Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Dear Mr. President . . . . Yes I have a question

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 10:48 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I do have a question - I think it is a fundamentally important question, one that must be addressed if this nation is to position itself to face the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century, and that question is this:

  • Why, Sir, WHY do you persist in calls for bi-partisanship when it is clear the repelican party continues to lie, outright, about your record and its results, on the issue of job creation, the bailouts, and even GLOBAL WARMING?

  • Is it not obvious that within the next six years, as the fact of GLOBAL WARMING becomes ever more irrefutable, its causes undeniable, and the lies of the repelican party more desperate and outlandish, is it not obvious that the American people will turn away in abject disdain and complete disgust?

  • Is it not clear, Sir, that the repelican party is DONE?

  • So why, why this steadfast insistence on bipartisanship, when it is clear that is the very last thing the repelican party of today is prepared to offer?

  • YOu can see the State of the Union Address on YOuTube

293 Comments

293 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

It's all theater designed to manipulate us.

Obama's playing the good cop/bad cop game. And so are the Repubs.

They deliberately act this way to avoid passing anything that their Big Corporate overlords would frown upon.

The sooner we figure this out the better.

THEY ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. Obama is THE SAME as O-Boehner.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I agree that it's all theatrics and with less integrity of a college debate team. I refuse to watch political news or our president's state of the union addresses anymore and didn't even watch this one. I will not be insulted, patronized and used as a pawn in their game any longer. This is a very sad state that we are in. I never dreamed that I would see such rapid decline in American's ethics, values and morals. I'm truly ashamed that any other global citizen would watch our undignified debates and I'm even more disgusted with those who actually attend the debates and support such undignified rhetoric and theatrics. I don't think anyone should vote PERIOD but the problem is that there are actually people in America who are so truly simple minded that they actually believe that it's ok to make a mockery of our election process. America could command more professionalism from their leaders but then that would mean that we would need to raise the bar for ourselves as well and that ain't gonna happen anytime too soon. The majority of Americans seem to thrive on the entertainment factor in most everything. Pathetic! Let's just ask them to make a reality show of all the candidates and then we could at least say that they were portraying themselves in a more honest light.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Thank You - You hit a home run with that post. ;)

[-] 1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Nordic, haven't you seen enough examples of ZenDog's posts to know he doesn't actually believe what he writes, but that he is just transcribing MSNBC's stories onto this forum? Zen, you have the talking points down cold my man! Damn!

I agree with you Nordic. BOTH SIDES are in it together. A one party political system, designed as a theatre to appease the masses.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Nordic has it right and it's exactly why I belong to neither party. Here for edification and entertainment: The caustic humor of George Carlin, not to be missed his skits on 'The American Dream,' 'Who Really Controls America,' 'Saving the Planet,' 'George Carlin Doesn't Vote' and 'We Like War.'

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=George+Carlin&oq=George+Carlin&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2066l6004l0l7750l13l10l0l6l6l0l357l1200l2-2.2l4l0

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that is a cop out - one designed to make up for your lack of trust and inability to pay attention to what they say vs. what they do.

The President threw a huge monkey wrench into repelican plans for Iraq as candidate, by stating that he would pull out in 16 months. When he made that statement the bushite policy was

  • no timeline

As soon as candidate Obama made that statement, and I mean within the very same week, the bushite admin made statements accepting a timeline.

Hear what Noam Chomsky has to say about the grid lock in DC.

[-] 3 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you feel that way. Because it's ass-backwards. Obama is no different from Bush. He's an employee, like Bush was, of the people who really run things.

They wanted Obama to win. That's why McCain picked Palin, to guarantee that he couldn't "win". It also gave the Repubs a lighting rod to raise money and hope for the next time.

Because if the Democratic Party was truly an opposition party? The Republican Party would now be dead in its grave, with everybody pissing on it. NOBODY wanted to be a Republican back then, it was embarrassing after eight years of Bush. One tiny breath could have knocked it over permanently.

But no. Obama's job was to revive it. He did a good job.

[-] -3 points by mediaauditr (-88) 2 years ago

Savage nation Nordic? I am.

[-] -3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that is such a skewed analysis I don't even know where to begin . . .

You seem to start out with the assumption that McCain placed his own ambitions in subordination to the good of the party which is not at all likely. McCain imploded because he didn't like the pressure he was getting, and he liked Ms. Sara's mammaries . . .

As for the resurrection of the repelican party you can thank the Kochs and their tea party . . .

and we know who the TeaParty is:

and:

More on the TeaParty:

and if, as you say, it is all theater, then there would be no opposition to the Occupy Movement, as is demonstrated:

Repelicans to undermine the Occupy Movement:

[-] -1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Sorry ZenDog but you are not quite accurate when saying that "candidate" Obama is responsible for the timeline. You appear to give full credit to then candidate Obama for an outcome that had been in discussion for months. The United Nations mandate allowing the U.S. troop presence in the country was set to expire at the end of 2008. Not only that, but all the countries in Iraq at the time were either already in the process of removing their troops while, like the US, Britain was in negotiations with the Iraqi Government concerning its own removal timelines. To claim that Obama's campaign statement was the cause of the agreement is over reaching.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

No it isn't

that is historical revision

It was late winter 2008 when Obama made that statement, and within 2 days bush changed his tune. And he didn't give a shit what other countries were doing - to suggest he did is to radically misrepresent that fool in cowboy boots.

When as candidate, President Obama made that statement, it provided an opening for the aspirations of the Iraqi people, which up to that point had been completely ignored by the US admin.

not to mention the will of the American people as well.

I watched

I saw what happened.

It was a major shift in U.S. foreign policy.

[-] 2 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

You watched and came to your own conclusion, but unfortunately, that is not an accurate one. Go back and read articles dated from that time frame. You may claim it is revisionist, but only if you ignore the articles printed at that time and prior to Obama's statement.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

show me one - using a credible source of course.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Here's your original statement (in part) just to refresh memories.....

"The President threw a huge monkey wrench into repelican plans for Iraq as candidate, by stating that he would pull out in 16 months. When he made that statement the bushite policy was

no timeline

As soon as candidate Obama made that statement, and I mean within the very same week, the bushite admin made statements accepting a timeline. "

And here are just a few articles backing up what I stated (which was "Sorry ZenDog but you are not quite accurate when saying that "candidate" Obama is responsible for the timeline. You appear to give full credit to then candidate Obama for an outcome that had been in discussion for months. The United Nations mandate allowing the U.S. troop presence in the country was set to expire at the end of 2008. Not only that, but all the countries in Iraq at the time were either already in the process of removing their troops while, like the US, Britain was in negotiations with the Iraqi Government concerning its own removal timelines. To claim that Obama's campaign statement was the cause of the agreement is over reaching.")


NY Times By Thom Shanker Published: Saturday, January 5, 2008

FORT MONROE, Virginia — The Iraqi defense minister said that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on to defend Iraq's borders from external threat until at least 2018.

The comments Monday from Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the U.S. commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government has indicated....

Qadir offered no specifics on a timeline for reducing the number of American troops in Iraq.

He was in the United States to discuss the two nations' long-term military relationship, starting with how to build the new Iraqi armed forces from the ground up over the next decade and beyond, with American assistance.

The United States and Iraq announced in November that they would negotiate formal agreements on that relationship, including the legal status of U.S. military forces remaining in Iraq and an array of measures for cooperation in the diplomatic and economic arenas. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/africa/15iht-military.3.9232036.html


NY Times By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: January 13, 2008

"...the Iraqi Parliament passed legislation that would ease restrictions on former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, one of the key benchmarks set by Congress and the Bush administration as a measure of political progress.

Mr. Bush said that he and General Petraeus had not discussed specific plans for withdrawals beyond those already scheduled. Those reductions would leave about 15 combat brigades.

General Petraeus later said that he and his commanders, including Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, had begun to consider a number of situations that would determine the timing and pace of any additional withdrawals.

The possibilities ranged from an improvement in Iraq’s security after the withdrawals already planned to a worsening of the situation. “Certainly there is a possibly of that,” the general said. “What we are working on, though, is determining recommendations on the timing and the pace” of any drawdown.

He added, “As the president mentioned, this will be clearly conditions-based.”

General Petraeus is scheduled to present his recommendations to the White House and Congress in March or April.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/world/middleeast/13prexy.html


NY Post by Amir Taheri , September 15, 2008 WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri is author of 11 books on the Middle East, Iran and Islam. He has been a syndicated columnist for American, British, and Middle Eastern publications since the 1980s. He has edited newspapers and magazines in his native Iran as well as Britain and France. He has been writing for the New York Post since 2002. In 2005, Taheri was named Senior Fellow at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_4TDMCIC1dvWUjF8QWt3y1N#ixzz1kfdSdrL9


CNN October 19, 2008

Britain's Defense Secretary John Hutton met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

British and Iraqi officials will begin negotiating a deal that will allow British forces to remain in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when a U.N. Security Council mandate on their presence expires.

The United States is also trying to reach an agreement with Iraq to maintain a military presence beyond 2008.

"The Prime Minister said that if the constitutional institutions approve the agreement between Iraq and the United States, this will facilitate the convening of an agreement with Britain regarding the future of its troops in Iraq," a statement from al-Maliki's office said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-19/world/iraq.main_1_maliki-roadside-bomb-baghdad-s-zafaraniya?_s=PM:WORLD


NY Times Published: December 5, 2008

BAGHDAD — A majority of the foreign troops that have been part of the multinational coalition in Iraq will depart in the next few weeks or have already done so, because they will no longer have the authority to operate in Iraq when the United Nations resolution authorizing their presence expires Dec. 31.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/middleeast/06iraq.html

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • The entire excerpt from the NY Times By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: January 13, 2008 stands as reinforcement for the Bush doctrine of that time that there would be no timeline, instead, as this article states, withdrawl will be conditions based

In fact there is nothing in any of your articles suggesting the admin was even considering a change in position on the matter of a timeline, and the closest you get to supporting your argument is with the citation from NY Times By Thom Shanker Published: Saturday, January 5, 2008 where it can be argued that the author of the article, and perhaps extending to the editorial department or beyond - were attempting to prod the admin in that direction.

You have provided nothing that indicates that kind of flexibility at that time by the bush admin.

You won't find indications of this kind of flexibility within the Bush admin at that time because it simply did not exist.

Electoral politics intruded into U.S. foreign policy with Candidate Obama's statement that he would withdraw from Iraq, and fortunately this intrusion was both reasonable and to the benefit of both the Iraqi people and the U.S.

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Nice try. You insisted that Obama's statement on drawing down within 16 months was the catalyst for a sudden timeline - ignoring that negotiations were already in affect based - yes - upon conditions in Iraq - conditions put forward even by the words of the Iraqi Defense Minister himself....regarding security.

It is so easy to revise history - using only the basis on a timeline - to state that no negotiation were in place UNTIL Obama spoke some magic words. There was no definite date for withdrawal of the troops because there were certain conditions that both the Iraqi and the US governments wanted in place. But in order to do this, you must ignore everything else that went on during that time - including the expiration of the UN agreement.

You asked for one source - I gave you several...why am I not surprised that even still you read all of them with the intent not of learning more of the entire situation as it really existed at that time but with the intent of bolstering your own partisan opinion that some magic words of Obama cured all?

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You insisted that Obama's statement on drawing down

That is correct - and I still do. Bush policy at that time was no timeline.

That was a fairly hard position taken by the admin and bolstered with such comments as:

  • “An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.

  • Mr. Bush and his aides, traveling in Tucson and Houston to attend Republican fund-raisers, insisted again that the administration was not accepting any timetable for withdrawing American forces, which now total roughly 140,000. But the administration has faced increasing resistance from a newly confident Iraq, where some officials have said publicly that Iraq can take charge of much of its security by 2009, and be able to operate without American help by 2012.

And these are bush admin and candidate McCain statements after the bush admin tacitly expressed support for the idea . . .

It's called, attempting to finesse . . .

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

As long as you conveniently choose to leave out the reasons why there was opposition to a set date for withdrawal - i.e. conditions on the ground for the Iraqi's security, Iraq's agreement to allow the Bath party some voice in government - you can continue to claim there was "no timetable" until the magic words of Candidate Obama were uttered....

yet, even he admitted that there were conditions that would have to be in place to stick to his 16 month timetable....

"He {Obama} also chose not to make a case for the hard timeline that he laid out in the primary season. "My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I've said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe," he said.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/04/nation/na-campaign4

I also note that you ignore the fact that he - in a purely political move - tried to convince the Iraqi government to delay making any agreement for withdrawal until after the election..........asking them instead to petition for an extension of the UN agreement - which you also ignore.

Your argument is only valid IF you ignore a great deal of what was taking place and focus on certain words of Bush that support your opinion. And here I thought that OWS supported critical thinking.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

from the same article cited above:

  • Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

If you can't understand the bush position of the time I just don't know what to tell ya. They were clear, abundantly so. That shit kickin' cowboy wasn't much interested in the opinions of the international community, period. He had an agenda, as Candidate Obama turned that agenda on its head.

go ahead.

sit'n'spin

[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

I fully understand the Bush position as it was based upon the needs on the grounds - he believed that giving a specific date of withdrawal would lead to the resurgence of violence and that certain political agreements for equal part in government needed to be in place to ensure the safety of the Iraqi citizens....have you taken a look at the violence that is now taking place in Iraq?

