OK so… what? What you said means that DKos is a microcosm of the Left Internet as a whole, from Pelosi to ImpeachKingBushII, and that Kossacks are allowed wide latitude in what they can post to the site. All of your links, predictably, went to ImpeachKingBushII and his compatriots, the equivalent to the people who call in to Glenn Beck’s radio show. They’re the ones saying Dubya wouldn’t leave office. Granted.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, “every Republican candidate running for president in 2016 has publicly questioned or denied the science of climate change” which is, overall, more of a threat than anti-GMO idiocy. It isn’t even close, really: Climate change destroys habitat on a massive scale, utterly reshaping large regions of the globe, destroying inhabited places and displacing people, creating more extreme weather including more extreme storms, and causing severe damage to the global economy. We can work around anti-GMO zealots. We can’t work around that.
And, I should add, most Democratic politicians and candidates aren’t anti-GMO zealots to begin with. Literally every 2016 Republican candidate is an anti-climate-science zealot. Every. Single. One.
Nope, I’m not covering for being wrong; you are moving the goalposts. your claim was that
But none the posts you cite as supporting your memory actually warn that it will happen, instead at best they worry that it might happen.
Yet here you come, now trying to say that it was simply “talking this way” that you recalled; your own post contradicts that new claim.
Also, do you have a cite for Daily KOS being “the preeminent liberal website of that era”? Because I don’t think that’s an accurate label for Daily KOS at all, then or now.
I agree about GMO, though that seems bipartisan these days. As for nuclear power, I think that used to be true, but nowadays cost of nuclear power is comparable to wind power, and solar power cost is coming down fast. So nuclear power really isn’t needed for eliminating fossil fuels.
I never said it was close. I am a lifelong Democrat, and an atheist with a monist/materialist view of reality. Nearly every American who shares that worldview is also a Democrat. Those who are furthest from that worldview (the “young Earth” creationists) are overwhelmingly Republican.
As for climate change, it is increasingly untenable to hold the view that it is not happening. However, I also think your rant cherrypicks and hyperbolizes the negative effects, while overlooking many of the positive aspects of global warming.
On GMOs, I wouldn’t consider myself a zealot, but I do support labelling laws, and if GM foods were labelled, I would avoid buying them unless it was too expensive to do so.
So you’re opposed to GM foods and you want other people to not buy them due to fear campaigns mounted by people whom you can hold at arm’s length, so you benefit from their rhetoric but don’t get any of their crazy on you. Pardon me if I don’t see that as admirable or “on my side” as regards this issue.
I just think consumers have a right to choose. (If I were “opposed” to them, I would be calling for them to be banned.) This is SOP in the Europe that Bernie Sanders rightly admires.
This doesn’t reflect reality. Wind generated electricity doesn’t provide base load power. It isn’t a replacement for fossil fuel generated electricity at all. At best it is a supplemental source.
And as for cost, much of the cost of nuclear is in complying with regulations enacted by the whim of uninformed legislators, legislation which may or may not be rational. Often it is a response to public opinion which has been manipulated by scare tactics involving stories of three eyed fish.
Re: your first two paragraphs, I’ll let others judge whether you have succeeded in splitting those hairs. :rolleyes:
As for the last, my impression had been that they lost steam after Bush left office, as TIME recognized in calling them one of the “Most Overrated Blogs” in 2009. But if you follow the link below that “overrated” entry to the entry in the previous year’s inaugural blog rankings, it landed at #2 of the Top 25 Blogs as chosen by readers in 2008, and was described as follows by TIME:
And even now, they apparently get just under seven million unique monthly visitors, about the same as NFL.com. Who would you nominate as a Democratic blog bigger than that?
My suggestion on this topic: stop digging. Discretion the better part of valor, etc.
Labels are for nutritional information. The support for labeling GMO food is motivated by misinformation. Labels on GMO food would communicate the false message that consuming GMO food carries some added risk. It implies a nutritional difference, and is thus misleading. It is essentially hijacking food labels and turning them into anti-corporate political billboards.
It doesn’t make any more sense than me insisting on food company labeling which food was produced in counties with an even or odd number of letters in their name, or by people names Steve or Stephanie.
FFS, Youtube is the one of the three or four biggest sites on the net, and yet it has crazy commenters. Either show that the comments on DKos are screened and approved according to their political philosophy (as opposed to, say, vulgarity), or stop claiming an anonymous comment is a cite.
That’s fine; your words are here for all to see and it’s obvious that you’ve tried to move the goalposts after your “cites” didn’t say what you said they say.
You should take your own advice, since it doesn’t apply to me at all: I haven’t made any stupid claims here that I can’t back up with facts; you have.
Not sure how anyone who paid attention to liberal or dissident blogs and forums during the Bush years could miss the “evil or incompetent?” debate, especially as it pertains to starving the beast, disaster capitalism, and running things into the ground accidentally on purpose as an excuse to privatize or defund.
