let them operate twelve years ago. As a liberal who respects institutions I would not like to see President Obama win electoral votes that he did not win fair and square.

President Obama won 26 states. Count on their electors participating in the Electoral College lest impeachment proceedings begin. Count also on the Democratic Governors of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and (for now) North Carolina mandating that Republican electors attend the meeting of the Electoral College. We are now up to 30. But what would Mitt Romney say? Barack Obama won re-election fair-and-square. The Electoral College does not give veto power to any state or combination of states.

...It is time for Republicans to recognize that Barack Obama is something other than the demonic character that they portrayed him. The American electorate clearly rejected a richly-funded campaign predicated heavily upon such a caricature. A President who has gotten us gracefully out of a war that we should have never been in and is close to getting us out of a war that his predecessor bungled badly, who stopped the worst economic meltdown in (then) nearly eighty years, who has dispatched the most egregious terrorist in American history to the infernal realm, who has improved the standing of America worldwide, who has left America with a smaller public sector through the privatization of assets gained in "Socialism through Receivership", who has pushed some necessary and appropriate reforms, who has made life much more difficult for pirates off a long coastline, who has cooperated well with the military and the intelligence services, who hasn't gotten us into any wars, and has well avoided scandal would be a perfectly-fine President if a conservative Republican. Do you like Ike? He followed a troubled Presidency, too... but I prefer what has happened in Libya and is going on in Burma to what the CIA did in Iran and Guatemala under Eisenhower.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I don't think you understand American politics very well.

Sometimes the far away view can be superior in assessing a situation correctly than being stuck in the midst of it. For understanding US politics, let's just say I correctly predicted the winning president while you thought Romney "would be very likely to win". In fact, I originally predicted the re-election of Obama some six months ago or so.

I gave a short answer above. A more complex one is that the Republicans are all of the things you mentioned, except for protectionist. On that front, Romney's statements on trade with China have been far tougher than any presidential nominee in recent memory.

Could it be we mean different things by "Social Conservative"? Putting it bluntly, to me it means more or less something like a Social Democrat on the Right, not that I necessarily find "democracy" to be of overriding importance. Since the US is the great redifining nation of words and concepts though, I'm afraid you or the Romney crowd by Social Conservative might mean something like a Right Winger motivated by strong religiously defined moral convictions. Personally, I care rather little for such ethics. I care about tradition, order and instrumental hierarchy, as well as the individual being able to speak his mind without fear, and if any I'm essentially motivated by aesthetic values. I actually think society works best with a certain amount of refined double standards to grease the wheels.

And yeah, protectionism is in the Republican DNA. I suggest you use it.

What you're probably referring to in a more general sense is things like "globalization" and "multiculturalism". The "globalist" era of the 90s ended in America on 9/11/2001. Some elites still cling to it, but it's a world view that's waning in the face of reality. China, Russia and the various Islamist regimes cropping up in the Middle East make that inevitable. The UN has discredited itself to the point where it is completely ignored in the U.S. now. Nobody cares what it says or does, at all.

Multiculturalism is a much tougher beast, because it's backed up by an immediate charge of racism whenever anyone questions it. Racial division and "identity politics" are the lifeblood of the Democratic Party.

Yes, these are the great self-destructive memes that have to be vanquished if European man is to have a future. In European civilization, we have this peculiar feature that we want to consider things from an impartial, objective and "just" point of view - to look at things also from the perspective of the other - something which befuddles the savage or mideastern ethnocentric who finds truth in itself to be secondary to what benefits his own group, if not in it he sees nothing but "decadence". This great, compassionate feature of our Christian mind, however - which in fact is the entire basis of the scientific method - is also a weakness that can be shamelessly exploited to cause our downfall. To have an open, liberal, "decadent" society, it must be protected by strong walls.

If you want to be more conscience of a not so homozenized version of history, you might want to view Oliver Stone's *The Untold History Of The United States.* Part one is on again this evening on Showtime. Starts a 7:00 o'clock.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Sometimes the far away view can be superior in assessing a situation correctly than being stuck in the midst of it. For understanding US politics, let's just say I correctly predicted the winning president while you thought Romney "would be very likely to win". In fact, I originally predicted the re-election of Obama some six months ago or so.



Could it be we mean different things by "Social Conservative"? Putting it bluntly, to me it means more or less something like a Social Democrat on the Right, not that I necessarily find "democracy" to be of overriding importance. Since the US is the great redifining nation of words and concepts though, I'm afraid you or the Romney crowd by Social Conservative might mean something like a Right Winger motivated by strong religiously defined moral convictions. Personally, I care rather little for such ethics. I care about tradition, order and instrumental hierarchy, as well as the individual being able to speak his mind without fear, and if any I'm essentially motivated by aesthetic values. I actually think society works best with a certain amount of refined double standards to grease the wheels.