BAGHDAD — Violence appears to have increased sharply since U.S. troops left Iraq a month ago, as insurgents have unleashed a wave of furious bombings targeting Baghdad neighborhoods, Shiite pilgrims and police facilities in Sunni areas.

The deadly attacks have roots not only in the troops’ departure but also in a domestic political crisis that erupted in its wake. Shiite and Sunni leaders have squared off in a power struggle, one that analysts say insurgents are trying to turn into a full-scale civil war. How the politicians handle their own mess, and the attacks, will determine Iraq’s ability to hold itself together. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraq-violence-up-sharply-since-us-exit/2012/01/17/gIQAUteX6P_story.html

The Washington Post is hardly a conservative paper.... but let's look at another source - Global Security

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2012/iraq-120119-irin01.htm

BAGHDAD, 19 January 2012 (IRIN) - Suicide attacks, assassinations and bombings in Iraq have claimed the lives of at least 265 people and injured hundreds of others since 18 December, the date the USA withdrew all but 200 of its troops from the country, according to the health and interior ministries.

The wave of attacks, carried out mainly by Sunni extremists from Al-Qaeda in Iraq against Shia communities, has alarmed many who fear the country could descend into chaos once more, with the government itself acknowledging it is not capable of ensuring security on its own."

Despite a White House Spokesman claiming that this would blow over in one or two weeks, the violence is still on the rise.

You go ahead and insist that Bush had no "timetable" simply because of an "agenda" he held for his own selfish purposes and that the magic words of Obama turned that all around - again, those who have critical thinking skills that allow them to look beyond politics for understanding of things will be able to see that the ability of Iraq to secure its own nation was one of many reasons that no "timetable" with an exact withdrawal date was given.

Continue to hold fast to your belief that Obama can operate above the reality of any situation and cure all with his "magic words". ....that only he can bring about those moments - regardless of all other circumstance - after all, his becoming President was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" and when the Nobel Prize committee decided that "peace" had at last come to the world........

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

My point is and always has been that you believe that magic words from Obama were all it took to bring it to an end.

It's clear the bush admin was attempting to negotiate a path between public perception and international agreements that would have allowed a U.S. presence in Iraq for an extended period of time. Why do you think they went and built such a huge embassy? They never said we would be there for the next fifty years - to provide a base from which to project power, curb Iranian ambition, and so on. But that was clearly the idea.

Candidate Obama closed the door on that possibility with his statements. Did he follow through on them precisely as he stated them? No. Facts on the ground did not make that possible - that does not change the fact, that as Candidate, he forced a major shift in U.S. foreign policy.

NDAA. Patriot Act....- if his magic words cure all, then why are those laws now still in existence?

Because Congress fucked him. Article I section 8 gives Congress the authority to make policy regarding captures on land and water - they used it, wrote policy making it impossible to close Gitmo [2010] and reaffirm the authority for military detention already provided [2011] -

and they did this by attaching these legislative initiatives to defense spending bills - and passed these bills on the brink of deadline, making a veto very expensive politically.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You go ahead and insist that Bush had no "timetable" simply because of an "agenda"

I will because he did. Because of its controversial nature it may not have been spoken of openly - but the administration was quite transparent as it began to squirm in the face of Candidate Obama's statement regarding a time table.

PNAC's advocacy doesn't state explicitly that a long term occupation of Iraq was the goal - but it is clear that in their view, this was a desirable, and obtainable outcome.


PNAC

  • Key Positions

    • "Facing up to the realities of multiple constabulary missions that will require a permanent allocation of U.S. forces."

    • "Need for a larger U.S. security perimeter" and the U.S. "should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces," citing the need to move beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia to increased permanent military presence in Southeast Asia and "other regions of East Asia." Necessary "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status."

    • "North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself."

    • "Main military missions" necessary to "preserve Pax Americana" and a "unipolar 21st century" are the following: "secure and expand zones of democratic peace, deter rise of new great-power competitor, defend key regions (Europe, East Asia, Middle East), and exploit transformation of war."

PNAC - Wiki

  • The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.3,4

PNAC - Wiki - rebuilding American Defenses

  • In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."14
[-] 1 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Look, I'm not going to get into a debate about the entire Iraq war and all the decisions and committees and so on that led up to it or influenced it during the duration. We could spend the next month copying and pasting from wiki this and wiki that .....I could post articles on which liberal groups influence the decisions that Obama has made in his three years in office.....

My point is and always has been that you believe that magic words from Obama were all it took to bring it to an end. The UN timetable for withdrawal of all UN troops was expiring. Political goals had been met. Security was still an issue (and is still an issue). Magic words from the Peace Maker Obama were not solely responsible for the eventual date of US Troop withdrawal. You give him too much power.

NDAA. Patriot Act....- if his magic words cure all, then why are those laws now still in existence?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I agree with Nordic, that the whole political game is just theatre for our consumption. Before Bush went into Iraq, it is my belief that they had designs on rolling right through, and onto Iran to capture both their oil supplies. It was their last gasp effort to hold onto Empire well into the 21st century. Bush, Cheney, and crew never expected Iraq to be such a problem for them. That was the monkey wrench. They then concentrated in quelling the violence there, and gave up on Iran.

Both Bush and Obama knew they we were near the point of being in control insurgency, the political institutions and hence the resources (oil) in Iraq. (We left behind thousands of mercenaries to ensure the situation stayed controllable.) The public was getting sick and tired of war which helped too. This and the fact that all the war time profiteers had their coffers full enabled both Bush and Obama to be able to play politics with time-tables, etc. Everyone knew that they had played 'this one' out for all it was worth. Time to move on and find the next boogeyman.

After reading this, I realize how cynical I sound. Perhaps it's because I attended Obama's inauguration, believed all his crap, and now feel like a dupe.

While most Americans may think that the invasion of Iraq was for noble reasons, most Iraqis aren't that stupid.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Yes it is all theater....Politicians just want money, power, and to win so that their EGO get's high again! .......

1) First you hear what the politicains say before he is elected. 2) Then you hear what he says after he is elected. 3) Then the politiican does what he wants or what he is payed to do. 4) There is no connection between the first 3 points or actions.

[-] 2 points by occupypuppies (71) 2 years ago

the president is a puppet. what is this the 1700's? we have the internet and occupy, we don't need to be paying attention to the "president." ugh.

[-] 2 points by polinja (4) 2 years ago

Words are cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have spoken volumes about his character and what he represents. He is a HUGE disappointment and definitely does not represent me. I don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. His SOTU speech sounded like a recycled speech from his 2008 campaign. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... not a chance!

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions have spoken volumes about his character and what he represents.

YEs they do - and that is why I plan to vote for the President this fall. I don't particularly care for the fact that he is going to expand drilling for oil - but I don't suppose he actually has a choice given the political climate.

I have a copy of the text of his speech - we could review it . . . .

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You pose some very good questions here. Could it be that BOTH parties have the same agenda? They get their campaign money from the same people.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

If they had the same agenda then there would be no grid lock - social security would be in the hands of wall street right now.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

IMO, they're playing "Good Cop - Bad Cop". The reason there's grid lock; is because the 1%; monied interests; corporations; Wall St.; etc. have put a lot of effort in establishing the present system and they don't want change (think of energy for example). They like it the way it is. It's profitable for them. Ironically enough though, this is the same group that pays for our leader's campaigns; gets them elected; and then lobbies the piss out of them. Now it's pay-back time. Essentially, this group, after putting their whores in office, dare anyone of them to make a change that will adversely affect their Cash Cow. If they do - they're done. And since any serious change will piss somebody off; we have grid lock. The whores are afraid of being reprimanded by their pimps and losing their jobs - regardless of what's good for the country !

As far as SS - The Prez said "everything's on the table" and he's NOT known for being a good negotiator. But they say that like minds think alike. We'll see. Cheers

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

jobs numbers tanked in the run up to the budget debate

that hurt wall street.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I see no point in bothering to do anything about global warming as long as asia isn't on board also. We might as well be as comfortable and happy as we are dumb.

You're not going to get CO2 levels down just by decreasing emissions in the US. All nations are in the same metaphorical boat, China is still drilling holes in the boat. You want to stop the US from drilling more holes or get it to plug up a few, nice idea, but a waste of time, we're still sinking. Enjoy the view as the ship goes down. Wish we had a band like the Titanic had.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

China is at least recognising there is a problem, and implementing a tax on carbon, though way lower than Australia's tax level. Read on.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chinas-carbon-tax-price-a-worry/story-fn59niix-1226239371053

The chief executive of the Australian Coal Association, Nikki Williams, said at a starting price of $1.55 a tonne of carbon dioxide, China's carbon tax was clearly not designed to shift its economy away from fossil fuels or to prejudice its economic growth "because they know how important coal is to their future growth prospects". The full digital experience

News of the Chinese plans sparked cautious optimism among climate change action advocates but reignited business concerns about the impact of the Australian carbon price.

Dr Williams said Australia's carbon tax was specifically designed to shift energy production away from coal.

"This is why the compensation is inadequate and limited to a few gassy mines. It is one of the drivers for the permanent exclusion of coal from emissions-intensive, trade-exposed assistance," she said.

"Our concern continues to be that Australian industries will be significantly disadvantaged by a domestic scheme that is the broadest and most expensive in the world: $23 per tonne versus $1.55 per tonne and a cost to our coal industry of $18 billion to 2020.

"There is no comparison," she said.

But Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said last week that the $1.55 price in China would be in addition to a raft of other emissions-reduction efforts that imposed a cost on industry.

"China is continuing to strengthen its policy in both carbon emissions reductions, energy efficiency and renewable energy," he said.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's spokesman told The Australian widespread international action to tackle climate change was already under way in the world's major economies, including China.

At the UN climate change conference in Durban in South Africa last month, all major economies, including China and the US, had committed to take on legal obligations to reduce carbon pollution in a new international agreement to be negotiated by 2015.

Su Ming, deputy director of China's Financial Science Research Institute, told the state-run Economic Information Daily last week that under the proposal the tax rate would increase gradually. Pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, COD (chemical oxygen demand) and nitrogen oxide would be the first to incur tax and, as conditions matured, other emissions would be included.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

None of it matters if your tax only results in slowing the rate of increase. The graphs commonly employed show this problem has been developing for over 100 years, dropping emissions to their level 10 or 20 years ago isn't going to be enough.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I fully agree, but it's a start.

There's no getting away from the pollution in China. It's smog city, and there's action from those who are actively installing massive arrays of solar panels, because the sun is blotted out by pollution most days.

Australia can't even comment, because we supply China with just as much coal and natural gas as they will buy off our producers (many of whom are actually American companies).

It's tough, but we really should applaud them for actually recognising the problem, and setting some kind of example.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Oy!

Even if China weren't doing as much as it should, WE should do as much as WE should. Why? Because we can. Because reducing OUR emissions lowers the TOTAL amount of emission in the world. So instead of China producing X amount of emissions PLUS our producing Y amount, we would be left only with China's. It would still be LESS that if did kept going at our present pace. And, since we are only 5% of the world's population, but are using 25% of its energy, it is simply the right thing to do regardless of who else does it. Up to now, it has been us, not anyone else, who has been the greatest polluter in the world. It's well past time that changed.

Yet, China is beginning to lead the way in conservation. It has a long way to go, but already they have cornered the global market on Solar cells. They are building high speed rail lines, (something the Republitards have effectively ended here), and so on. As it stands now, it will be China's, not the USA's technology that is sold throughout the world to make the planet more sustainable. It is they you have positioned themselves to lead the world in sustainable technology, and reap the enormous profits from it.

The Republitards are destroying American competitiveness in global green technology and jobs. Instead of allowing the government to spend more investing in green tech and jobs, they do everthing they can to support the fossil fuel industry. And they use a single investment failure representing just 1.3% of the investment portfolio if the government - Solyndra, which itself failed because of Chinese subsidies in solar manufacture - as a poster boy for so-called government mismanagement, making sure LESS, not more, desperately needed investment is made in Green Tech.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

There isn't any point in doing anything, you're operating under an illusion that action will be effective. The CO2 in the air can, according to some climatologists, remain there for millennia. If all emissions stopped today you would still have the same greenhouse effect we have now for hundreds of years. No one is talking about stopping all emissions, just rolling them back to a level of a few decades ago, where they were already dangerously high.

At some point an equilibrium will be established and heat in will equal heat out. Life will adjust eventually (here I'm talking about the planet not man, we're in for a bumpy ride at best).

My metaphor is a good one, with emissions we're drilling holes in our lifeboat, climate initiatives get us to drill smaller ones and tell everyone it's all ok now. You're not talking about ending the process or even plugging the holes. You'll sink a little slower maybe passing the problem on to another generation.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"There isn't any point in doing anything,"

I find it interesting how selectively you quote the science. The very scientists whose work you cite say there is very much a point to doing something. Yes there is a half-life to aerosol carbon. Yes, it's long. But NO, doing nothing is not what the scientists recommend. If nothing else, it would delay the occurrence of the atmospheric tipping point long enough to transition to sustainability.

Your doom and gloom only makes the problem worse. America should be doing everything it can to change the way it uses energy, and change it as fast as possible. Europe is already making the effort. China is beginning to, realizing there is more money is green technology than in coal. America not changing disincentivizes the rest of the world from changing as well. Leading the transition to green energy will not solve all the problems. But not doing so will accelerate them.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Scientists do urge action, even though temperatures could continue to rise for the next millennium (at least according to a NOAA report I read). I don't see anyone being able to convince humanity to think long term, even less so when the economy is poor.

