Dear Right...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

Just dropping by....nuclear power and desalinization plants are the way to go for the future,imho. This is forward planning....

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

im working on two in texas right now..the windmills are an eyesore and it takes
81 of them to = 1 small coal fired or steam turbine

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. Those are ... completely unimpressive.

The first is silly.

He is withdrawing the troops from Iraq and has given a timetable. I don't know where he ever said "immediately" - only that he would immediately address it. Which he did.

He has in fact acted in a very bipartisan manner. I sure don't see how you can say this.

So you have to throw out the first three.

We will see on 4 & 5.

He has already kept multiple campaign promises - shall we list those?

the first is silly? He said "NO" on national tv on Meet the Press when asked in 2007 by Russert, "Are you running for President?" He wasnt coy, he didnt do that little deferral that politicians do. He said No, I am not running for president. While I suppose that we all have the right to change our minds he did do the exact opposite of what he said.

He said on more than one occasion that he would immediately withdraw the troops from Iraq usually followed up by wild cheering and him taking bows. I guess his version of immediate changed once the reality of the situation hit him.

You think he has acted bipartisan? Exactly what has he done that would be considered remotely bipartisan? Even the most liberal of liberals would have a hard time keeping a straight face on that one.

What do you mean we will see on #4 and #5? Do you ever actually read a paper other than the USA today? He has already taken the same stance as the Bush administration has on Executive power through his Justice Dept.

And earmarks? LOL I suppose that you missed the budget last week.....Yeah he'll get bipartisan tough on those....yeah sure he will

[Riot]

Obama vowed to go line by line through the budget, and would not except wasteful earmarks. that was during the campaign. now he says he will sign this current budget that contains 9000 earmarks because "we need to move forward"

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)

during the campaign he made a huge deal how he would not hire lobbyists and that he would have none in his Whitehouse. the fact is at last count he has made 19 exceptions to this ironclad promise.

Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.

the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is the one the Petraeus outlined some time back under Bush. Obama has added nothing to this matter other than make a big press conference and announce it pubicly and take credit for keeping his campaign pledge, which he didn't. he did at one point advocate a much faster timetable.

What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?

he made a big deal recently announcing that he was redirecting a particular strike force, that had been training for missions in Iraq for months, to Afghanistan. this was supposedly another campaign promise kept, to pull out of Iraq and re-focus on Afghanistan.

He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you ever actually read a paper other than the USA today?

I never read USA Today.

Do you ever listen to anything other than Fox News?

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

im working on two in texas right now..the windmills are an eyesore and it takes
81 of them to = 1 small coal fired or steam turbine

And coal plants are beautiful?

81 of them. That is much better than I thought.
So you were told they are producing more energy than
we can carry via wire, eh? ANd What the heck are you
doing there birthday boy? Out in beautiful West Texas?
Or are you in the middle/up to panhandle area?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I never read USA Today.

Do you ever listen to anything other than Fox News?

but you link to it....

Sure I listen to all sorts of things. Why is that anyone that refuses to follow along the liberal path is considered Rush Limbaugh or Fox News junkies? Do you read the Economist?. Or the Wall Street Journal? Or Financial Times or Money or Inc or Kiplingers or watch CNN or Cnbc or Fox business or a million other shows that are both liberal and conservative? Hell come to the table with something other than the typical liberal rhetoric about Fox news.

next thing you'll tell me that the mainstream media isnt left leaning...

[Riot]

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)



Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.



What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?



He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

I said that Obama has said things that have turned out to be not true or he reversed course on. This is true regardless of the reasoning.

Obama is nothing but a liberal politican trying to enact a sweeping social agenda and using the politcal cover of economic problems to cover his tracks. That should make him the target of scorn and ridicule for putting his ideology over the best interests of the country. Some of arent fooled by press conference quotes and PR. The proof is in the pudding and his pudding tastes like ****.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

but you link to it....

Sure I listen to all sorts of things. Why is that anyone that refuses to follow along the liberal path is considered Rush Limbaugh or Fox News junkies? Do you read the Economist?. Or the Wall Street Journal? Or Financial Times or Money or Inc or Kiplingers or watch CNN or Cnbc or Fox business or a million other shows that are both liberal and conservative? Hell come to the table with something other than the typical liberal rhetoric about Fox news.

next thing you'll tell me that the mainstream media isnt left leaning...

Yeah, I linked to USA Today for this. I found their article far more objective and educational than the FoxNews article containing nothing but political whinings.

Do you see everyone that doesn't agree with you as a liberal? I don't see it as black and white as you seem to.

Yes, I read WSJ almost daily, and hit on Money or Inc when I can. I watch CNN, CNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC. I sometimes even look at Huffington Post and Fox News (there's two extremes). Yes, I think the general media leans more left than right.

I consider Fox News a completely crappy, laughable and factually unreliable "news" organization. They are a 24-hour ultra-conservative politically-motived blog. I would no more get my "news" from Fox than I would Huff Post. Yes, I find them both useful for editorial content views.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

And you agree that now is the time to start this process?

I mean before you said Obama was too busy with his job to do his job (you know actually read the budget and eliminate those pesky earmarks that he said he was going to)

But he isnt too busy to try to start projects that put a financial strain on the people of the country with no actual tangible benefits?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And you agree that now is the time to start this process?

