POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Why you people defend every single move Obama makes is beyond me. Supplying Mexican drug cartels with weapons to murder American citizens. Using federal government agencies to target American citizens. Using drones to kill American citizens. Expanding a sweeping domestic spy program. Overseeing a massive propaganda campaign to cover up the murder of an American ambassador. Ignoring federal law in order to inundate the US with illegal aliens. Etc. Etc.
But at every stop, Fuzz/FTS/Defense/Catdaddy/etc. are there to defend him.
"There's absolutely nothing Obama could do that I'd view as bad since George Bush had the Iraq War."
OK
So now the leading D candidate is actually someone who voted in favor of the Iraq War.
Got it. It's about principles, not team politics.
But at every stop, Fuzz/FTS/Defense/Catdaddy/etc. are there to defend him.
"There's absolutely nothing Obama could do that I'd view as bad since George Bush had the Iraq War."
OK
So now the leading D candidate is actually someone who voted in favor of the Iraq War.
Got it. It's about principles, not team politics.
Please quit with the victim complex. The entire article was about how left wing SJW are bad and hypocritical. One paragraph at the end about how SJW enables people like Stormfront posters on the fringe right, ironically creating the very situation that SJWs are nominally fighting against. The other ~12 (plus all the screenshots of conversations) were about how bad/hypocritical SJWs are.
So you're telling me one paragraph at the end, the very last paragraph, a paragraph some may call the conclusion, stated there's going to be a radical right fascist response to SJWs. But that reading the rest of the article, one might think the conclusion would be the SJWs are the fascists he's referring to in the text of that link?
Wow. It's almost like I said that exact thing in my post you quoted.
Wow. It's almost like I said that exact thing in my post you quoted.
I don't read it as a conclusion in the sense that it's the takeaway from the article. It's the last in a laundry list of how SJWs are hypocritical. "Finally..." is more like how you would introduce a penultimate paragraph, no? Conclusions should be recitations, not introducing new points.
But you are right in that you pointed that out. Read to me like you were playing victim, but I've been wrong before a time or two.
But you are right in that you pointed that out. Read to me like you were playing victim, but I've been wrong before a time or two.
Bring on the executive orders and new EPA regulations that shut coal plants down and jack up energy costs! Whooooo Hooooooo
Nah, going down per the speech, one of his elderly fluffers will post some piece from vox or salon for support shortly.
Serious question. Assuming taxes stay the same in the aggregate (and for the argument, assume individual taxes remain the same), does anyone oppose a carbon tax completely offset by reductions in income taxes? (I know, it's not possible to have a government taxation program that doesn't result in more government, but assuming for argument's sake) what's wrong with a carbon tax offset by other tax reductions?
I've seen people throw out answers like competition and inefficiency of alternatives - they need tax inequities to survive (which ignores our entire world police effort re stable oil prices and assumes perfect markets... and that CO2 is not a externality pushed off on others), but the income tax is no more justified from a competition or efficiency standpoint. Why not end income tax and shift taxes into something else?
No, because once you have a new tax formed, it will end up being on the hand of taxpayers eventually. Once that law is on the books it's just a matter of time before it hits us in the wallet. I know how this game works.
Don't fight the hypo, Willy! Personally, I would favor a combination carbon/VAT tax over the income tax. But then again I'm not in the favored taxpayers groups of parent and homeowner yet, so I pay a higher rate because... politics.
Man, how about no new carbon tax? I like that idea better.
Or wait for it.... How about a private company invent a carbon vaccuum sucker upper? They could open a new market and new jobs. Get tax cuts. I like that idea better than a new tax..
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
They're pushing the Carbon tax because Americans are going to have electricity. Unless we start building a ton of Nuke plants, coal and gas are going to be the backbone of the load, or we're going to have rolling black outs.
It's a sure fire stream of money for the govt, and customers are going to pay it.
Wind just won't cut it during periods of high demand. I work at a gas turbine plant. Last week the wind power we get was at 12% capacity, 150 mega watts. That seems like a lot, but the demand was 29000 megawatts. That's literally a drop in the bucket.
If we really want to cut carbon the key is efficiency in everything we use it for. It's already making a difference. 10 years ago with the temps we had last week the power load would've been pushing 33000 mega watts. 4000 megawatts in coal power is roughly 48000 tons of coal a day.
It's a sure fire stream of money for the govt, and customers are going to pay it.
Wind just won't cut it during periods of high demand. I work at a gas turbine plant. Last week the wind power we get was at 12% capacity, 150 mega watts. That seems like a lot, but the demand was 29000 megawatts. That's literally a drop in the bucket.
If we really want to cut carbon the key is efficiency in everything we use it for. It's already making a difference. 10 years ago with the temps we had last week the power load would've been pushing 33000 mega watts. 4000 megawatts in coal power is roughly 48000 tons of coal a day.
<--cheapest electrical rates of any major metropolitan area
<--carbon neutral electrical supply
<--only 4.4% of it is nuclear
environmentalists can be tamed if they realize more dams = less pollutants without increasing prices
<--carbon neutral electrical supply
<--only 4.4% of it is nuclear
environmentalists can be tamed if they realize more dams = less pollutants without increasing prices
Well, homeless vets aren't cute, cuddly, and adorable like the characters in a PIXAR movie.
Hydro power is a renewable and environmentalists love it. Unfortunately every area isn't blessed with the abundance of hydro power sources that Seattle has. I believe however TVA is second (though a distant second) nationally in hydro power production, at least it was when I worked there many years ago. Bill D. can speak to that.