It doesn't matter what I do or don't do, I have no power in this at all, I believe we're on a path for an event that will decimate the earth's population and, considering the self inflicted nature of it, it may be a good thing in the long run.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I matters what we ALL do, collectively. It is not a power issue, it is a responsibility issue. What you or I do individually has an infinitesimal effect. What the entire world does together is substantial indeed. What America can do, if sufficiently pressured by a sufficiently large enough number of people, can be incredibly significant.

Frankly I find the "I can't do anything, I have no power" argument to be self-indulgent and ultimately all about "me, me, me" not about social responsibility. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. And if everyone operated thus, the the British would till be occupying India, Hitler would be in power, the civil rights movement would never had happened.

That's not to say the problem isn't daunting: it is. And doing anything can feel like trying to push a brink wall with one's head. But there have been huge challenges countless times before in human history, and via massive collective effort and sacrifice progress was made. Maybe doing anything is pointless in this case. But I won't know that unless I do what I can and refuse to wallow in hopelessness.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

We are not a collective, with one mind. There are sufficient number of people that don't believe there is even a problem in the first place to make consensus among the population impossible. Many talk about what should be done but don't do it.

It goes beyond global warming to all aspects of our interaction with the planet. We've overpopulated the earth, the answer isn't as simple as cut back on emissions, it's cut back on population, drastically.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Then you can do your part by not having children. You can do your part by using energy-efficient appliances, or talking the bus or train or bicycle to work, and talking to your friends and family and neighbors.

Collective effort doesn't mean a hive mind.It doesn't mean unanimity. It means doing your part along with others. Advocating doing nothing because, in your opinion, nothing can be done is utterly self indulgent. Seriously, why bother getting up in the morning? After all, you will eventually die anyway.

Change has happened, been FORCED to happen, by millions of people, individually, coming together and taking action. I have seen it (and participated in it.) It is not as easy as giving up, but then again, giving up is not so easy either. If the planet is worth fighting for, fight. If your actions matter, do something. If they don't it changes nothing to complain about it.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

There are many things beyond our control, I'm going to die, sooner or later we all are, it doesn't stop me from doing things I consider useful on a day to day basis. This issue is one of those things that you're not going to be able to change people's minds on until things are a lot worse.

I've already made the decision about children, and appliances. You can agitate all day long, people are not going to start riding the bus to work. You've got millions of people against changing the way things are. You can try to educate them and change their minds, I simply think it's too little too late.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The oceans consist of trillions of drops of water. Alone, each drop is nothing. Together........

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

No matter how many or few drops you look at, it's still water with the limitations and properties of water. People rarely take a long term view, they will continue along their present path because they are what they are.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Reply to you link below,

Sure, there is a long way to go in terms of the Hudosn, Not did I suggest that Seeger was alone if his efforts: just the opposite. And that's the point, He, and many other individuals, through a their collective effort, have gotten a great deal done. And despite there being a long way to go, the Hudson is in far better shape than i was 20 years ago. The issue about action is not perfection, but movement in the right direction.

As to climate change, the jury is still out. I don't share your bleak view. Governments around the world, except ours, are talking about it seriously and beginning to take action. Europe is pressing ahead. China is working hard to ween itself from coal. There is no doubt that whatever is done now, change has already happened, and we are already reacting. The question is if America will wake up in time before we reach the tipping point. I still have hope that it will., and refuse to give in to despair as you have. I don't see myself having to change everybody's mind. Just one or two minds. And if enough individuals did that collectively, it would soon enough be a majority.

And, just a correction. "The" CO2 in the atmosphere will not be around for thousands of years. The half life of atmospheric CO2 is between 25 and 70 years, depending on the method of calculation. It's probably about 50 years . So SOME, a tiny fraction, of the CO2 we're dumping into the air will still be around thousands of years from now, but hardly all, or even most of it will, if we simply stop dumping an unsustainable amount into the atmosphere.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

SoDO SOMETHING about it. Think global, act local, as Pete Seeger wisely advised. The rest is out of your hands. (You realize he cleaned up the Hudson River from the source to the estuary.)

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

He didn't, he was part of the general move toward clean water that led to the banning of PCBs that GE is still in the process of removing (phase 2 began in June 2011 and may take 5 years). It does highlight the problem though, action wasn't taken for decades after the addition of PCBs was halted. The water is still dangerous to drink, and the fish from it are still potentially harmful.

I'm not against action I just see the attempt to get a majority behind you as a waste of time. People don't prevent problems we react to them. Taking your example, it seems as if you were somehow convinced the Hudson was cleaned up, it's just not as dirty and polluted as it was in the 70's. The fish and water from it are still polluted.

You're going to see the same thing with warming if you can ever convince a majority to do something. Some few symbolic laws will be passed and people will think the problem is solved and go back to their lives. It's your time to waste, in the end temperatures will rise and we'll be forced to react to changes not prevent them, it's what we are.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Noam Chomsky points out that if we don't lead on this issue, no one is going to act.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Is there anything we can do to bring down current levels of CO2? All the initiatives proposed only talk about slowing the rate of increase of emissions. China flatly refuses to discuss the issue at all.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That I do not know - what I do know is that nothing will even be attempted given the repelican party platform that stipulates global warming doesn't even exist.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

On this issue I don't care what any politician says, the most liberal initiative only talks about lowering emissions to some level of a few decades ago that was already too high. It gives you the illusion of doing something positive, when you're really doing something immoral. You're passing the problem on. The CO2 already in the atmosphere could be with us for thousands of years.

Assuming the worst climate model is right, global warming won't end life on earth, it will make major changes in climate patterns and disrupt food production for a time. The oceans will become more acidic and sea life will change, sea level will also rise. Some life will adapt some won't. The 7 billion people on this planet may have to make some difficult decisions about food and living space, famine and war are likely. Societies may collapse.

Try this metaphor, we've been given a diagnosis of a liver disease due to drinking. We're not going to stop drinking we'll just switch from vodka to light beer. It's an illusion of positive action, the end result will be the same, just take a a lit longer. I don't support the Republican's ignorance, nor the Democrat's pandering on this issue.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

we need to get back below 350 ppm atmospheric carbon -

From: http://co2now.org/

  • 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

As long as we're producing more CO2 then is getting used, levels will continue to rise. My view is fatalistic and perhaps a bit morbid. There are times when a major die off is a good thing for the earth in the long run. This may disrupt crops and food supplies enough to decimate earth's human population and that may be what we need right now.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

It may be inevitable, yet I say to do nothing, or worse, to advocate for policy that will most certainly increase co2 emissions, is no different than accessory to mass murder, and since it is unlikely the government will survive, sedition.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I don't advocate it, I see human nature as unable or unwilling to take the long view. The economic downturn has most politicians putting this issue on the back burner.

I also see humanity as uncontrolled runaway growth incapable of living with nature so maybe it's time nature smacked us hard. It becomes a surreal sort of black comedy for me, we haven't had a really good culling of the herd since the black death, maybe we're due.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I wasn't thinking of you as an example of advocacy.

I tend to believe the economic crisis, whether it was engineered or not, has been exploited by the current set of beneficiaries of our current energy infrastructure. The economy does behave in some predictable ways. Gridlock in the run up to the budget debate produced market uncertainty, resulting in lower market and jobs numbers - this was predictable.

One of the things repelicans insisted on was an end of tax incentives for alternative energy.

Then there are any number of advertisements run by the oil companies insisting we have oil and they have answers.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Well so far the track record on the administrations investments in green energy it's very good. To me I don't care if the crisis was part of a conspiracy or not, global warming is a symptom of something we just don't want to deal with. There are too many people on earth. That's where we need to cut back.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The point is:

If we do it our industry is going to be cleaner as we go along, as we go along we get better at it, as we get better we begin to master. As we master so can we teach. In the mean time we do less direct poisoning of our land and water.

The point is care or purchase that ticket to hell in a handbasket.

It is everyone's problem and responsibility. You can't just point a finger like a child and say but Billy isn't doing it, so I'm not gonna. That is not very mature and it will get us nowhere.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I'm pointing out that if Billy doesn't stop too, then we still get rising temperatures, and Billy is out of our control, has said he won't stop, and his economy depends on him not stopping.

We can't reverse the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, only slow down the rate at which we're increasing it. As underdeveloped nations become more industrialized the CO2 levels are going to be rising faster. Transportation is the biggest contributor in the US, go try banning the auto.

What is the time frame to Armageddon? If you manage to stop all CO2 production in the US, how long do you have to educate the developing nations and get them to voluntarily stay decades behind in living standard?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Why should they have too : "stay decades behind"

As we develop and implement true green fuel and energy production why wouldn't we share and promote the technology and know-how?

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (286) 0 minutes ago

I'm pointing out that if Billy doesn't stop too, then we still get rising temperatures, and Billy is out of our control, has said he won't stop, and his economy depends on him not stopping.

We can't reverse the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, only slow down the rate at which we're increasing it. As underdeveloped nations become more industrialized the CO2 levels are going to be rising faster. Transportation is the biggest contributor in the US, go try banning the auto.

What is the time frame to Armageddon? If you manage to stop all CO2 production in the US, how long do you have to educate the developing nations and get them to voluntarily stay decades behind in living standard? ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

You assume some technology will appear just because you need it. We could burn hydrogen producing water vapor from engines. No one knows what the increase in water vapor would do, give us more rain, form more clouds and block sunlight giving us global cooling (I like the irony of that one). Water vapor is a better greenhouse gas then CO2, if it lingers in the atmosphere raising humidity we could increase the rate of warming.

If things just drift on rain patterns will change, probably more rain overall, just where it falls will be different. Some arid areas will expand others shrink. Crops that were common in the south will grow farther north. Sea levels will rise, some life will face extinction. Earth will go on in spite of us. Earth temperatures have been warmer.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you are concerned about putting water vapor into the air. ( I mean seriously? ) Not a problem. Take the exhaust and collect cool it and use the water for some thing else. Perhaps pour it on the lawn? Collect it in a cistern and irrigate with it.

Oh by the way water vapor is not a green house gas. Take a simple science class.

1 points by MsStacy (286) 0 minutes ago

You assume some technology will appear just because you need it. We could burn hydrogen producing water vapor from engines. No one knows what the increase in water vapor would do, give us more rain, form more clouds and block sunlight giving us global cooling (I like the irony of that one). Water vapor is a better greenhouse gas then CO2, if it lingers in the atmosphere raising humidity we could increase the rate of warming.

If things just drift on rain patterns will change, probably more rain overall, just where it falls will be different. Some arid areas will expand others shrink. Crops that were common in the south will grow farther north. Sea levels will rise, some life will face extinction. Earth will go on in spite of us. Earth temperatures have been warmer. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

LOL, I have some background, google "greenhouse gases" or open any basic earth science text, water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. The natural greenhouse effect of water vapor makes earth livable. I was thinking of the water vapor seriously, but do you know the energy cost of condensing water vapor, and the hopelessness of that task if you're using hydrogen as fuel for cars? Nature will condense it it time, that's why I'd be more concerned about clouds.

Here is it reason for my fatalism. The amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere have caused temperatures to rise. If you could halt all CO2 production from man made sources you'd still have high levels causing the atmosphere to continue to warm for perhaps millennia. No initiative calls for a halt in all CO2 emissions, so levels will continue to increase.

If all of the worst predictions are correct, it's a fatal diagnosis. You can't just stop emissions and have everything be all right. The gas is still there and will continue to warm earth at the present rate. Back to the metaphor, we've been drilling holes in our boat and you just want to drill smaller ones, not even stop drilling them. We're still sinking and no one is talking about plugging those holes (efficiently remove CO2 from the air).

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

what do we do about melting glaciers? who stops them from polluting?

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/72551/sheer-scale-and-high-density-plumes Scale of Methane Plumes From Melting Arctic Shock Researchers

Melting permafrost methane emissions: Another threat to climate change http://terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This:

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (465) 41 minutes ago

what do we do about melting glaciers? who stops them from polluting?

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/72551/sheer-scale-and-high-density-plumes Scale of Methane Plumes From Melting Arctic Shock Researchers

Melting permafrost methane emissions: Another threat to climate change http://terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

Is our continuing struggle and fight to advance the implementation of true green energy ( Fuel and power creation ). By advancing truly clean energy creation and usage we will reduce the green house gasses.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

how? when all our efforts are being thwarted by mother nature? so we reduce,, what does that count for if that reduction is replaced by nature? is it really worth the effort?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26023) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Man is a major green house gas producer. With out our contribution, things would be different from what they are. To the second part of your question ( is it really worth the effort? ), lets do it and find out.

[-] 1 points by devilliers123 (18) 2 years ago

When's he gonna admit he has a forged birth certificate?

[-] 1 points by vats (107) 2 years ago

Banning out sourcing to india would be the first step in making americans work

[-] 1 points by Pidge (18) 2 years ago

I was very disappointed by Obama's support of hydrofracking. I have been a supporter, but this is bad news.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I completely agree - I think it must be the result of a complex equation incorporating political realities extent in DC with projected demand for energy resources looking at least ten years out, and the current state of our economy.

I do believe his position says an awful lot more about the state of politics and the domination over energy policy by the current players - who include the likes of Goldman Sux as well as the fossil fuel industry; then anything that is suggested by right wing fanatics who insist it reveals any and every thing from incompetence to corruption on the part of the President.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Need bi-partisan solutions so nothing gets done and everyone shares the blame.

Just a game...Say one thing Do something else...