And yeah, protectionism is in the Republican DNA. I suggest you use it.



Yes, these are the great self-destructive memes that have to be vanquished if European man is to have a future. In European civilization, we have this peculiar feature that we want to consider things from an impartial, objective and "just" point of view - to look at things also from the perspective of the other - something which befuddles the savage or mideastern ethnocentric who finds truth in itself to be secondary to what benefits his own group, if not in it he sees nothing but "decadence". This great, compassionate feature of our Christian mind, however - which in fact is the entire basis of the scientific method - is also a weakness that can be shamelessly exploited to cause our downfall. To have an open, liberal, "decadent" society, it must be protected by strong walls.

But the US is not Europe. Although certainly influenced by Europe, it is significantly different. And when you say "European man," it's clearly what we here in the US call a dog whistle. You mean white men. And the US, unlike Europe, has never been settled solely by white men.

Visited the bank today. Bank of America, yet. There were a couple of people with protest signs outside. "Impeach Obama! He knew!"

Another bank client was helpfully informing them how naive they were.

And here I thought crazy political extremists only manifested on the internet?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Visited the bank today. Bank of America, yet. There were a couple of people with protest signs outside. "Impeach Obama! He knew!"

Another bank client was helpfully informing them how naive they were.

And here I thought crazy political extremists only manifested on the internet?

He knew what?

Originally Posted by annla899

He knew what?

Arithmetic?

the 2012 election just keeps getting better -

The moment we've all been waiting for: As the popular vote continues to be counted, Mitt Romney's share is now officially rounded to 47 percent.
The latest data, as compiled by Dave Wasserman, has President Barack Obama at 50.8 percent of the vote, compared to 47.49 percent for Romney.

What lucky county pushed Romney below 47.5 percent? Los Angeles

We're still waiting on several million more votes. California alone has just shy of 1 million votes remaining to be counted, including another 196,621 from Los Angeles County. New York is sitting on another million or so. And most states are still sitting on uncounted (or unreported) ballots. In fact, just 12 states have final certified vote tallies.

So what drama is left? Well, if Obama surpasses 51 percent, he'll be just the fourth president in the last 100 years to do so twice, and the last since Ronald Reagan. That shouldn't be a problem given what's left to be counted.

I wonder how Mittens now feels about that number 47%?

Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas!

That is sooo appropriate!

Talk about getting smacked by karma!

Bri2k

Originally Posted by playwrite

the 2012 election just keeps getting better -



I wonder how Mittens now feels about that number 47%?

Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas!

The question is how does Romney's 47% feel about Obama's 47%? As long as there's a gap/disconnect between the 47%'s there's going to be MAJOR issues coming down the road as those issues grow, social/economic divides widen and society snaps in two. You want welfare recipients, we give you all the welfare recipients to fund and provide for on your own. You want poverty, we'll give you all the poverty and the bulk of the problems, social issues and the expenses that come with poverty. It's the future baby. Gotta love it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The question is how does Romney's 47% feel about Obama's 47%? As long as there's a gap/disconnect between the 47%'s there's going to be MAJOR issues coming down the road as those issues grow, social/economic divides widen and society snaps in two. You want welfare recipients, we give you all the welfare recipients to fund and provide for on your own. You want poverty, we'll give you all the poverty and the bulk of the problems, social issues and the expenses that come with poverty. It's the future baby. Gotta love it.

I'm sorry, but the idea that 47% of the country is some kind of dependent welfare deadbeat is pure fantasy. I really cannot wait for parrots of this type of fact-free "conservatism" to take their ball and go home (like they keep promising too, and never delivering on).

Originally Posted by playwrite

the 2012 election just keeps getting better -



I wonder how Mittens now feels about that number 47%?

Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas!

I appreciate the data and as you know, I also supported the President's re-election. Indeed, my daughter, a high school senior, was a fellow in the campaign, working 20+ hours a week August through election Day.

That said, I do think it is unseemly to gloat in a public forum which includes those who were very unhappy about this election's results. With a group that is exclusively Obama supporters, go for it!

Originally Posted by playwrite

the 2012 election just keeps getting better -



I wonder how Mittens now feels about that number 47%?

Especially since Obama won, not because there was a mandate, but out of fear of him.

Ronald Reagan's Democratic Party.

We are so far down the pike that many liberals no longer see how they are supporting a Republican mindset. So in some ways, pointing the fingers at Republicans is like pointing at ourselves. sigh

For instance.

