Two words: "Reagan Democrats"
they gave the Gipper the 1984 landslide victory hauling in 49 states.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Two words: "Reagan Democrats"
they gave the Gipper the 1984 landslide victory hauling in 49 states.
You mean those Republican standards that include cutting money for college education and then turning around to give $250 million for a new stadium that those poor billionaires can't afford? A billionaire mind you, that gave a huge contribution to Walker's campaign. Those kinda standards?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
![[pfftt]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682173.gif "Pfffttt [pfftt]")
"WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors have recommended bringing felony charges against David H. Petraeus, contending that he provided classified information to a lover while he was director of the C.I.A., officials said, and leaving Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to decide whether to seek an indictment that could send the pre-eminent military officer of his generation to prison. The Justice Department investigation stems from an affair Mr. Petraeus had with Paula Broadwell, an Army Reserve officer who was writing his biography, and focuses on whether he gave her access to his C.I.A. email account."
The result of that was a criminal trial, a guilty verdict, 2 year's probation and a $100,000 fine for Petraeus. Clinton deleted, according to a report I read, over 31,000 emails. Goose gander.....
The result of that was a criminal trial, a guilty verdict, 2 year's probation and a $100,000 fine for Petraeus. Clinton deleted, according to a report I read, over 31,000 emails. Goose gander.....
Catdaddy,
A.Bonding is not "giving"
B.More Reps voted against the arena deal than Dems
C.Notice the bolded words.
D.Rust belt cities especially have to work very diligently to make sure not to lose all the tax base to the suburbs
E.You would be against the city or state helping revamp Rupp?
F.You are a moron.
MADISON, Wis. -- The Wisconsin State Assembly voted Tuesday to spend $250 million in public funds on a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, a deal that both Republicans and Democrats lauded as good for the state and city.
No one spoke against the measure, which passed on a bipartisan 52-34 vote as Bucks coach Jason Kidd and team president Peter Feigin watched from the gallery. They made the rounds before and after the roughly hourlong debate, posing for pictures with both lawmakers and members of the public.
"The Bucks will not only remain home in Wisconsin, but we'll soon begin a transformative economic development project that will help revitalize our community and region," Feigin said in a statement issued by the team.
A.Bonding is not "giving"
B.More Reps voted against the arena deal than Dems
C.Notice the bolded words.
D.Rust belt cities especially have to work very diligently to make sure not to lose all the tax base to the suburbs
E.You would be against the city or state helping revamp Rupp?
F.You are a moron.
MADISON, Wis. -- The Wisconsin State Assembly voted Tuesday to spend $250 million in public funds on a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, a deal that both Republicans and Democrats lauded as good for the state and city.
No one spoke against the measure, which passed on a bipartisan 52-34 vote as Bucks coach Jason Kidd and team president Peter Feigin watched from the gallery. They made the rounds before and after the roughly hourlong debate, posing for pictures with both lawmakers and members of the public.
"The Bucks will not only remain home in Wisconsin, but we'll soon begin a transformative economic development project that will help revitalize our community and region," Feigin said in a statement issued by the team.
When there are so many Rep candidates, a "who would you vote for" poll doesn't mean much. A more meaningful poll, would be:
"If the candidate you support were to not win the nomination, which (if any) candidates on the Rep ticket would you not likely be able to vote for (if he/she won the nomination)?"
And then to go along with that question, is this one to people outside your party (Dems, independents, and others).
"Which, if any, Rep candidates, would you consider voting for if he/she won the Rep nomination?"
"If the candidate you support were to not win the nomination, which (if any) candidates on the Rep ticket would you not likely be able to vote for (if he/she won the nomination)?"
And then to go along with that question, is this one to people outside your party (Dems, independents, and others).
"Which, if any, Rep candidates, would you consider voting for if he/she won the Rep nomination?"
There's a big difference here, the General knowingly and willing passed on classified material to someone without a "need to know" and may not have had a proper clearance. In the case of the Chipmunk she claims nothing she sent or received had any classification markings. Email didn't exist when I was on active duty but I cannot imagine anyone sending classified information over an unsecured email account, especially without the correct markings.
So far there is been no accusation or motive for purposely disclosing classified material to unauthorized people or over unsecured systems. If there is evidence of that, then it becomes a new ball game.
I will go one step farther. I don't believe Obama has ever warmed to the idea of Hillary following him, and has long admired Elizabeth Warren. Warren, however, is too loyal to Hillary and won't get in her way. IMO, you will eventually see Biden/Warren as the Dem ticket, about this time next year, when Hillary is gone.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I absolutely love weed, but I think it's dumb as hell for people to name weed strains. Just stick it in the bowl and fire it up without the need for social commentary. When Gatewood was my lawyer in 2002 he told me and my buddy that he had a weed strain named after him in Canada.
No. SCOTUS overturned the regulation because the EPA did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis before issuing the regulation. It was a problem with the procedure in how the regulation was adopted. The EPA can (did? will? idk) reenact the exact same regulations following the proper procedure (cost-benefit analysis at the outset); the substance of the regulations was not the issue. SCOTUS didn't overturn it because "Obama hammered coal companies . . . so much."
When Gatewood was my lawyer in 2002 he told me and my buddy that he had a weed strain named after him in Canada.
I absolutely love alcohol, but I think it's dumb as hell for people to name different types of liquor. Just throw it in a glass and drink it up without the need for branding.
But I agree the names are kinda dumb. When it's legal, we'll get our versions of Jim Beam and Jim Beam Devil's Cut. Or Google Bowl.