"Nordic" is correct....It's just theater (and not very good theater either)..

The President says: "Anyone who says that America is in decline, doesn't know what they are talking about!"...

Really? Oh Really, Mr. President? Is that the best Manchurian Candidate President from Hell type statement you could make?

A day later someone from the DNC calls me asking for $100.00...I told the young man on the other side (After giving my 1/2 hour dissertation on Chicago School economics)

"When the President actually does something, as opposed to just talk, then I'll give you $1000.00".

Speeches are nice, aren't they...You really have to believe the bullshit..

Mr President: SHOW ME

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

It'll be their problem when he woops their asses in November.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

You should have many questions. But who knows where to begin to answer you?

At least you concede that Republicons are dirty players. I would say that, as many have written, today's GOP is no longer a legitimate political party, that they have morphed/descended into a cult. And their Charlie Manson is the vast special and ruthlessly greedy interests which reside within the multinational 1%. So Obama faces an opposition that LITERALLY has the monopoly on crazy and powerful. They own the media. They are by no means "done."

And his "loyal" supporters, who had his back in 2008? What did they do in 2010 when he desperately needed more friendlies in Congress? They POUTED and let even more crazies pile on. What is he supposed to do?

Global Warming? These zombies can't even agree that the earth is round. They believe florescent light bulbs are a communist plot, and sufficient reason to bomb Iran. They believe eradicating all taxes would solve our economy problems. They think we are all just killing time until the Rapture. And the sooner the Rapture, the better!

I would like to see all the Right Winger fascists and fundamentalists in Congress on both sides of the aisle placed under military arrest and tried for treason. I'd like to see the same for executives in business who flagrantly engage in economical terrorism. I'd like to see industries vital to our nation nationalized. I expected the only remaining use of fossil fuel power by this time would be for hobbies and special applications.

But I know why the president doesn't do these things, and I know why he has to work with Republicons. Zendog, it's a giant complex compromise. It's the path of least collateral and direct damage, suffering, destruction and death. Think if the Civil War had a water, power and communication gird to shut down? Now add our weapons. In one hour we could do more damage to the planet and it's inhabitants than a thousand years of climate change. Vietnam and Iraq are just one example that insanity repeats, with ease.

If you really want to eradicate the pollution that effects our planet, then you have to educate and motivate and unite the people and demand the necessary changes. If you want to be sneaky and clever and achieve the same goal faster with less resistance, simply institute first priority to The People in [all endeavors]. "Everything" else follows that simple imperative.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 never EVER again!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Whew! Man...pretty strong words. I agree with a lot of it, but don't think such a strong condemnation put in those terms is going to accomplish as much as a well-reasoned and intelligently presented argument. Maybe it's just your writing style, or maybe you mean every exact word of it, but opposition to opposing positions has never resulted in effective change by way of hate mongering.

I like your heart kid. But watch out and keep your head down. Remember who you're up against.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Thanx UD, (there's a strong handle)

I know who WE'RE up against. I've been up against them for quite a while, much to their chagrin. Not my first rodeo, but we all can use backup.

I can't imagine what you would call 'Strong" or "hate mongering." This ain't no disco, this ain't no fool'n around, UD. We're not having a tea party either. People ARE suffering and dying!

If you have dealt at all with the other side, you already know that there is no "accomplishing" or "effective change" that will result out of any communication with [them]; whether it's nice, polite or, especially, "well-reasoned" or "intellectual." The other side, the Cons, don't do reason. They don't do learning. They don't do intellect. They don't think. THEY JUST BELIEVE. This is not for "them." "They" are lost.

I worry about the newbies, innocents and meek, here and, frankly, the whole Occupy Movement. I want to help my people. The one's with hope, who believe in progress.

Above is common knowledge among observers of this phenomena of today's politics.

Listen to some Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, or Ed Schultz to break the ice, or cherry.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 never Ever again!

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Might I call your attention to another Original Post

http://occupywallst.org/forum/enough-talk-time-for-action-do-you-want-to-vilify-/

Kindly read that and let me know your thoughts.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Dale Carnegie reincarnated.

Getting the money out and revoking Citizens United aren't newsflashes. Yeah, let's do it.

Is there a paypal link on his site?

Come on.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

ZenDog has been more upfront then most here in his support for the president, and I think he deserves some answers - we all do - as to why the president has not more often used his veto-pen against these draconian bastards, and in many cases appeared to actually be on their side. Why compromise with those who won't compromise?

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Because they're f-ing crazy and the have big money backers. ZD has his heart in the right place, but he's a little wet behind the ears on these things. But this EricBlair is a full on RW troll.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

There are quite a numer of full on RW trolls on this site! But the truth is that a lot of them post under many names to give the impression of greater numers. Unfortunately, it is a fairly successful little trick. It makes people think there are a lot more nut-case apologists for the 1% then there really are.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

If you think this is bad, you should see the troll action on Craigslist. They have full on robo setups to censor the political boards from coast to coast. It's not CL, and they seem powerless or careless to do anything about it. They even get into your account so it looks like you've posted, but it's been blocked. And you can't repost because your account registers your post as posted. Any info on that?? This Forum is great comparatively. Frankly, I like hearing what the zombies have to say. You can't make that crazy shit up. They don't even try on CL. BRAINS ahhh!

[+] -8 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

They POUTED and let even more crazies pile on. What is he supposed to do?

I think they pouted for some very understandable reasons - the dems were in control up to that point and couldn't even end the bushite tax breaks. Had they done that perhaps the budget debate would have not even taken place - or if it had perhaps it would have been less onerous - though I concede it is possible repelicans could have used the tax issue as an excuse to default on the national debt - and had they done that, then the inevitable would have occurred much much sooner . . .

  • the repelican party is DONE
[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 2 years ago

ZenDog I want you to understand something. Obama isn't stupid. He is an extremely intelligent man. He's an expert in constitutional law. He is a political genius. He was anointed by the corporate media to be the next President of the United States before he was even half-way done with his first term as a senator. He isn't "weak" and he doesn't "fail" to stand up to the "repelicans." He's the opposite of a failure, he's tremendously successful--- it's just that HE'S NOT FIGHTING ON YOUR SIDE. He doesn't give a fuck about you.

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/13/obama_147/

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/01/debt_ceiling/

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I'll try to be nice but I'm losing my patients with this "problem."

In politics you have to put your big boy pants on. There's no room for petulance. No trophy for showing up with your shoes tied correctly. You don't forfeit the game because you struck out. No pouting allowed, you take that shit to the sandbox, where it's "understandable."

No one could have reversed 30+ years of entrenched corruption in two years, or even one term. It probably can't be done in 4 terms. And the flagrant sabotage waged against this President has been unprecedented, in addition to the record-breaking number of filibusters. The Lieberman DINOs did not constitute a Dem majority, contrary to reports from the news media and RW pundits like Rush and Oh Really who are owned by the 1% who employ the Cons. Not that sabotage and filibusters couldn't negate a real majority, nevertheless it would have helped, at least in spirit.

The Affordable Health Care Act was a [compromise] with the crazy Cons who had half the country believing in "Death Panels." They own the media. The Bush Tax Cuts for the rich was another [compromise] with the crazy Cons to maintain Unemployment Insurance payments to the vast unemployed victims of the Bush-Cheney-Republicon recession/depression. Yet, despite the Republicon pledges to Norquist and McConnell, Obama managed to accomplish many great achievements. I encourage you to review the many events over the past few years with links other than "Global Warming," I can't take you through all the news you seemingly missed.

We don't do dictators or kings in America (newsflash, GOP), the Cons have no shame and could not care less who or how many people their recalcitrance harms. So what can the President do?

Elections have consequences. Pouting got the nation and several states (like Wisconsin) a bunch of Tea Bagging idiots. Now we have to fight like hell to get rid of them, and then we have even more damage, that they are busy inflicting right now as we speak, to repair. Did this somehow benefit petulant, newbie pouters?? Because it set back anything being done about the environment several years at least.

The role of government is that of the Sheriff in the wild west. We have outlaw corporations/businessmen who prefer Sheriffs who work for them. Outlaws hate Sheriff's who won't play ball and make it very difficult for them. You don't abandon the Sheriff because the outlaws rob the bank or poison the well. That's not very smart.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I tend to agree with you - but I think the issue of the health care debate may illustrate a deficiency of organization, one the President's team needs to take responsibility for.

If the unions support single payer, they should have been in the streets screaming their support, and shouting down lil' Sara and her death panel bullshit - because we already have death panels - they are called

  • insurance companies
[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Thanx

We now all understand that we need Universal Healthcare, that's a victory.

The AHCA has many great improvements over old outlaw Big Insurance health care. After languishing untouchable for 50 to 100 years, Health Care reform is off to a better start than SSI and other "entitlement" programs we have today did when they started.

Look, what we witnessed in retaliation was awesome and amazing and unimaginable. Where is it now? Completely out of sight.

We have to learn from that, because it's still right there, we just can't see it. All of these big reforms are like that. Massive attacks just waiting to pounce AND working behind the scenes when we can't see them.

I think the Obama team was just as blown away as we were. Next time they won't be. We shouldn't either.

Unions, in the end, are generally loose groups of busy workers. The ones I've been in were populated mostly by conservative anti-unionists. A sad irony. But the times have hopefully woken more of them up. What's left of them.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Wow, I really would have liked to hear more of this exchange.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I read somewhere earlier today that an analysis of the race for Ted Kennedy's seat went to a repelican because one or several of the unions were upset over the way the health care debate resulted in no public option - it might have been

Noam Chomsky

Where he starts out on the topic of global warming.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

I read the first two paragraphs and stopped. I knew that the rest of the speech would be infuriating after reading this:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives. We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think his latest call for bipartisanship was more like throwing the gauntlet. He knows very well that the Repelicans won't do what's right. He said as much about climate change. legislation. By combining a populist stance with an invitation to work together, he exposes the repelicans as working against the people during an election year. He might have mistakenly believed in bipartisanship at the beginning of his term. He now calls for it only as political strategy.

[+] -8 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Someone needs to stand up, on a national platform, every time the repelicans make that false claim that they represent the people - they don't.

  • they are a minority
[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And I think with his State of the Union speech, Obama was setting up to do just that in the coming months. Finally. In fact, he has done it before, to no avail. Please understand, I find him a major disappointment. BUt he seems to have woken a little from his slumber. And while I don't trust this new-found populism, at least he's leaning in the right direction, even if its only a little.

[-] 1 points by truth2p0wer (135) 2 years ago

I would advise that Headlesscross and commonsense11 listen to the randi rhodes show and maybe even visit the homework section. You might be interested in some of the economic news you can find there like these little gems http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/pf/jobs/1201/gallery.best-companies-hiring.fortune/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/for-profit-colleges-veterans_n_1224407.html

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

What flavor is that delicious Koolaid you are drinking?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What flavor of RupertRush Juice are you drinking these days?

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Can't stand Rush Limbaugh if that is who you are talking about. I own a business and work among the manufacturing sector so I have a pretty good feel for what is going on. I also know how the numbers are skewed with unemployment.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You know what's going on???

Please, do tell..............................:)

[-] -1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I have over 300 customers. I repair their equipment when it breaks and do preventative maintenance work for those that are fortunate enough to be busy with great cash flow. I have customers that have layed off half their work force and still not willing to call any back due to the up and down of the supply and demand for their products right now. I have some that are working reduced hours and some that have closed the doors. All in all I am busier then 2 years ago but not as busy as 5 years ago. Some of my customers are busier but that is also a result of reduced competition as some of theirs have closed the doors.

I mentioned some of the ways the unemployment rates are skewed to the to make the politicians look better in my previous post. What we really need to do is get rid of the career politicians and elect independents that don't walk the party lines.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Then you know what trickle-down economics are, what supply side economics are and where these two failed concepts originated from. You were paying attention to when unemployment went from 3.8% to 7.2% in 8 years, when the Deficit grew from a surplus of about 2% under Clinton to a deficit of about 22% under Bush. This created a 4.9 trillion dollar debt under Bush alone, taking our national debt to about 11.9 trillion dollars.

If you take a half second to do the math you will see out of control spending and out of control unemployment under Bush that contributed to the housing problems, aside from the banks. The issues with unemployment, the housing market crashing [creating less demand for durable goods] helped to create further unemployment, which helped to make the housing problem worse and so on. It was Bush that created TARP, not Obama.

Cyclical, each problem contributing to the other to create a very real problem and this started under the watch of Bush. This probably started before Bush with the Savings and Loans bailout under Clinton [White Water] in case people forgot.

This create a cycle of events that has lead to where we now are and until people actually take a cold, hard look at the facts this will not be corrected.

The facts are that unemployment was declining an average of .425% each year for eight years, the debt at a rate of $612 Billion a year for eight years and these trends were not corrected. Spending was not kept in check and the cost of the wars was hidden and not all the costs were declared in the nation budget.

How do you stop something with that kind of momentum in four years? It is like a large object rolling down a hill, picking up speed all the way. Where do you stop it and how do you do it?

You cannot run a Country like this and this is what Obama stepped into and if you people fail to come together to correct the course of this Country you will have more of the same.

