You do realize it doesn't take much change in temperature to have dramatic effects on humans' ability to live on the planet, right? There are islands where people have lived for centuries which are becoming uninhabitable as a result of rising sea levels from this less than one degree increase in temperatures. I know, you don't care, you listen to liars instead of scientists.
a) I'm fine with that. More speech is never a bad thing. b) you didn't address the fact that you support punishing people for making movies, books, tv shows, art, etc... If you had your way CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, the Daily Show would all be off the air (these things cost millions/billions to put on the air. The Citizens United video cost far less) yeah cause 'Economic Issues' = 'Wealth Disparity'........... NO both data sets show pretty much no change in the temperature over the past 18 years. You just suck ass at reading charts. Both charts you posted (and the one i posted) confirm that the temperature is the same as it was 18 years ago. If you had wanted to make an argument you should of claimed i cherry picked the 18 years
It doesn't surprise me that you support oligarchy. That's because I don't. You really suck at reading comprehension, I can suggest some community college remedial reading courses so that you can correct this. You disagree that wealth disparity and wage stagnation are economic issues? Sure, I'm taking doctoral level stats classes, but I'm the one who doesn't know how to read data. ROFL!!!
you don't know what that word means. Unlimited, anonymous political speech != oligarchy. You support punishing Citizens United for making a movie. You support blocking the distribution of their movie. That was the case. I disagree that they are equal. How in the world are you a stats major? You really do. All you had to say was i cherry picked the 18 yr window, instead you posted 2 charts confirming what i said.
You mean, just like being able to contribute unlimited, undisclosed funds != "free speech"? No, I have specifically said I'm not talking about the details of the case, I'm much more concerned about the unlimited, undisclosed money that can now affect our political process. I never said that they were equal, learn to read. Not according the the NASA data, UAE data, and RSS data posted above. Perhaps you should consider getting an education because all of those data appear to show an upward trend. I'd have to drop it into Stata or R to verify your claim of "no upward trend" in nearly 18 years, but visually, there is a clear upward trend in all of the charts.
political contributions are protected political expression and thus speech. http://www.amendmentgazette.com/how-spending-money-became-a-form-of-speech/ you wouldn't use a trend to determine if two data points are equal (18 years ago and today). You also wouldn't use R or Stata. try eyeballs.
Though I don't like political contributions (IMO, legalized bribery), I understand the court rulings on the subject. However, allowing people and organizations to make such contributions without having to disclose them is incredibly problematic for our republic. It is supposed to be one PERSON, one vote. Why does someone with astronomical amounts of money deserve to effectively have more right to speech than someone who lives paycheck to paycheck? No, but if you were actually interested in the trend (are temperatures generally moving in one direction or the other), you would want to use a statistical analysis tool to look at the data. If all you are doing is looking at two data points, then you are definitely cherry picking, which renders your opinion on the subject beyond worthless. There is a lot more to climate science than taking two arbitrary data points and saying "see, they're the same, no warming." Perhaps this is more your speed... http://tylervigen.com/
You want sources for the effects of climate change, is your google broke? http://metro.org/media/files/article/myMETRO_OWS.pdf
It'll be close, right now it's looking like the Republicans could pick up 6 seats to take control of the senate by one vote even without Georgia but there's still time before the election and a lot of races are within the margin of error so it'll probably come down to turnout.
While I would like any congress that can work together above all, I believe there are some steps forward in DC with republicans taking control. First, they can (my god I hope) pass something. I identify more with typically democratic fiscal and social issues, but I would like to give both sides a chance to do something different. The problem, or lack of inspiration, for a republican lead congress...IMO...is that they have no clear objective. Repeal ACA? Fix the debt? Sure..go for it! Now you cant sit back and wait. I just don't see what the republican party would bring to the table if they take the senate, but at least some level of accountability will be placed on them. On the other side, if the senate is republican controlled, I really hope the democrats don't become the rejection party like republicans have become. Republicans have done a fantastic jobs at creating a common scape goat in Obama for everyone's problems.
The ACA works pretty well. The national debt is headed down. The GOP is an Astroturf party for expanding tax cuts and cutting the nuts from any sensible regulation safeguarding the people from the unscrupulous actions of corporations. They will rant and rave over the same hot button social issues (BAN ALL FLIGHTS FROM AFRICA) to distract the low information voter, though they will get filibustered and vetoed so as to be as impotent as the Dems have been. Enjoy your status quo citizen.
I'm pulling for a Republican majority even though they can't accomplish anything with the majority. In fact, if they could I might not pull for it. I think many here know I want ACA redone, but the Republican ideas are just downright scary and disastrous, so I don't support those either. So why support a Republican majority? Well they can't get anything crazy passed a veto anyway, but by having the majority they will get to send bills to the desk of the president. That will make it really interesting for republicans in the house/senate. Will they vote on every tea party bill that the house has been throwing out there? Will the party cannibalize once the senate, controlled by republicans, says um...we aren't going to pass that bill. Fascinating stuff. My ideal scenario for 2016 would be a Republican President with a democrat controlled house and senate (just barely on both.) Then they could reform Obamacare without going cuckoo.
In states where the rates were already high due previous reform, ACA has worked great. For companies and people in Texas with no insurance or crazy rates because they were sick, it works great. For the average company in Texas it is terrible. Now, why do the rate increases not show that big in average numbers? Simple. The insurance companies, with the blessing of the administration, have presented most plans with the option of keeping their current non-ACA plans at rate X vs going to ACA plans at rate Y. Naturally most groups are choosing whichever is cheaper. That artificially keeps the rate impact down. When transitional relief is gone and all the people who kept their existing corporate plan because the rate increase was minimal now have to jump to ACA for that 40% increase they avoided two years earlier happens...lookout.
If republicans win the senate what will be their first action? - Impeach Obama - Shut down the government - Repeal Obamacare
I'd be OK with this, but I don't see any scenario where this is possible. The GOP has a structural majority in the House - the only way to break that would be a Dem wave election, but there's no way for that to happen with the GOP winning the Presidency.
Repeal oil export restriction$ You can see the the PR groundwork pretty much everywhere these days citing how much more oil we can pump and sell if we do (without any consideration for the case for conservation) like:http://www.cfr.org/oil/case-allowing-us-crude-oil-exports/p31005