Last edited:
In February of this year a bill called the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by President Obama. I'm not sure what this person is lobbying for but to say no one cares is being very disingenuous IMO. The government seems to have embraced this issue and is doing what it can.
Honestly I have never seen more pissed off people over a human reaction to the illegal killing of a protected wild animal, which was worldwide by the way, not just in this country. I think the public is capable of reacting to more than one issue at a time.
Leaders in the House and Senate signed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act in a rare ceremony to formally acknowledge that the bill passed both chambers. The bill now will go to the White House, where President Obama is expected to sign it Thursday afternoon.
The bill will start a loan repayment pilot program to recruit and retain mental health professionals and require annual third-party reviews to determine which VA mental health programs are working. It also will encourage more collaboration between the VA and mental health nonprofits and create a peer support network to help transitioning veterans.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/veteran-suicide-prevention-bill-approved-congress-/
A checkbook (lol... I guess credit card statement and bank account statement) is a better indicator of what people care about than social media posts.
Good deal but really don't remember hearing anything about this bill. Shows how screwed up our priorities at times.
The Hill @thehill 2h2 hours ago
Uproar after two illegal immigrants appointed to city commissions in California: http://hill.cm/04M8x3W
Speaking of CA, the (shopped) judge in NoCal that granted the stay on the PP videos bundled $250k for BO....lol, rascals.
Uproar after two illegal immigrants appointed to city commissions in California: http://hill.cm/04M8x3W
Speaking of CA, the (shopped) judge in NoCal that granted the stay on the PP videos bundled $250k for BO....lol, rascals.
Society at large has spent $?? on the dentists killing lions in Africa issue. Society at large has spent billions on veterans mental health treatment (although more is needed). Hearing about on social media (or even the news) does not = importance to society at large. So your point on viewing priorities is probably correct (although it discounts entirely any veterans mental health coverage over the years), but I don't think people's priorities are necessarily tied to their social media shares.
It's just the latest cliched attack line. "How can you be upset about the killing of a lion when you're not upset about_______"
(illegal immigrants, PP, a Memphis cop shooting, Vet suicides, etc.....
UCA was passed on cliches and fake narratives, NYT today:
WASHINGTON — Hoping to avoid another political uproar over theAffordable Care Act, the Obama administration is trying to persuade states to cut back big rate increases requested by many health insurance companies for 2016.
In calling for aggressive regulation of rates, federal officials are setting up a potential clash with insurers. Some carriers said they paid out more in claims than they collected in premiums last year, so they lost money on policies sold in the new public marketplaces. After finding that new customers were sicker than expected, some health plans have sought increases of 10 percent to 40 percent or more.
Administration officials have political and financial reasons for wanting to hold down premiums. Big rate increases could undermine public support for the health care law, provide ammunition to Republican critics of the measure and increase costs for some consumers and the federal government.
WASHINGTON — Hoping to avoid another political uproar over theAffordable Care Act, the Obama administration is trying to persuade states to cut back big rate increases requested by many health insurance companies for 2016.
In calling for aggressive regulation of rates, federal officials are setting up a potential clash with insurers. Some carriers said they paid out more in claims than they collected in premiums last year, so they lost money on policies sold in the new public marketplaces. After finding that new customers were sicker than expected, some health plans have sought increases of 10 percent to 40 percent or more.
Administration officials have political and financial reasons for wanting to hold down premiums. Big rate increases could undermine public support for the health care law, provide ammunition to Republican critics of the measure and increase costs for some consumers and the federal government.
My favorite version is, "How can you be upset about Obama, when you when you're not upset about Bush".
I think we should be in agreement that the right and the left both repeat stupid little cliches.
Our priorities or current news cycle?
The lion story will run for a few days and then be gone..in fact I don't recall seeing or hearing anything on the news about it the past few days and doubt we will hear anything else with the possible exception if the dentist in extradited or convicted of something. Otherwise the story is over and done.
People somewhere are working/caring for homeless vets, all veterans 24/7, 365. There will be more news stories and millions of $$$ spent on veterans issues this year than on the lion. It's just that the lion dominated one news cycle. Long term issues don't get daily news treatment, they get periodic news treatment.
The lion story was a current event, as was the bill. The thing about current events is that if you miss the story when it happens you're likely to never know it happened.
Want the Trump/Palin ticket to win it all.....we've been long overdue for a world war and I think this pair will get us there....
Well, Barry ran on being for "Main Street, not Wall Street" and folks, I guess, bought that hook, line and sinker - of course, as Donald has pointed out, Wall Street is running on false numbers (since the money is being pumped to it by the Feds) - that has to come home to roost sooner or later.
Yes, but not because hes a great candidate.
1) Not a career politician, so he can address issues noone else will
2) Isnt pandering to the Kochs, which could easily be #1.
3) Is willing to seriously attempt to secure our borders and deport illegals, which will not be on the agenda for any other candidate.
4) Is denounced by all foreign frienemies/enemies.
1) Not a career politician, so he can address issues noone else will
2) Isnt pandering to the Kochs, which could easily be #1.
3) Is willing to seriously attempt to secure our borders and deport illegals, which will not be on the agenda for any other candidate.
4) Is denounced by all foreign frienemies/enemies.
So would you vote for HC then. Any gop guy is better than another progressive, liberal, socialist (take your pick).
Last edited:
Yes...any GOP candidate better than BO 2.0. America won't survive . Got to get folks back to work
Is that any different than voting for man with ZERO qualifications to be the first black potus. YES that is working out just wonderful
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Are any of us expats in Thailand or spend a lot of time there?- Latest: the nail at the foul line
-
-
-