This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. This is an issue of fixing this country for those that will come later, your children and their children. Or you can be part of the problem by being childish.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I do not agree with everything you said and don't find myself in the mood to even start to address it at the moment but two points I agree with are Obama stepped into a losing situation. Time is required to heal the economy because people require time to regain confidence. It also takes time for the dust to settle and things to find their balance. Once they do we will all find and adjust to the balance that is set. No economy can experience constant growth and there will always be surges and declines. Bad policy can make these surges and declines more pronounced.
I also agree this is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. Both parties are to blame and it's time to clean house of both. We need Independent non career politicians that are there to truly serve the people.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I have to say that my goal is to remove the Corporations and created entities from the political processes by Constitutional Amendment. This is underway if you want more information.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're demonstrating that supply side economics is unsustainable.

The real economic engine is demand.

The simplest solution is to get money back into the hands of the consumer.

Any way possible.

Higher pay scales in the working class is one solution.

Finding ways to reduce the cost of the big 4 : insurance, housing, medical and child rearing, is another way accomplish this.........

To get this accomplished, will take some doing, as all attempts so far have been met with incredible levels of propaganda from both sides.

Before we try and throw everybody out, we must first get the money out!!!!!

However we do it.

It must be done.

First and foremost.

It's not revolution that will work.

It's EVOLUTION, that will.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

No that is no what I am demonstrating. The reality is there is currently a lack of confidence on the part of consumers. The threat of gas going to $5 a gallon reflecting in higher costs for everything we buy has consumers afraid to spend like they used to. The good news is eventually everything will come around again. People will modify their spending to a certain degree but demand will become consistent. Consistency is whats currently lacking. This breeds uncertainty. When the dust settles and everything resets itself people and businesses will once again find their balances. This takes time and there is no magic bullet or policy that makes it happen. Washington's policies can make for more favorable conditions but only time will heal the economy and allow people to regain confidence in their daily lives.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so you think those 500k+ jobs that disappeared has nothing to do with the decline in amount of money people spending... they just arnt spending that invisible money they make from not having a job.. interesting. and they are so afriad.. that they let thier houses go into forclosure and that it only takes time for this to be right back like it was? interesting

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

No I think people lived above their means, borrowed more then they could not afford to repay creating false growth. People are now adjusting their spending patterns. We are basically going through a reset period.

We have to fear rising gas prices and inflation at this point in recovery. I don't believe the rising gas prices are an accident unfortunately. I see this as a ploy to force Americans to buy newer gas efficient cars and in the minds of those behind this, put more money into the auto industry.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So for you it's the same old, same old.

It's not going to work so well this time.

I pointed out 2 things that will work,.

You've ignored them and said wait and see.

You will be waiting a long, long time.

Fatter pay checks, and more good paying stable jobs, is really the only cure.

It's the only thing that has ever worked.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Raising wages will increase cost resulting in inflation. You could however put more money into the hands of people by shrinking the government and getting their hands out of areas they have no business being a part of. This will help to take the money out of politics. There is so much waste that it sickens our economy. Do you know there are currently a group of photographers being paid with your tax dollars taking pictures of billboards all over the world staying in 5 star hotels? Part of a useless study being conducted. You can bet this is a political pay off for constituents.

Decreasing the cost of housing and raising our children are in large part the product of many of our decisions. We need to learn to live within our means. That means you may not go in debt and buy that nice house by age 25. You may have to wait till your 30. Your kids may not get every gaming system with games. They may not get expensive clothing and so on.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so that billion a month for those people occupying iraq had nothing to do with it , you want to focus on something like a study? and the fact that the corrupt politicians and corporations want to start a new war that will cost the same has nothing to do with this? and yes. the war in iraq cost a billion a month. that is the waste of money before that everything was fine.

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I don't disagree that there was tremendous waste because of the war in Iraq. Waste is widespread and the result of corruption. Here are a couple more waste items, in the financial bailout the vote was rushed through. Included in this, money for makers of toy wooden arrows and money for rum importers. The waste is widespread. Iraq was more visible for you to see. This stuff that we never hear about adds up to huge waste and is an example that both parties are to blame.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

If you believe this why do you keep voting for (R)epelican'ts?

Much larger government is always the result of their terms in office.

The only time you want to shrink it is when a Democrat's in office.

Buyers remorse?

You are a very strange and confused lot.

My cures still stand front and center.

You didn't really offer one.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

You must be blind. I personally would love to see independent non career politicians voted into office and get both the greedy Republican and Democrat puppets out of office. People such as yourself are indeed scarey. You walk the party line of the Democrats as loyally as the Republican supporters do theirs. Both parties are to blame for our mess and both need to go.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

My eyesight has actually improved with age.

Now you want to play the , they're both to blame game?

And still offer no cure?

Reagan was bad enough, at expanding the military, but Bush took the cake, with the Patriot Act.

The largest, most expensive, most far reaching, most intrusive, most constitution shredding, most diabolical BIG government agency, ever conceived.

Did you really think the next guy in office wouldn't find ways to expand upon it, or the next guy, or the next?

Naive.

(R)epelican'ts have set the bar high for BIG government.

And you simpletons, piss and moan about an unemployment extension, in a World wide recession?

Remember, the next time you take a flight, and someone asks to touch your "junk".

(R)epelican'ts did that.

No one else.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Ignorance. Are you part of the Entitled Generation or just buying into their garbage?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I just accept the truth.

You don't.

I've already worked for over 40 years.

I now suffer at the hands of teabagge(R)s and other forms of (R)epelican'ts.

Teabagge(R)s raised my State taxes and now want to raise taxes on the price of gas!!!!!!!

Taxed enough already my ass!!!!!!!!

Everything posted above is true.

It's YOU spewing garbage.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

And here I thought Glenn was still in Israel, waiting on the flotilla.

But I see instead, that he's gone back to being a rodeo clown.

Do you ride the bull?

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago
  • a repelican touched his junk!

bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha bwa hahaha. . . BWA hahaha . .hahaha . . .. . . HAAA haha ha

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I hear they like that kind of thing.

That's why Bush gifted them with TSA patdowns.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You've been drinking the strongest flavor of RupertRush Juice allowed by law.

Now if only the (R)epelican'ts can up your dosage, you'd be even crazier.

You might even fall in love with Palin.............swoon.

[-] -1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

When you mention Koolaid for those that don't fact check and/or are far out of touch with reality. You refer to this a RupertRush Juice. I assume you are talking about these folks swilling Palin piss.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The formula is patent protected........................it's a secret.

Rumor has it there's a healthful dose of Ann Coulter endorsed "all natural" radiation.

But, that's just a rumor.............hint hint.

Licenses for distribution, are freely sold at all FLAKESnews outlets, and right wing talk radio shows.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

That is "wink, wink, nod, nod, know hat I mean, know what I mean"... :-)

[-] -1 points by truth2p0wer (135) 2 years ago

reality flavored. Fact is Repubs break gov and Dems fix it. Clinton after the Reagan/Bush years and now Obama after Bush Jr.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Clinton reaped the benefits of Reagan's policies and Clinton was in fact responsible for the housing market crash. His policies allowed people to buy houses they could not afford and ultimately putting the housing market into the mess it is currently in.

[-] 1 points by Freedom2100 (25) 2 years ago

Please re-read your history. It was during the Reagan years that so-called "creative financing" started to try to get around the then 14-15% interest rates in the early 1980's. Reagan signed legislation allowing financing options unknown before--such as getting a lower P&I payment for the first four years of a mortgage in exchange for a "balloon payment" of principal in year 5. Since interest rates were falling and property values rising this ponzi scheme never crashed at the time such as in 2008 since buyers (especially new buyers, then early baby boomers) would refinance their mortgages and continue to kick the can down the road. Bush Jr. added to the fun later by looking the other way while further de-regulations allowed 100% financing to sub-prime borrowers, etc, etc.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

RupertRush Juice, again????

You really should lay off that stuff.

Reagan...............................ROFLMAO

Alzheimer's.............................ROFLMAO

Trickle down...........................The BIG lie!!!!!

You can't be serious. That old tax raiser Reagan???

That's just silly.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Clinton's policies caused the current housing crisis. This was the beginning of our economic woes.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Gosh......Last week you guys blamed Carter.

The week before it was FDR.

But no, it's been the (R)epelican'ts the whole time.

You guys just can't seem to get over the lies they tell.

Still think everything will be OK if only the welfare queens and immigrants, would just go away. Or was it college students?

You just can't decide.

It's the BIG government (R)epelican'ts that did it.

I have little doubt. I lived it.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Your ignorance amazes.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

And what do think of your own ignorance?

Reagan gave us the largest military we ever had.

Bush gave us the ever expanding Patriot Act.

A military, I might add, that "misplaced" $2,000,000,000,000

Misplaced, as in they can't find it, or account for it.

(R)epelican'ts= big expensive, hidden, intrusive, government.

Then the economy crashes on their watch, and you still want to blame Clinton?

Still looking for some detail, that absolves who really did it.

(R)epelican'ts did it.

In the words Richard M. Nixon......." I am not a crook".

Yes he was, and (R)epelican'ts are still in denial.

Like you.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

during Reagan's term a large military was necessary. It was a different time in our history and Iwas part of the military during those times with a top secret security clearance so I fully understand why the expenditures were necessary.

The President is only part of the problem. The Senate and the House are as much to blame. The problem as some realize is corrupt politicians and the money behind them. The Republican and Democrat Parties receive money and the Politicians answer to the Party as well as the Corporations.

What I find ridiculous is the thought that only one Party is responsible. We can find faults with the policies of every President we have had and the Congresses during their terms. The Parties won't get along with each other. They are more concerned with pushing agendas then they are running the Country and the better good of it's citizens. I would just like to see some balance brought to the conversation instead of this one sided blame pointing garbage that is being passed off as fact.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OK,,,,make excuses for Reagan.

Bad job.

Then punt on Bush, to claim it's a shared fault?

Yet not a word on the Patriot Act?

Of course corporations are involved, that's a given, any more.

Guess what? Many of the corporations profiting on the Act, have ties to the Bush family.

But just once it would be nice to see a consevatarianrebagger, admit that the (R)epelican't party is the favorite tool of the corporations.

Just once, admit that the (R)epelican'ts have created the largest most intrusive government agencies, in our history.

But it just ain't in ya..

You still cling to whatever your told.

PS: You started this off with one sided crap about Clinton.

RMN " I am not a crook"

Yes...................he was, and the (R)epelicans still are.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

They are all crooks my friend. I'd love to see term limits and an end to Corporate Contributions.

Congress has more power than the office of the Presidency and when it comes down to it they carry a larger share of the blame.

Your use of the term "Repelican'ts" isn't clever, it in facts shows you are unrealistic and biased in your evaluation of what occurs in Washington. I would recommend you lose the nonsensical term and refer to them as Republicans. Your words would carry far more weight in my mind and others.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The last Republican was Eisenhower.

Since Nixon uttered, " I am not a crook", the have become (R)epelican'ts, unable to tell the truth, unless it passes the buck.

Would you prefer the term republibaggerservatarians?

The one thing they are NOT is Republicans.

[-] 2 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Like I said before you are not clever. You lose credibility and are not to be taken seriously by anyone. Use proper terminology or continue to sound like an idiot and not be taken seriously.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

In the topsy turvey world you live in, telling the truth IS the province of idiots.

Coming from one like you, who denies reality, I will consider it a badge of honor.

Welcome to the Plutocratic States of the Military Industrial Complex.

You have been assimilated.

If you find yourself in danger of accepting the truth, please tune in to any FLAKESnews outlet.

[+] -4 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"randi rhodes show"?

That tells me all I need to know about your veracity.

You're really propagandized beyond all hope and change.

[-] 3 points by truth2p0wer (135) 2 years ago

Have you ever listened to her show? If you had you would realize she is the ONLY radio/tv host who encourages her listeners to review the information for themselves as appose to taking their word because they said so. Having read this forum I see a lot of the members here are just regurgitating what they have been told by their ideological leaders.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"Have you ever listened to her show?"

I wouldn't have replied to you if I hadn't heard her before.

I think she has some mental issues,seriously.

You do realize she is just regurgitating what she has been told by her ideological leaders.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

If you are fool enough to believe anything you read in job reports, then you reflect what is wrong with a large majority of America. Why does the unemployment rate drop? Because people have lost their eligibility for it and are no longer considered to be unemployed in the figures. Temporary seasonal jobs also lower the rate. People taking minimum wage jobs at fast food restaurants instead of the jobs that paid them enough to survive lower the rates. Other nice tricks... Census taking employees fired and rehired daily to lower the rates. Are you really that ignorant to think it is the "repelicans" as you like to call them? It is Republican and Democrats alike that are the problem. Get a clue and maybe your words will actually be credible.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"Global Warming is the first of many many lies and perhaps the biggest among them. "

Well stated ZD.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What did Chomsky say on Global Warming?

  • The chamber of commerce, the main business lobby, the American Petroleum Industry, other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.

  • and it's succeeded, unfortunately, the latest polls I've seen show maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming . . .

  • . . . substantial number of climate scientists who believe taht consensus predictions are much to optimistic . . .

  • . . . the effort to manufacture consent to the beleif that it doesn't mean anything is pretty successful . . . those same ceos and managers who are trying to convince the public that its a liberal hoax know perfectly well that it's extremely dangerous . . .

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Quoting Chumpsky is like quoting Krusty the Clown.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

he is obviously a whole lot smarter than you are

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

I know what you are,but what am I?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

(R)epelicans???????

I do believe we need to alter this to (R)epelican'ts

As they appear to be unable to make ANY decision that aids the country.

[-] -3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

CANTor cannot . . .

Something like that

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Bush was not involved with Solyndra and unemployment was 3.8 to 7.2 under Bush and not 9%.