You do realize the lack of cost-benefit analysis was because the EPA hadnt assessed the cost to the coal industry and its collaterals? THAT was the "problem with the procedure in how the regulation was adopted".
Coal companies suck. The EPA will just amend their protocol and re-enact the same rules. But its ridiculous to argue the SCOTUS ruling wasnt because of the over burdening to the coal industry; or that Obama declared war on coal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/11/inez-coal-slurry-spill-to_n_757900.html
I was talking about the coal slurry pond that busted in Martin county into the tributaries of the Tug.
Massey Energy has paid around 60 million in clean up and fines for a spill 30x larger than the Exxon Valdez spill (Exxon paid 4.5 billion dollars).
You want the head of EPA to roll for unleashing a spill of toxic chemicals that they did not even produce. While the executives of Massey Energy have all gotten promotions.
You are one those that everything is fine unless it's in your backyard. You don't need the EPA till you find out your home is another Love Canal.
Delusional. We have a sizable portion of our population that are effectively detached from reality. They live in an artificially constructed reality propped up and spoon fed by 24 hour propaganda news networks reaffirming their delusions.
Jade helm! Jade helm! Jade helm! Barack Obama is riding on a dinosaur and he's coming for our guns and bibles!!!!
Jade helm! Jade helm! Jade helm! Barack Obama is riding on a dinosaur and he's coming for our guns and bibles!!!!
Last edited:
And Republicans who cut and defunded the EPA are now attacking the EPA, as you say, for the accident which led to the spill of chemicals they didn't produce. It's just ugly politics, rooted in special interest money given by the corporations the Republicans protect.
Really? Wow, pot meet kettle. Obama anyone? Hillary anyone? Reid anyone? Pelosi anyone? Biden anyone? Barney Frank anyone? Al Gore anyone? You guys have sold your soles to some of the most criminal elements in politics and you want to point fingers? Rich!
I am a former high school science teacher. Maybe my self, my colleagues, my professors and mentors are idiots. We very well could be. But with the way we understand greenhouse gases to work, specifically Co2, I really can't see how global warming isn't a concern for everyone.
Barong23 used to be a moonie. Barong is short for Barack is wrong. I think I have figured it out. Barong is trolling us. He really hates Barack and is just trying to make Barack supporters look stupid. No need to do that Barong, Deeee, Free-salato-blue, and Catdaddy4dawin are leading that category.
Last edited:
No, just seems strange that all of a sudden GOP congressmen seem to care about an environmental issue.
No, they are pointing out the hypocrisy and giving back to the left some of the same crap that is dished out every time the left starts crying about something that goes against their agenda's. It is the same crying game we were hearing about the IRS not have enough money. The left is very good at playing the political gotcha game. They even use lies to further it without consequence.
So let me get this straight....Iraq def had WMD's at one point, then they didn't have them when we went in (allegedly), and now there are WMD's being used in Iraq again?
EPA has been drunk on power for a while with little accountability and Congress responded for their constituents with a 9% haircut, still a $31b budget. Idiotic to say that means they don't care about environmental issues. That is a maturity level type comment you see from the WH twitter account.
BTW, Gary Johnson approves of a 43% in all govt funding and says the EPA could still do their job.
So if the GOP were cutting the EPA much less than that why would a Gary Johnson supporter be so upset that he is judging the whole GOP of wanting spills?
.
BTW, Gary Johnson approves of a 43% in all govt funding and says the EPA could still do their job.
So if the GOP were cutting the EPA much less than that why would a Gary Johnson supporter be so upset that he is judging the whole GOP of wanting spills?
.
Dammit you are going to have to wait until I get my answer first on waterboarding (jail for POTUS and VP as war criminals) versus drones up 500% under HRC and BO as cool. Take a number pal.
ed F
9 vessel0fi
9 vessel0fi
I actually don't care they slashed funding 20%. There's a lot of other cuts they could make I would be happy about. But it's so disingenuous how they attacked the EPA in this instance. All they care about is the money they get from big polluting companies.
"A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emissions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...st-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming
Gary Johnson weeps at your universal belief in govt. ( EPA, IRS, NSA)
I know how you understand them to work. You discount all the other forces at play that determine the climate at any one time and place the blame for all the changes on man.
I would agree with it too if the climate had been static and predictable before we burned our first lump of coal.
96% of greenhouse gas is water. Will the EPA declare H2O is a pollutant as well?
That is as shitty of an interpretation of an opinion as a human can gather.
9% cut for an agency that has been overreaching, as is within the scope of Congress, is not the end of the world. The EPA and the WH could, gasp, sit down with GOP leaders and work through the frustrations.
And again, the guy you keep claiming to support wants a much larger cut to the EPA.
Money can't fix ineptness and stupidity - hence the point many big-government critics make. No matter how much money government takes from us, they can't get much correct or efficient.
I don't discount them. I also don't place all the blame on humans. But to think that there aren't going to be adverse effects from our actions is reckless in my opinion.
Ok Massey Energy sucks, and as a result had to pay $60 million. How much will the EPA have to pay?
Should heads roll? Hell yes. Whoever was at fault should be fired. I guarantee whoever caused any private company some catastrophe was fired.
Why is it so wrong to want accountability? Especially from a branch of government whos holding private entities to impossible standards, all while creating one of the worst environmental disasters of all time.
This is a perfect illustration of the left defending something indefensible, just because theyre following marching orders.
I swear to god if Hilary get's the D nod, and the R general candidate's slogan is anything other than "______________ for the White House, Hilary for the big house" then we've failed as a country.
Similar threads