Could find some from this forum too out of the thousands of Bush threads, if the search wasn’t a POS.
I didn’t say it was a bad thing. It’s still an open question in my mind, though it seems most settled on Bush being a puppet for other evil men and he himself was in over his head.
I enjoy reading the thoughts from the unwashed masses all over the political spectrum and find it interesting when they have similar rhetoric and logic when talking with each other. The top one is “our leaders are sell outs and get bullied by the other side and the media is always out to get us.” That’s probably the thrust of 20% of the comments on Daily Kos and Red State.
Horseshit. In addition for reasons stated earlier, anti-GMO stuff is a European thing. Name one concrete anti-GMO law passed in the US that has hurt the third world.
As for nukes, there has been no US moratorium. So I don’t know what you are complaining about. The problem is Wall St isn’t interested because it is an expensive way of producing power even with massive federal subsidies. Opposition to nuclear power is based on entirely rational reasons and ground zero is in the board room.
I’m personally in favor of a small nuclear power program so that we can maintain our construction infrastructure. That in fact is what we have. In fact new subsidies for nukes were voted in a few years ago. Wall St still isn’t buying. Put in a $100/ton carbon tax and they would change their tune. But it’s the Republicans who oppose action on climate change, not the Dems.
Neither party supports a crash program to develop 4th generation nuclear technology, combined with a reasonable waste program that partners with locals rather than simply imposing on them. That’s the way they do it in Japan. There are some hopeful signs from some of our patriotic entrepreneurs though.
What we need is for adults to be in charge of both parties. Unfortunately crackpots have taken over the GOP: supply side economics, creationism and climate denialism are prime examples of motivated reasoning. Empirical support for these positions is risible. Worse, they have embraced obstructionism in Congress, thwarting the framework of the founding fathers which was grounded on compromise. Mitch McConnell even filibustered his own damn bill for example, a bill that he had sponsored. The GOP of the 1940s-1970s was fine. Then they trended crazy. And here we are.
BTW I just learned that Ham lost her husband in August, just as she was entering the third trimester with their second child. So I don’t know if we want to snigger about her right now, necessarily.
Here’s an article on the death of Mary Katherine Ham’s husband and her immediate reaction to it. Apparently he was a technology advisor to the White House, so it’s unlikely she’s totally biased in favor of Republicans. I knew nothing about her when she began to ask questions in the last debate but I noticed she seemed annoyed when the camera went to her right after one of the candidates made an insulting comment about Obama. As I’ve said before I don’t watch Fox so I pegged her as yet another leftie journalist. Looks like maybe we’ve all been wrong about her, at least to a certain degree. My sympathies certainly go out to her. She had in the making a beautiful and wonderful family and was living a wonderful life but then had her young husband snatched away suddenly in a freak accident. Much admiration to her for carrying on in such a strong manner.
Reagan took over the Presidency in 1981. Goldwater was trounced.
Even during the Reagan era the grownups were mostly in charge with exceptions such as James Watt, Edwin Meese and of course the Iran Contra law breakers. Unfortunately, Reagan had some nutty rhetoric and successfully implanted crackpot economics into the Republican mind. I tend to date things from 1981. Arguably you could set the date in 1993 when Gingrich rose to power. Goldwater is significant as that was the time when the GOP decided to prioritize celebrity over statesmanship at the Presidential level. Goldwater was a lightweight: his conservative manifesto was written by Bozel, IIRC.
The interesting part is that it’s difficult to see interruptions in the downward Republican trajectory since 1964. But Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.
We need grownups, but I don’t know that they should be solely in charge as you put it. The Republicans if anything are TOO grassroots these days, with the elected officials siding with the ignorant masses on all sorts of issues that the rich donors disdain, such as on immigration and anti-vaccination and creationism and what have you. Whereas the Democratic Party takes pride in ignoring the worst instincts of their base(anti-GMO, also some anti-vaxxers, hippies, etc.), but actually are generally representing their donors’ priorities.
If the Democrats started listening to the Occupiers the way Republicans have started listening to the Tea Party, they’d start looking a lot crazier too. And if Republicans started listening more to their donors, well, they’d be the Bush Republican Party, which isn’t good either. We need a happy medium in both parties. I actually really believe in democracy, so I’m okay with a little quirkiness in the parties. There are weird voters, so there should be some weird Congressmen. If 30% of the public doesn’t believe in evolution, there should be some politicians who don’t believe in evolution. And so on. But we should also elect some of the best and brightest, and they should provide some leadership as well. Just not ALL of the leadership.
I didn’t think we were talking only about presidents. Reagan was governor in the 1960s and warned on national TV that Medicare would be remembered someday as the day men began not to be free.
Reagan took over the Presidency in 1981. Goldwater was trounced.