You are just being unfair.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Hm,... Didn't know. Thanks for the heads up and link.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

So what you are saying is you don't know actual numbers and are taking a guess them. Good to know.

http://www.stupidhead.org/articles/000011.php

Fact checking is important. You are aware that when G'Dub took office unemployment was at 3.8%, when G'Dub left office unemployment was at 7.2% so there is no way Obama could have started with 6% unemployment....

You do know that if you can't fact check it really makes you look ignorant right?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Hmmm,. My fact are true am I am somehow retarded and liberal. That's like racism, your need to feel better than at least one other person no matter how stupid and ignorant you are?

This is a type of relative logic. Yeah, me, trailerparktim, is one ignorant and stupid individual, but I am smarter than that person "unimportant".

Does that somehow work for you? That is so messed up and you are not bright enough to even see the stupidity.

Do you need for me to point some other things out for/to you?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You say you are chugging Obama pee, er I mean "koolaid". I find great humor in the fact that you think I am a liberal; and you called me retarded....

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Me, I am much smarter than you and don't assume or make assumptions :-) Who exactly did I stick up for? I recounts facts. These facts do not rely on any bias for or against anyone.

Facts, truth, history, reality, these are all things that are what they are and the only changes to them are our perception of them.

You are a moron, so biased that if somebody says something a half degree on center of what you believe that you think they are liberal. That is sad and pathetic.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

How many lies and distortions CAN one post in a single list? You win the prize!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If you think that the misdirection and distortion you posted has anything do to with truth, you need medication and a rubber room. You post represents nothing other than a break with reality. Either you're too stupid to know what you doing or you understand how distorted what you present is, which simply means you are a fucking liar. Take your pick: Moron or sleazebag.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nah, just laughing at you, troll.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

You wouldn't know the truth if it had 18 wheels and ran you over repeatedly.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

It already did.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Obummer (-16) 2 years ago

Dear Mr pretend leader, I have a question. Is this what you mean by "Yes we can"??

We can take Unemployment from 6 % to 9%...Yes we can

We can take gasoline from $1.80 to $3.50/gal…..Yes we can

We can increase the national debt by $ 5 Trillion in 3 years…...Yes we can

We can get more people on welfare & food stamps…Yes we can

We can double the number of homes in foreclosure…Yes we can

We can eliminate 2 Million jobs from this country…Yes we can

We can give away $ 500 Million to Solyndra…..Yes we can

We can fly all over the country Campaigning on Air Force One…Yes we can

We can visit all 57states….Yes we can

We can down grade the US credit rating for the first time in history…Yes we can

We can increase the cost of heating oil to over $ 3.00 a gallon…Yes we can

We can decrease the sales of homes to its lowest level in 20 years.....yes we can

We can play the race card any time we want…Yes we can

We can run this economy without a budget...Yes we can

We can pass laws without Congress…Yes we can

We can create a health care bill that nobody wants…..Yes we can

We can cut our Military leaving the country weak…Yes we can

We can sit idly by while Iran builds nuclear weapons…Yes we can

We can discourage any drilling for oil in the US….Yes we can

We can go to Hawaii anytime we want For Free…..Yes we can

We can run semi-automatic weapons to Mexican Cartels in an attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment...Yes we can

We can quit smoking cigarettes…ooops….No we can’t

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I would snap my fingers in the hope that you might come out of your hypnotized and zombified state . . . but honestly?

I just don't care.

The cliff is

  • that 'a way - - - - - >

you lemming

[-] 0 points by Obummer (-16) 2 years ago

You folks are going to march right off the cliff, with you failed leader

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

$5 Gas Predicted By Election Day.............

Former Houston oil exec predicts $5 a gallon by end of '12

HOUSTON - A former Houston oil executive predicts drivers could be paying $5 for a gallon of gas by the end of the year, and says politicians in Washington D.C. are to blame.

John Hofmeister is the retired president of Shell Oil. He currently runs the non-profit group Citizens for Affordable Energy.

"It was actually December, 2010, when I predicted $5 gasoline by the end of 2012," said Hofmeister. "And, I said then, 'I hope I'm wrong.' My concern is I won't be wrong."

http://nation.foxnews.com/gas-prices/2012/01/25/5-gas-predicted-election-day#ixzz1kUtVOgpL

Thank you Chairman MAObama!!

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

have you not heard of

  • supply and demand

    • you lying repelican shill

here

  • Gasoline prices in the United States have climbed steeply over the past few years. Gas was near $1 a gallon a decade ago. It took six years for the price to double to $2 a gallon in 2004. Four years later, in June 2008, gas prices have doubled once again to over $4 a gallon.

YOu make a fine demonstration of one of the very reasons why the repelican party is indeed

  • DONE

you are all a bunch of chronic, pathological LIARS.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Again, ZenDog; you leave out part of the story to make your point...conveniently, it is the entire Obama administration that you leave out.

July 7, 2008—average price for regular gasoline climbs to an all-time high of $4.11 per gallon.

Oct. 16, 2008—$1.99 a gallon gas

Nov. 3, 2008— Gas prices drop to $1.72 a gallon.

Dec. 17, 2008—Crude oil collapses to $40 a barrel, becoming the lowest price in almost 4 years.

Dec. 26, 2008— $1.64 a gallon. Some areas seeing prices as low as $1.45 a gallon.

Dec. 31, 2008—regular unleaded gasoline falls to an 5-year low of $1.61.

June 2009 - gas prices increased by 62% since Dec 2008 - The price increase mystifies some analysts, who say that oil demand remains weak. According to the International Energy Agency, worldwide demand is down 2.6 million barrels a day from last year, mostly because of declines in driving and slower economic activity in the United States and other industrialized countries. Oil inventories are high.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/09gas.html

November 2009 - average price of a gallon was $2.69

May 2011, gas prices at $3.93, about four percentage points away from the July 2008 high.

From January 2009 through December 2011 - prices rose 83%

Also of interest might be the increased cost of food since January 2009....

Ground beef has gone up 24 percent (since Nov. 2009 - prices have gone up on this product every month)

Bacon has gone up 22 percent.

Ice Cream increased 19.1%

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you conveniently leave out various impacts that occurred like natural disasters, instability and war in the middle east, or the impact of speculation as drivers behind the price spikes - to say nothing of the fact we are past peak oil -

without that all you have are a litany of stats without context, and suggest the President is responsible.

How disingenuous - not to mention dishonest.

You are a liar.

Plain and simple.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Calling folks who don't agree with your assessment of things a liar just shows arrogance and an inability to debate.

Where are all the various impacts in your statement? What were the factors in the 6 years that impacted the first doubling of gas prices (1998 - 2004)? Or the second (2004 - 2008)?

Apparently, only those that don't agree with you have to flesh out their statements........

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are the fool who provided the litany of stats without context, not me. It is your analysis that blames the President for the spike in prices, not me.

It is you who blatantly fails to account for the rise in gasoline prices at the onset of summer - when demand is anticipated to peak - not me.

It is you who refuses to accept that oil refining capacity in the U.S. typically operates at about 98% of capacity, and every Gulf hurricane impacts that rate of production even if only temporarily.

And then there is war - which took Iraqi oil off the market for several years, the conflict in Libya, OPEC machinations, fears of middle east instability and their impact on oil production driving speculators to bet on higher prices thereby resulting in higher prices . . . .

and the fact that we are already past peak oil production.

I don't mind people who disagree with me, but those who regurgitate obvious right wing propaganda without any consideration of what they are saying just don't impress me.

So you insist you are not a liar?

Then I guess that makes you a fool . . . .

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

And it was you who began this by only including information on gas prices through 2008 when it now happens to be 2012....implying that Bush was responsible for the doubling in gas prices...and btw, in 2008, we'd been in Iraq and Afghanistan for how many years?

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (4841) 1 day ago

have you not heard of

supply and demand
    you lying repelican shill

here

Gasoline prices in the United States have climbed steeply over the past few years. Gas was near $1 a gallon a decade ago. It took six years for the price to double to $2 a gallon in 2004. Four years later, in June 2008, gas prices have doubled once again to over $4 a gallon.

YOu make a fine demonstration of one of the very reasons why the repelican party is indeed

DONE

you are all a bunch of chronic, pathological LIARS."

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

my response which you cite above

was in ref to your post where you cite faux snuuz -

hardly a credible source

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

I think you have become confused....it was not I who cited "faux snuuz" it was headlesscross ....or did I just catch you in a lie?

To refresh your memory - you replied to headlesscross; I responded to you and then you responded to me with..........

"[-] 2 points by ZenDog (4841) 21 hours ago

you conveniently leave out various impacts that occurred like natural disasters, instability and war in the middle east, or the impact of speculation as drivers behind the price spikes - to say nothing of the fact we are past peak oil -

without that all you have are a litany of stats without context, and suggest the President is responsible.

How disingenuous - not to mention dishonest.

You are a liar.

Plain and simple."

Which, shows that to every person who happens to disagree with you, you resort to accusations of their being a liar..........

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

an oversight on my part - while there are some differences between you I tend to over look them because of the obvious similarity -

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

Yeah, because we don't always take your word as "gospel".

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I was thinking of your obvious preference for right wing propaganda as opposed to demonstrable fact and good ol' fashioned common sense.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

LOL....you provided as one of your sources the same journalist for the NY Times as did I after falsely stating that I used Fox as one of mine......your arguments are getting pretty thin. Perhaps the real similarity between myself and headlesscross - other than not believing everything you write just because you wrote it - is that we use critical thinking to examine all sides of an issue and refuse to focus in on the "magic words" of Obama as a starting point for all our stances.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL indeed - I get you righties confused sometimes.

You guys either cite faux snuuz with blind adulation or you pull up more credible sources and spin them.

your citation of the NYT article you reference above is here

The article in question: NY Times By STEVEN LEE MYERS Published: January 13, 2008

This article you presented to support the idea that

"Obama's campaign statement was the cause of the agreement is over reaching."

The admin was determined not to produce anything like a timeline, because that would have been a specific goal - their intent was to maintain ambiguity and thereby increase the flexibility of both public perceptions and admin options as they maintained a U.S. presence in Iraq without any regard for the will of:

  • the Iraqi people

  • the American public

  • the international community

here, from that article:

  • The possibilities ranged from an improvement in Iraq’s security after the withdrawals already planned to a worsening of the situation. “Certainly there is a possibly of that,” the general said. “What we are working on, though, is determining recommendations on the timing and the pace” of any drawdown.

  • He added, “As the president mentioned, this will be clearly conditions-based.”

by not stating a specific goal, it becomes possible to ignore any hurdles to achieving that goal, and no focus gets placed on overcoming those hurdles if and when they arise.

Other articles you sited [linked above] show that later in 2008 the admin was still squirming under the pressure Candidate Obama brought to this particular issue of foreign policy with his statement.

There is no question - as Candidate, Obama turned the blind ambition of bushite on its head.

[-] 0 points by Concerned (455) 2 years ago

LOL, there is still plenty of questioning available however, it has become completely obvious that you still cling to the magic words of the great orator as being the entire reason that the troops are now out of Iraq.

You ignore the fact that both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration had to deal with security issues on the ground and with political goals put in place during the entire duration of the war.....because you have to continue to believe that Obama's magic words brought it all to an end.

You accuse others of "spinning" articles and quotes to reflect their statements yet do exactly the same to defend yours....

Believe as you choose. Critical thinking allows for seeing all the events that combine to lead to an end regardless of political party - or the magic words of one person.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

You seem to be awfully defensive,could that be because there actually IS no defense for what your Messiah is doing to oil and gas development in this country? You aren't even honorable enough to lay the blame where is belongs...O-bam-a.

See,this is the problem when you attempt to defend from an indefensible position. You have no leg to stand upon and no way to justify the Jihad the Obama regime has wrought on the oil and fuel industry.

Sucks to be you.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you have no facts to back up your

  • lie

. . . I hate liars . . .

I fuckin hate 'em . . .

[+] -5 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

You are in total denial. Calling me a liar is easy but admitting the truth about what Obama is doing is hard. I understand that,but lashing out at me,calling me names is not changing the obvious,in your face facts.

You need to find a way to just deal with it.

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

On the issue of speculation, I have been reading some things, and it seems clear that the unrest in the Middle East has led to more speculation, which does help hike prices. Here's some info from a Senator Al Franken press release, touting legislation he's trying to advance:

. . . The senators are pushing for tougher regulation because new data shows oil trades by speculators have jumped 35 percent since the latest round of civil unrest began in late January in North Africa and then the Middle East. During that same period, U.S. gas prices have soared by almost 40 percent.

And here's a little more information for you:

Speculators can currently buy $100 worth of oil futures with only $6 down, while investors in stocks put down 50%. The Commission has the authority to call for higher margin requirements from exchanges where oil futures and various other commodities are traded.

. . . ."New margin requirements could take effect as soon as July, but the CFTC must begin the rulemaking process now," the lawmakers wrote.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

in my face facts . . .

  • what facts

you don't have any

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/06/obamas-war-on-oil-coal-and-america.html

By Alan Caruba

If there is a single reason for defeating Barack Obama’s bid for reelection, it would be his energy policies, all of which have been aimed at denying Americans access to their domestic oil as well as our huge reserves of coal.

Both energy sources would generate thousands of jobs at a time when unemployment figures rival those of the Great Depression. At the same time, domestic oil production would reduce our obscene dependency on foreign oil while coal production would ensure that we can all enjoy the most affordable electricity insofar as coal is responsible for just over half of all electricity generated.