The idea of a bipartisan plan to grow the economy by balanced deficit reduction is understandably quite popular. It ranks right up there with the pizza-beer-and-ice-cream-heart-healthy-weight-loss-diet plan: The perfect solution for a fact-free world. But, as a recent letter from 350 economists points out, "[T]oo many in Washington are fixated on cutting public spending to balance the budget, not on how to put people back to work and get our economy going", but "there is no theory of economics that explains how we can deflate our way to recovery". To the contrary, as they pointed out, the opposite is true: "As Great Britain, Ireland, Spain and Greece have shown, inflicting austerity on a weak economy leads to deeper recession, rising unemployment and increasing misery."

But it's not just this popular proposal is a fantasy. It's also not really that popular if you ask folks about specifics. Which is just what Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future did with an election eve poll. In particular, they asked about all the major components of the Simpson-Bowles Plan, the informal background for Obama's "balanced deficit reduction plan". Every single component they asked about was deemed unacceptable by landslide majorities.

• "Capping Medicare payments, forcing seniors to pay more" was rejected 79-18.
• "Requiring deep cuts in domestic programmes without protecting programmes for infants, poor children, schools and college aid" was rejected 75-21
• "Cutting discretionary spending, like education, child nutrition, worker training, and disease control" was rejected 72-25.
• "Not raising taxes on the rich" was rejected 68-28.
• "Continuing to tax investors' income at lower rates than workers' pay" was rejected 63-26.
• "Reducing Social Security benefits over time by having them rise more slowly than the cost of living" was rejected 62-31.Turning to the subject of preserving Medicare:
  
• "Capping Medicare payments, forcing seniors to pay more" was rejected 79-18.
• But - taking a very different approach, "Save Medicare costs by negotiating lower drug prices from drug companies" was supported 89-8.

Robert L Borosage warned in a cover story for the Nation magazine, which cites some of these same strong views opposing what the fantasy rhetoric hides. "The grand bargain not only offers the wrong answer; it poses the wrong question," Borosage writes. The right question, of course, is what to do about the stranglehold of wealth and income inequality that has developed over the past 30+ years, and how to secure the future of the 99 percent that have been left behind. "The call for shared sacrifice makes no sense," Borosage argues, "given that in recent decades, the rewards have not been shared."

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I appreciate the data and as you know, I also supported the President's re-election. Indeed, my daughter, a high school senior, was a fellow in the campaign, working 20+ hours a week August through election Day.

That said, I do think it is unseemly to gloat in a public forum which includes those who were very unhappy about this election's results. With a group that is exclusively Obama supporters, go for it!

If just winning the election by whatever was sufficient, then gloating would be unseemly. Unfortunately, that is far from the situation we live in today.

Look up the notion of "mandate" in the political arena.

Gloating is an absolute necessity. Watch how the fiscal cliff unfolds or the filibuster limitation debate. Most of it will be whether Obama really has a mandate from the election to do what he promised.

Romney, running on a clearly opposing direction for the country, barely getting 47% is important. Obama being one of only two re-elected Prez getting over 50% both times is also very important.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Ronald Reagan's Democratic Party.

We are so far down the pike that many liberals no longer see how they are supporting a Republican mindset. So in some ways, pointing the fingers at Republicans is like pointing at ourselves. sigh

For instance.

What's really wrong here Debs is that 99.9% of people don't have a clue how our monetary system actually works so you get this craziness of reducing federal deficit spending (whether by increasing taxes or reducing spending) in a demand-starved economy. Doesn't matter if it is Dems, GOP or Independents - all clueless.

Even raising taxes on the top 2% is only slightly less crazy because the rich, dollar for dollar, spend less. I go along with it because it is the lesser of two evils and may lead to a political choice to do less damage elsewhere.

Given that, it is a little hard to get too excited about notions from the Left that Obama is selling out something. Every monetary ignorant person on the Left is selling out something - they just don't have a clue they're doing it. They're hypocrites without even knowing it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's really wrong here Debs is that 99.9% of people don't have a clue how our monetary system actually works so you get this craziness of reducing federal deficit spending (whether by increasing taxes or reducing spending) in a demand-starved economy. Doesn't matter if it is Dems, GOP or Independents - all clueless.

Even raising taxes on the top 2% is only slightly less crazy because the rich, dollar for dollar, spend less. I go along with it because it is the lesser of two evils and may lead to a political choice to do less damage elsewhere.

Given that, it is a little hard to get too excited about notions from the Left that Obama is selling out something. Every monetary ignorant person on the Left is selling out something - they just don't have a clue they're doing it. They're hypocrites without even knowing it.

The bipartisan cry is that austerity reigns supreme as the solution to our ills. This, at a time when putting money into the pockets of those who will spend, would be a common sense approach.

That's just my very humble opinion.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The bipartisan cry is that austerity reigns supreme as the solution to our ills. This, at a time when putting money into the pockets of those who will spend, would be a common sense approach.

That's just my very humble opinion.

That is an excellent opinion, if not an actual fact!

Two thumbs up!