I mean before you said Obama was too busy with his job to do his job (you know actually read the budget and eliminate those pesky earmarks that he said he was going to)

But he isnt too busy to try to start projects that put a financial strain on the people of the country with no actual tangible benefits?

Yes, because I think the premise of your last sentence is wrong.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, I linked to USA Today for this. I found their article far more objective and educational than the FoxNews article containing nothing but political whinings.

Do you see everyone that doesn't agree with you as a liberal? I don't see it as black and white as you seem to.

Yes, I read WSJ almost daily, and hit on Money or Inc when I can. I watch CNN, CNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC. I sometimes even look at Huffington Post and Fox News (there's two extremes). Yes, I think the general media leans more left than right.

I consider Fox News a completely crappy, laughable and factually unreliable "news" organization. They are a 24-hour ultra-conservative politically-motived blog. I would no more get my "news" from Fox than I would Huff Post. Yes, I find them both useful for editorial content views.

You must not be retaining any of the non-liberal views...

I dont how anyone could read the Wall Street Journal daily and still come up with your viewpoint which seem to be far closer to the general media than anything found in the WSJ.

I dont call everyone that doesnt agree with me a liberal. I call liberal thinking and actions liberal. Because NBC says something is objective doesnt mean it is.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)



Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.



What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?



He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

this is all so laughable, like our president. are you receiving your daily DNC talking points?

Obama has taken a bad situation and is making it much worse.
I would be only laughing at the situation if it we weren't so close to financial collapse.

btw, here is another laugh, regarding this most ethical of administrations. they claimed paying taxes was patriotic. we find ourselves with an economic disaster. they claim to know what to do because they will put their big brains on the case. only one problem, the department we need up and running right now to fight this war is the treasury. the treasury is off to a sputtering start because its run by a tax cheating incompetent, and surprise surprise, they're not staffed yet because they can't find people without tax issues!!! you can't make this stuff up. they have to outsource some of the trade missions now to the State department because Geithner is swamped.

one more guffaw for tonight. this bestest most smartest president in history yesterday said he wanted to reach out to Taliban moderates. WTF is he smoking? yeah how about reaching out to moderate maniacs, and moderate muderers while we're at it.

i guess if appearing weak and stupid on the world stage (hit the reset button with Russia?), while tripling the deficit and plunging headlong into a depression, while trying to erect a utopian socialist society is partisan nit-picking, then yes I'm guilty as charged.

fyi- I don't like nascar and I'm not religious. I saw your stereotypes yesterday.

dont mean to get in the way fellas

the wall street journal and the economist
have really good stuff.

the economist has some very wide ranging
issues presented that tie a lot of stuff together.
wish it came out more often.

wall street journal does a cracker-jack job
of putting foreign affairs and business together.

actually Riot these two conservative posters
are not your social conservatives, they are
economic conservatives

Probably two of the few that realize their party
dies when they get off tangent on social issues.
Sad they need that base to pull off an election.

McCain was not rabid enough. He told a racist
hillbilly to shut up at a Rep pep rally and it was seen
as a mistake... go figure.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, because I think the premise of your last sentence is wrong.

Yeah right. Right now in the middle of a giant recession where energy is available at extremely low prices which helps keep the recession from deepening we need to start this green ****. I'll take my chances that Al gore and the rest of th nuts are wrong since most of this bs wont have any tangible effect (if it really works) for 50 years.

and every person in the country can become MR and Mrs Green and we can all do every thing we could possible thing for the environment and it wont mean a damn thing when China doesnt give a **** and refused to change their policies. It wont help if everyone isnt doing it. It hasnt helped in europe. We have bigger issues right now.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah right. Right now in the middle of a giant recession where energy is available at extremely low prices which helps keep the recession from deepening we need to start this green ****. I'll take my chances that Al gore and the rest of th nuts are wrong since most of this bs wont have any tangible effect (if it really works) for 50 years.

and every person in the country can become MR and Mrs Green and we can all do every thing we could possible thing for the environment and it wont mean a damn thing when China doesnt give a **** and refused to change their policies. It wont help if everyone isnt doing it. It hasnt helped in europe. We have bigger issues right now.

If China does not change their ways it will present us with
the perfect example of what happens when industry runs
awry. They are basically poisoning themselves. Their life
expectancy has gone down and they are richer. Imagine that.

This is why Obama has stated he wants to do this now. It probably
would have gone better when gas was > 4.00 but it will eventually go
back. He believes this is the time to make the switch. Its a gamble.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

If China does not change their ways it will present us with
the perfect example of what happens when industry runs
awry. They are basically poisoning themselves. Their life
expectancy has gone down and they are richer. Imagine that.

This is why Obama has stated he wants to do this now. It probably
would have gone better when gas was > 4.00 but it will eventually go
back. He believes this is the time to make the switch. Its a gamble.

it's not. he said other issues would be pushed to the back burner, that now was the time to put our focus on the economy. and creating more expense right now in energy is not a way to help our economy. people are finally getting a breather in that area (the one bright spot right now) and he wants to pull that rug out from under them? makes almost as much sense as choosing now to inform folks that medicare and medicaid are going to lose funding when more than ever need it, so that they can put that money towards a future attempt at universal health care.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

Actually the studies show the "kill" rate for the WT Farm is far far less than Auto strikes. It's all part of the enviromental impact study....