Fortunately for Americans, Exxon has not abandoned the search for new sources of domestic oil, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars this requires. In early June it announced large discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico, the first in decades. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the company “unveiled three discoveries that are likely to turn it into one of the biggest producers of oil and gas in the region.”

On the same day, Seldon B. Graham, Jr., an oil engineer and attorney, had a letter in The Wall Street Journal in which he noted that “the actual price of U.S. oil is cheaper than the actual price of foreign oil” advising readers that the “the oil price” cited in the media is actually a reflection of Wall Street speculators making bets on the future, not the market price.

“U.S. consumers,” said Graham “could save some $17.7 billion annually at the current price difference if U.S. oil replaced foreign oil.”

At the same time Exxon was announcing its discoveries, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries was holding a particularly acrimonious meeting involving the members of the cartel. The meeting reportedly “broke up in disarray with no decision on raising production—despite widespread fears that higher crude prices were endangering the world economy.”

The so-called Arab Spring involving turmoil in nations from Tunisia to Yemen, along with the fighting going on in Libya, an oil-producing nation, has sharpened the divisions within OPEC, but the greatest of these is between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran has played a role in the turmoil, backing the Syrian regime and warning Saudi Arabia against further support of Bahrain. Apocalyptic fears are being generated as Iran closes in on having its own nuclear weapons.

What, then, has been the Obama administration’s response to this? While slowly beginning to provide new permits for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, having declared a moratorium after the BP accident (and thus destroying countless jobs in the Gulf States region), it is now threatening a new way to shut down oil exploration and production in one of the most oil-rich areas of the nation, the Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced it intends to declare the dunes sagebrush lizard an “endangered species” because it believes that oil production is destroying parts of the lizard’s home. Ignoring the nation’s financial crisis, its high rate of unemployment, and the rising cost of gasoline at the pump, the USFWS thinks that it is more important to protect “a unique sand dune ecosystem” for a LIZARD.

“This is the most prolific oil-production region in onshore America,” said Ben Sheppard, president of the Permian Basic Petroleum Association. That, of course, is why the Obama administration wants to attack it in the same way it has been attacking any off-shore production off the coast of Alaska and, of course, in ANWR, the site of billions of untapped barrels of oil.

At the same time Investors Business Daily took note of the Environmental Protection Agency’s drive to impose new regulations on utilities that use coal. “The rules make sense only if you want less energy, higher prices, and fewer jobs.”

“We’re being systematically starved of energy,” said IBD, “and our economy is suffering. Just don’t ask the White House to help.” It estimated that the new EPA rules would cost electric utilities $184 billion by 2030 and kill 1.4 million jobs. They would, of course, increase the cost of electricity to everyone.

Like everything else the EPA proposes, it is based on totally bogus estimates of air pollution in addition to the scientifically-debased assertion that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to save the Earth from global warming. Meanwhile, the UN Kyoto Protocol intended to reduce CO2 emissions is soon to end as most of the original nations signing onto it have abandoned it.

America has arrived at a moment in time when the enemy is now the administration in control of its ability to provide the power it needs to dig out of the current financial crisis. If a foreign government was imposing these restrictions we would go to war against it.

These ARE the facts ZD.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Caruba?????

Here's what you need to know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Caruba

PR guy does science. Yeah......OK?

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Yeah,typical modus operandi,attack the source not the content.

It doesn't matter,as well you know who presents the facts,it's the facts that count. You're denial is disingenuous.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Your inability to recognize a dedicated propagandist, is telling to say the least.

It's a living, I guess. As long as you still believe him.

It's even more telling the 1,000s of actual, dedicate field scientists that disagree with him most heartily.

Must be a "conspiracy".

The PR guy has to be correct though.........................right?

Your denial is even more disingenuous.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Hey,it's your hoax. Who am I to criticize. Believe what you will there's no regulation from Obama to stop free speech.................yet that is.

And if there were,I'm sure that would be just okay too.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Welcome to the Plutocratic States of the Military Industrial Complex.

You have been assimilated, please step aside for the next customer.

Tune in to any FLAKESnews outlet for more "information".

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Burning oil and coal . . . our salvation!

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

Yes , it is !!!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You just might roast in Hell, literally.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The lowest rung.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

LOL!!!

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

That's your response from this burning indictment of Obama's Regime?

I guess your pride couldn't really just let you admit defeat.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Ever heard of Global Warming?

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Apparently there's a sucker born every minute still.

You still won't address any of the content,just make superficial remarks.

So quite driving your car,turn off your heat/AC,stop breathing,show you care......... don't just pontificate.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

OIL is done!

We're on to better and cleaner if we are to survive.

This post is such a complete load in soooo many disgusting and demented ways I won't even bother to refute it point by slimy point!

I'm going to take a shower, I feel dirty just having skimmed it.

God what a load of corporate/evil shit!

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"OIL is done!"

Well if that's what you think go stake out a cave and make yourself at home because you're not living in the real world.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Pure evil greed is the only reason we have not ditched oil decades ago.

(See: There Will Be Blood)

The only reason we are still on oil is that Oil Barons invested in it and established a monopoly. And their maniacal greed kills all other possible sources of energy, which would interrupt their flow of profit.

They could not care less what it does (pollution, war, destruction, death, anything) to THE WORLD as long as the profits are never EVER interrupted.

BAN OIL NOW!!

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

I'm wondering if you might be suffering some kind of mental condition. You are sounding irrational and out of touch with reality.

Or,..........you're just a player.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

It must seem puzzling to a Con to hear things other than the RW hate and lie machine where you get your thoughts. Like the native Americans who first saw the tall ships. Utter disbelief.

You've been played probably your whole life.

The only reason we are still on oil is PURE EVIL GREED!

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"PURE EVIL GREED!"

Sounds just like Leftist hate and lies.

And what's worse,you are completely ignorant about oil and it's scope of involvement/enhancement in most every aspect of your everyday life. Try to learn more about what you demonize so blindly.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Work for oil??

Fully aware of the advantageous uses of oil.

Are you completely unaware of the plethora of DISADVANTAGES of oil use, especially to the careless degree we are using it. Even W complained about our "addiction" to it.

Only a person so driven by greed as to become evil could perpetuate the massive harm oil causes just to get even richer.

There are other sources of fuel, the powers behind oil are stifling them.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

(Your Reply tab is gone)

It's an artificially contrived reliance "addiction" we have on oil, because it makes the fat cats rich, Richer, RICHEST! Just follow the money.

We have better sources of energy than oil. And there are more to come. If you factor in all the preliminary, subsequent, and various other costs and damages attributed to oil (generally hidden but we pay for them), it's the most expensive of all.

The monopoly has been set and paid for. The Big Oil Fat Cats are getting as close to pure profit as a business can get. They will ride this gravy train right through the gates of hell, pushing all the rest of us in first.

Big Oil can't keep us in the stone age forever. More and more people are realizing their loved ones are dying, or have died, in fraudulent wars just for oil. We've known for decades about the massive pollution problems. And devastating CA, Valdez, Mex, Gulf, Amazon, on and on, oil spills.

Meanwhile we could be developing new and better energy that doesn't have all these expensive problems. Problems we can't afford. Costs we don't need to pay. But Greedy Fat Cats are using vast resources and unwarranted power to keep the oily status quo. All for evil greed.

END THE OIL ADDICTION!!

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"Work for oil??"

Actually no,but if I did,so what?

Doesn't matter if you like it or not,depending and using oil is not "evil".

It's a fact of life and cheap,plentiful oil and gas are the life's blood of a prosperous,productive country. This is where all this Green crap gets a lot of people in trouble and confused. It's either all or nothing with you Greeniacs.

This is not Star Trek it's reality. Oil and Gas will be with us for many,many years/centuries. You have to reconcile yourself to dealing with it in a positive way.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Can you say public relations? I can, and he is the master of spin. Boo, ya

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you lying fuck

.


.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American- made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right - eight years. Not only that - last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years. But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"you lying fuck"??

Well I know you didn't read it all,you don't have the comprehension skills.

But at least you could man-up to the facts instead of hitting me with campaign propaganda from your Loser-in-Chief Oblame-a.

You are a sorry ass debater ZD.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I have every confidence the President's statement is completely verifiable.

And you are right - I didn't read all you had posted.

Why?

It's just spin and propaganda.

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

So then,verify it!! Links? Articles? Facts?

You are such a closed minded partisan. You can't even admit when you're wrong. You've lost all credibility (as if you had any).

I'm sure I've just found out what a lot of people already know on this Forum,you are full of shit!!

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

closed minded . . .

Brian Williams reported on Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.


  • Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

  • Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

  • Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

.


.

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

    • 2010 - 389.78

    • 2008 - 385.57

    • 2006 - 381.85

    • 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

    • 1959 - 315.98 . . . . . . . . The first year with a full year of instrument data

    • From: CO2now.org What the world needs to watch

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Two words: regurgitated bullshit!!

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The Monthly Review - 2008, Volume 60, Issue 03 (July-August)

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

"The present article consists of (1) a summary of the scientific case for modern anthropogenic global warming, (2) a summary of the contrarian case advanced by Cockburn, (3) an assessment of global warming in greater depth, and (4) my detailed critique of the contrarian arguments advanced by Cockburn."


We could start at the beginning -

And then begin quetioning who and why a campaign to impugn the character of this scientist has been undertaken . . .


or

You could go watch a movie.

Why is warming bad?

because there are over one billion people on the planet dependent on glacial runoff for their drinking water, and once the glaciers all disappear, those people will do one of two things -

  • die of dehydration

  • immigrate

Imagine, a mass of one billion people, environmental refugees, wandering dry places, looking for water - at some point, the needs of survival dictate that many of them will kill, to satisfy that basic human need. We are talking about the prospect of social instability on a global scale. Refusal to do anything to provide a solution is to deny our own humanity, and such a denial on such a mass scale begs the question of whether or not the entire race of man is fit for existence at all.

A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area.

That is not the evidence given us by the current environments of TExass or much of the rest of the south west. Rain fall patterns are changing, drought in that specific area is spreading - and that will dislocate the bread basket of the U.S.

How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Answer:

Is it the most predominant gas? What is the most predominant gas?

How does that gas affect global temperature?

Why do global warming graphs generally only look at the past 1,000 years or so?

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"It's just spin and propaganda"

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you can think that if you like - but the facts are the facts . . .

and

Brian Williams reported on Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.

and

What did Chomsky say on Global Warming?

  • The chamber of commerce, the main business lobby, the American Petroleum Industry, other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.

  • and it's succeeded, unfortunately, the latest polls I've seen show maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming . . .

  • . . . substantial number of climate scientists who believe taht consensus predictions are much to optimistic . . .

  • . . . the effort to manufacture consent to the beleif that it doesn't mean anything is pretty successful . . . those same ceos and managers who are trying to convince the public that its a liberal hoax know perfectly well that it's extremely dangerous . . .

[-] -1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 2 years ago

Sounds like a desperate plea to a lover. Maybe the reason is he can't refute what is true!

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Drone. Our Dear Leader has a few more illegal tricks up his sleeve. Hopefully a super, filibuster proof majority will become a reality, for the repubics, stonewalling this massive, runaway train with Big ears at the conductors seat. He's put the wood to the citizens ass with his out of control, unpayable debt. It is probably too late for us, like Italy, Spain and Greece.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What??? You want him to fly coach?

Maybe you could rent him a trailer to live in too.

After all he doesn't own a ranch in Texas. Do you have any white double wides?

By the way, what about the global warming that is happening?

Perhaps we could move the whole World into your non global warming effected trailer parks.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The Blah, blah, blah, is actually from the other side.

Strange that you bit into it.

You being such a savvy business person and all.

I don't believe you need a key to start a jet.

Just a pick-up truck.

Then again, if the (R)epelican'ts would quit jerking our chains all the time, he would have less need for the jet.

You're not a chain jerker, are you?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

He's got things to do, and places to be.

It's part of the job and has been for some time now.

Whudya think, he's gonna ride a horse?

If the (R)epelican'ts would do their damn jobs instead of fucking off all day, he probably could fly a little less.

Why don't you write those (R)epelican'ts a letter and ask them kindly to do their jobs.

The lazy assholes.

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are another name calling partisan hack, completely ignorant of the stark fact that

  • the repelican party is DONE

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

do you want to eliminate government inefficiency and waste?

  • or not?

I would guess not, if in any way shape or form it indicates the President is a competent and honest representative of the people . . .

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are a complete idiot.

Do you have any idea how one Amends the Constitution?

I already know the answer to that question, and the answer is an unambiguous

  • . . . no . . .

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Actually there are many Americans who want to alter the Constitution - with a 28th Amendment . . .

I had not heard the President was among them.

If you google, you will discover that the Constitution has been amended possibly four times in the last 50 years . . . .

  • you should get your head out of your ass . . .

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you are dreaming . . . .

  • the repelican party is DONE
[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Is a repelican anything like a reheron or restork?

Why not bust out the really big guns and call them re-POOPIE-cans?

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Repelican -

is a term of approbation,

a proof,

derogatory in nature,

intended to shame

and to ridicule

those who run for high office

upon a platform of lies before the whole world

and have not the decency to blush bright crimson.

they are reprehensible.

they are repulsive.

they are repellent.

they are repelicans . . . .

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, you have nothing to back up what you believe, so you must insult anyone who believes differently than you..

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

Are you fighting with me? If you are, I am about to win.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Killer Post!!!

