201–210 of 312 posts
This is so terrifying. Fixing environment that was destroyed takes a very long time. Public land and parks that were given to companies can probably never be taken back. Not to talk about mountains that were mined. All this might be gone forever for some silly, antiquated mining or similar.
OK, I just watched for at least the 20th time some republican tell a TV audience that EPA regulations have gotten "way out of control" and no one will ask "EXACTLY WHICH REGULATIONS?"
To be fair, the audience for that comment isn't aware of _any_ EPA regulations and has no curiosity about it. They see the EPA not as a complex organization with multiple goals and many tools to help them achieve those goals, but as a part of something fundamentally wrong-headed.
The hypocrisy is dumbfounding
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NPR is one of the worst propaganda outlets. It insulates it's listeners from opposing viewpoints to a degree that I think is unhealthy, I'm often in awe of the sophistication of it. When they have a opposition expert on, it's very rarely someone I consider credible. They misrepresent the viewpoint of the opposition, and it's hard to believe it's not deliberate. I watched them (along with the rest of the MSM to be fai…
I disagree. Government can fund media, without you immediately thinking of Russia. Being Dutch originally, I would refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_public_broadcasting_syst... Note that this is not a closed system where there is no private news/tv. Also, look at DW (Deutsche Welle) and BBC. Whatever your opinion, these still provide much better information than whatever you can get in the US (well, yo…
How about letting the media stand on it's own legs? Why should NPR be special? Even their name is a dishonest appeal to authority. It's not random that they have show titles like "Talk of the Nation".
As far as I know, NYT does not receive public funding, but I think this window is instructive on how the "elite" media views themselves:
http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CINJUoqUwAEkSip.jpg
Fortunately most of them are going down in flames and it's only going to get better as people have access to more unfiltered information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case). A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm. However, In the current case, no one knows who the replacement is, or when he/she will be taking on the role, thus leaving us officially without an ambassador for…
> Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case). Unless I'm misremembering, that wasn't the case. Obama was appointing ambassadors regularly for a few months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare to the former president? Are you even serious?
The former President who never lost his temper over six years of claims that he wasn't an American? Are you paid to be here too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's really not. Because you can't see the distance. And from this vantage point, tricks of perspective make the immediately close crowd the only thing one focuses on. I can see empty ground coverings way off in the distance of the pic. It's not an outlandish claim to make that based on their distance from the camera, seeing the empty space as visibly as one can must mean it's a very large empty space. That's wha…
I see. "I refuse your reality and substitute my own". If you can't see that Gigapixel shows radically more people, then I'm afraid I can't help you. :-)
Nobody is disputing that there were a lot of people who were at the front. But it doesn't provide the slightest bit of helpful view on the total crowd size. Because the total crowd isn't in its view. The rows and rows of people in the back are impossible to judge from the Gigapixel's perspective. This is just basic photography. Angle, lens, perspective, all that shit. It matters. The Gigapixel's subject was the main stage and immediate area. It provides no help to the discussion of the total audience.
Ever been to a concert, especially on stage? The throng at the front always feels massive and overwhelming. But you can't fully judge the total attendance from that perspective, especially in a setting like the Mall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compare to the former president? Are you even serious?
Fewer people attended the inauguration. I'm sorry that bothers you so much, but it's the truth. If your solution to someone sharing the truth is to make them shut up, then you got some serious issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That mine spill was a major cock-up by the EPA. They even admitted it was. They were warned it could happen. It's not helpful to try and explain that away.
Can you explain to me the thinking that leads from the EPA made a major mistake to the EPA should be dismantled because it seems irrational to me.