I'd add:

We can run semi-automatic weapons to Mexican Cartels in an attempt to circumvent the 2nd Amendment...Yes we can

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

You should post that as a thread. These Leftists can't handle the truth!!

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the repelican party is DONE

.


.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago

You have deluded yourself.

↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

.


.

That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.

Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.

The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.

Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.

Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.

It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.

It's just a matter of time.

It's also a matter of national security.

  • the repelican party is DONE.

You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.

What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.

we will see.

[+] -4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

If he didn't then he would be seen as divisive. Not that he hasn't already been labeled as divisive.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I actually do get that - in part the question is rhetorical - at the same time, given the very nature of the divide itself, where outright denial of reality has become such a central part of the repelican platform, it may at some point become absolutely essential if it isn't already, to acknowledge this fact, regardless of the outcome.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

ZenDog, Are you telling us that the idiotic Democrats are some how not to blame? Just to be clear I have no problem pointing the fingers at the Republicans as long as one is also pointing at the Democrats. By the way get the name right, It's Republican not Repelican. You sound like an idiot when you think you are being clever and it's hard to even start to take you serious.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

FUCK YOU nimrod

  • repelicans I said.

The dems aren't lying about global warming

the dems don't refuse to end bushite tax breaks or corporate loopholes

the repelicans have made these two issues party policy - and the tea party repelicans make that case irrefutable.



we know who the enemy is :

Repelicans to undermine the Occupy Movement:



and we know who the TeaParty is:

and:

More on the TeaParty:



the dems may have their problems but as of yet they have not made a party platform of

  • OUTRIGHT LIES
[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

So you like living in a fog? That's why the country continues to struggle and our recovery will take longer. People that walk party lines blindly scare me and you are one of them. You probably would vote for Hitler if he were a democrat wouldn't you?

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

do you have any facts?

no

you do not have any facts

I want facts

facts

Brian Williams reported on Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.


What did Chomsky say on Global Warming?

  • The chamber of commerce, the main business lobby, the American Petroleum Industry, other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.

  • and it's succeeded, unfortunately, the latest polls I've seen show maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming . . .

  • . . . substantial number of climate scientists who believe taht consensus predictions are much to optimistic . . .

  • . . . the effort to manufacture consent to the beleif that it doesn't mean anything is pretty successful . . . those same ceos and managers who are trying to convince the public that its a liberal hoax know perfectly well that it's extremely dangerous . . .


facts I said

you fucking nimrod

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

I have not once mentioned your global warming theory. I have only replied to addressed your concerns over unemployment and the fact that the numbers are skewed to benefit the politicians in office both Republicans and Democrats.

It doesn't take a genius to know that we are destroying the earth. This is due to overpopulation and the misuse of our resources. We should strive to affect our environment negatively as little as possible. This is common sense and doesn't even require reports.

Are the facts you are willing to go to war with entirely accurate? Probably not. Don't put to much faith in men. We get it wrong quite often. Some of what we currently experience is without a doubt part of the natural course of events. Why in the world do you think we had an ice age? We weren't here to affect the earth then. Some is however due to our own actions. These are the things we have control over and need to take seriously.

By the way, you should clean up that potty mouth of yours. It makes you seem less intelligent and appear as a crazed scared sheep willing to blindly follow your leaders to battle.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

YOu sound like a conservative . . .

I don't like conservatives . . .

I don't like conservative policy makers, or conservative policy shapers - two distinct classes of people in my view. I don't like them because they are liars - Global Warming is the first of many many lies and perhaps the biggest among them. The budget debate of last summer is number two but these two are hardly the beginning of the list of their outright lies . . . .

And I can assure you I am crazed . . .

People die all the time. Sometimes they die in statistically significant numbers, ways, or by means that defy all reason . . .

It is enough to make anyone

  • crazed
[-] -1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

Extreme liberals are just as bad as ultra conservatives. The balance lies in the middle.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm an extreme centrist -

perhaps one day we'll see just how extreme . . .

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

No you are not otherwise you would be just as hard on the worthless Democrats as you are on the worthless Republicans.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah?

maybe that's because

  • Murtha's dead

  • Stevens isn't

  • Bono and a Kennedy both died

    • in skiing accidents

    • on the same day

and we never did get any answers

  • from Ken Lay
[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I know you get that. Denial is central to the repelican platform and has reached to a level where even engaging in argument is almost ludicrous.

I agree that we are out of time and that he should call them out for it. I heard him acknowledge that they should at least be able to set standards because they were not going to get very far. I, personally, wanted him to further than he did. I, too, understand why he didn't. In fact, I would have liked him to mention the earthquakes. In fact, what I really wanted was for him to smack the livin' bejeezes out of Cantor and Boehner. I understand that this isn't proper protocol.

All of that aside, there are moves that he can make independently and those that he cannot. He did signal that he was willing to take independent action. DKA is right that we cannot stop with pressure.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Did you see his brief exchange with the Chief Justice? They barely spoke - which I think says a lot.

Chomsky says some amazing things regarding DC politics - and it's what I've been saying for a while. He just does it better.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I don't remember that exchange. I watched it late last night and read through the transcript before that.

I did watch that video a little earlier today and Chomsky is so on the money. That whole little section on how they might let the country run is great.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

The exchange with the chief justice is in the beginning. They barely look at each other.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ahhh! I will have to go back to watch it.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Then watch the inauguration. I'm convinced that Roberts was deliberately attempting to create the foundation for a new myth for the right wing -

at that time they had the lies that he was a muslim, born in Africa - had the President not corrected Roberts - and had him come to the Oval Office later that evening for a do over the right wing would have insisted

  • he wasn't even properly sworn in, and hence illegitimate . . .

the bastards

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

Zen is there a link or source to this, I'm interested

[+] -4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I don't have time at the moment to find it - if you google the inauguration of President Obama I'm sure you can find a youtube clip of it. I watched it live on tv - as soon as I saw it I knew what Roberts had done.

It was deliberate.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I remember the inauguration. And then there is this. There is a 16 page report in there. If you cannot pull it up or it takes too long let me know. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/chief-justice-john-roberts-supreme-court-ethics_n_1184780.html

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Why do YOU continue to lie and spread disinformation and pretend it is fact?

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Brian Williams reported on Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.

As of yesterday, January 24, 2012, Burlington, Vermont had seen 22 inches of snow - the seasonal average is over 80 inches - we are on track to meet or break all time records for the least snowiest season . . . . ever . . .


  • Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

  • Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

  • Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

.


.

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

    • 2010 - 389.78

    • 2008 - 385.57

    • 2006 - 381.85

    • 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

    • 1959 - 315.98 . . . . . . . . The first year with a full year of instrument data

    • From: CO2now.org What the world needs to watch


You should go watch a movie.

Why is warming bad?

because there are over one billion people on the planet dependent on glacial runoff for their drinking water, and once the glaciers all disappear, those people will do one of two things -

  • die of dehydration

  • immigrate

Imagine, a mass of one billion people, environmental refugees, wandering dry places, looking for water - at some point, the needs of survival dictate that many of them will kill, to satisfy that basic human need. We are talking about the prospect of social instability on a global scale. Refusal to do anything to provide a solution is to deny our own humanity, and such a denial on such a mass scale begs the question of whether or not the entire race of man is fit for existence at all.

A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area.

That is not the evidence given us by the current environments of TExass or much of the rest of the south west. Rain fall patterns are changing, drought in that specific area is spreading - and that will dislocate the bread basket of the U.S.

How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Answer:

Is it the most predominant gas? What is the most predominant gas?

How does that gas affect global temperature?

Why do global warming graphs generally only look at the past 1,000 years or so?


And on the issue of antropomorphic . . .

The Monthly Review - 2008, Volume 60, Issue 03 (July-August)

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

  • "The present article consists of (1) a summary of the scientific case for modern anthropogenic global warming, (2) a summary of the contrarian case advanced by Cockburn, (3) an assessment of global warming in greater depth, and (4) my detailed critique of the contrarian arguments advanced by Cockburn."
[-] 1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

wow, all the way back to 1959...that is comprehensive......

How about the number of growing glaciers, and the record snow falls in Alaska?

You like to cherry pick data that supports your busted argument...all based on estimates, exaggerations and modeling, and very little empirical fact....

See...science is based on experiment and re-experiment, not consensus, or opinion, or modeling, or pulling a rabbit out of your ass......

The "science" of anthropological global warming is exceedingly slim, and much of it exaggerated and cherry-picked to prove an assertion....

ANY anomaly in the data...even a single one disproves the assertion, and missing information leaves it in the realm of hypothesis and theory...

So, you can take your conjecture and fake science and push it up your ass with a snowplow......it has as much credibility as the rest of the vile refuse that resides there.....

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You are a true believer in your ideology, as am I and agree with you. Zen is a true believer in man made global warming, and nothing, and I mean nothing, absofrigganlutely nothing will change that. If the globe cools drastically, it will be because of man. Man is evil. We are fucking it all up in the true believers mind. You cannot argue with his type. I know, I have an entire family of zen types, that I love dearly, as long as we talk fishing.....

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

hahaha.....yeah, but there's no reason not to call it what it is, might prevent another from falling into that abyss

some people just hate themselves and to survive have to project that hate onto others......

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

What did Chomsky say on Global Warming?

  • The chamber of commerce, the main business lobby, the American Petroleum Industry, other business lobbies have publicly proclaimed, in fact with enthusiasm that they are carrying out a campaign to try to convince the population that global warming is a liberal hoax.

  • and it's succeeded, unfortunately, the latest polls I've seen show maybe a third of the population believes in anthropogenic global warming . . .

  • . . . substantial number of climate scientists who believe taht consensus predictions are much to optimistic . . .

  • . . . the effort to manufacture consent to the beleif that it doesn't mean anything is pretty successful . . . those same ceos and managers who are trying to convince the public that its a liberal hoax know perfectly well that it's extremely dangerous . . .

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

Chomsky is an academic windbag, who you lefties think is some sort of sage.....when he shows some ability to create something besides hot air and rhetoric I'll listen to him.....until he has some practical accomplishment he is a bag of leftist gas.....

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

then ur not listening to him.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

that's what the Ron Paul zombies claim too...

I listen, and I think he's a flatulent gas bag who is impressed with the smell of his own expulsions.......and has no basis in practical reality. He lives in his own self-created fantasyland and believes the world can be made to resemble it......

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you just have a complete and innate aversion

  • to the TRUTH

sucks to be you

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

actually it's pretty awesome to be me......

It's OK to be jealous...

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Thank you for fully demonstrating the extent of your mental illness. How can anybody now take anything you post as nothing more then sick delusional rantings?

GLOBAL WARMING?
Believing that Obama has done anything positive for this country?

Ranting about illusions such as these are going to land you in a straight jacket.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Man, after that I'm just not going to respond to any of your posts anymore. There is a level of stupidity that I just will not dignify with an answer.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Brian Williams reported on Thursday, January 5, 2012, that 98% of the nation is above freezing; and 115 cities around the country set all time record high temps for this day.

Jim Cantore elaborated on those numbers to state that of those 115 record high temps, four of them were 41 degrees above average and all time highs not just for day, but the entire month of January.

As of yesterday, January 24, 2012, Burlington, Vermont had seen 22 inches of snow - the seasonal average is over 80 inches - we are on track to meet or break all time records for the least snowiest season . . . . ever . . .


  • Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

  • Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

  • Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

.


.

What the world needs to watch

  • Global warming is mainly the result of CO2 levels rising in the Earth’s atmosphere. Both atmospheric CO2 and climate change are accelerating. Climate scientists say we have years, not decades, to stabilize CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

  • To help the world succeed, CO2Now.org makes it easy to see the most current CO2 level and what it means. So, use this site and keep an eye on CO2. Invite others to do the same. Then we can do more to send CO2 in the right direction.

    • 2010 - 389.78

    • 2008 - 385.57

    • 2006 - 381.85

    • 1987 - 348.98 . . . . . . . . The last year when the annual CO2 level was less than 350 ppm

    • 1959 - 315.98 . . . . . . . . The first year with a full year of instrument data

    • From: CO2now.org What the world needs to watch


You should go watch a movie.

Why is warming bad?

because there are over one billion people on the planet dependent on glacial runoff for their drinking water, and once the glaciers all disappear, those people will do one of two things -

  • die of dehydration

  • immigrate

Imagine, a mass of one billion people, environmental refugees, wandering dry places, looking for water - at some point, the needs of survival dictate that many of them will kill, to satisfy that basic human need. We are talking about the prospect of social instability on a global scale. Refusal to do anything to provide a solution is to deny our own humanity, and such a denial on such a mass scale begs the question of whether or not the entire race of man is fit for existence at all.

A warmer climate means we can grow food in a greater amount of area.

That is not the evidence given us by the current environments of TExass or much of the rest of the south west. Rain fall patterns are changing, drought in that specific area is spreading - and that will dislocate the bread basket of the U.S.

How much CO2 is there in the atmosphere?

Answer:

Is it the most predominant gas? What is the most predominant gas?

How does that gas affect global temperature?

Why do global warming graphs generally only look at the past 1,000 years or so?


And on the issue of antropomorphic . . .

The Monthly Review - 2008, Volume 60, Issue 03 (July-August)

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

  • "The present article consists of (1) a summary of the scientific case for modern anthropogenic global warming, (2) a summary of the contrarian case advanced by Cockburn, (3) an assessment of global warming in greater depth, and (4) my detailed critique of the contrarian arguments advanced by Cockburn."