Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tea Party Republicans...Count on Them to F@%k America!

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 17, 2012, 12:33 p.m. EST by HitGirl (2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

WASHINGTON, Feb 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill on Thursday that would wrest control of a permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline away from President Barack Obama, who has put the project on hold.

The bill...would also expand offshore oil drilling and open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Link to complete story...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/keystone-pipeline-bill-passed-hosue_n_1283478.html

292 Comments

292 Comments


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

With any luck, the Senate won't allow it, and Obama has threatened to veto it. But of course, he's done that before without making good on his threat.

How clear does it have to get to the public that these Republitards are on the payroll if the oil industry before they are booted out? Who will they blame when the largest aquifer on the continent is poisoned and crops can no longer be grown in the heartland?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Their approval rating is already at an all-time low. Do you know why they never pushed back in a serious way against Obama's recess appointments? It's because the public is sick of their shit.

[-] -1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

hahahaaaaaaaa you said republictards that's hilarious what's a rebuplitard?

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

Anyone who is retarded enough to be in that corporation/political party.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

because republicans are a big evil corporation trying to take over america, just like democrats are a big socialist conspiracy? deeeeeeeeeeep

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

The first part is correct, then you go off the deeeeeeeep end.

[-] 0 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

Hey, if you're a Democrat's tool, you're still a tool.

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

Hey, if you're a Republitard, you're still an idiot.

[-] -1 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

I'm not, but you're pretty dense for thinking I have to be a Demonicrat to get anything done in America. (I made that silly word up just to piss you off, by the way.)

I'm an independent, but thanks for your unintelligent, un-refreshing "my way or the highway" look at life.

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

Not a Repulitard or not an idiot? You don't have to be the first to be the second. (But it helps.)

Who said I thought you had to be a Democrat to get anything done? Making pretty big assumptions there, aren't you, Skippy? So far, though, it has only been some of the Democrats in congress who oppose the pipeline. Right now, who else is "getting anything done" about it, specifically?

[-] -1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

The first part is correct, then you go off the deeeeeeeep end.

makes me think you're a Demonionakrit. From Massachusetts.

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

Nope. Just hate fact-challenged morons.

[-] -1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

so do i. we should kill them all, after i figure out how to tie my shoes.

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

Nah, No need to kill them: they're already brain dead. Just keep them off this site. Nobody enjoys mosquitos.

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Suck on a shit popsicle

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

That's your preference, not mine. And you right wingers think it's chocolate.

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Bite off suck hole.

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

You come up with some pretty interesting imagery. Seeing a doctor for treatment about that?

[+] -5 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Seeing your doctor boy. He tells me all about your sorry little butt. Wilted little pos. Bite some frozen shit, suckbutt.

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

You remain confused. Its you right wingers who enjoy the shit, and confuse it with dessert. Poor little pea brains.

Anyway, keep spewing your troll bile. I won't participate further in distracting from this thread, though it was just SO much fun!

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Bites off cum face. Wipe that cum off that long beard fool face. You're a fag ass lib hole. Go fuck a piece of foul douche puke hole. Eat and puke fag face.

[-] -1 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

You're so full of crap.

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

At least I don't eat it by the spoonful and think it's chocolate pie, as you do.

[-] 1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

make witty remark

must be really smart

gain points here

make up for small genitalia

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

The first three lines are accurate, as evidenced on these fora. The last isn't and is founded on pure conjecture, as are most things Republitards say.

[-] 1 points by lollercoaster (38) 2 years ago

sorry, the last one should be

repeat for anyone that questions you

thx for demonstrating

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

You're almost there...... Getting closer........

Nope, still mistakes shit for chocolate.

[-] 1 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

Doesn't Godwin's law state the longer you argue on teh Interwebz the greater the chance you jump on and talk about poo?

I love poo btw

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

LOL. That actually made me laugh. Thank you.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Bite shit.

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

That's your job.

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Drink douche rectum suckass. You can suck a used condom fuckass hole. Nj is a shithole of asstards that reuse condoms like you, fuckbreath.

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

THAT'S what we've been waiting for!

FiNALLY, reasoned arguments from the right wing!

Hahahahaha!

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Drink a hematoma fuck breath. Your dick is a pencil sized impotent little wilted piece of prepubescent flaccid do nothing. Haha.q

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

Now, now. time to take the meds or go to the special room. You're obsessing about genitalia again. And what did the doctor say the last time this happened? He's your friend, you know.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Teabagge(R)s have been exported to Canada.

They're tying to screw everything up there too.

Shouldn't we be getting royalties?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gateway-pipeline-poses-unknown-environmental-threat

[-] 1 points by OccupyCapitolHill (197) 2 years ago

Right let's keep getting our oil from Saudi Arabia. OH WAIT...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46445698

[-] 1 points by hedleymnn (14) 2 years ago

It's too late, Obummer has the economy screwed right now

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

They intend to rape the environment any way they can. Their hopped up on it. The ends justify the means for the Repugnant Party as they show repeatedly in congress.

We need to beware of these backdoor deals. Thanks HitGirl!!!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I don't understand why we don't like this-
the Rs do what they do - the vote with their crapitalist masters against the people -
again screaming they are against the people.

How many of us believe 51 senators will vote for this ?!?!?!?

And even if a few democrats are this crazy -

who in their right mind believes that Obama will sign it into law?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Obama isn't as predictable as all that. He extended the Bush tax cuts TWICE! And Republicans would not generate legislation they couldn't sell, not in an election year.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I dont think he is predictable. I could give you a list of my "disapointments" about his actions and inactions - but most are related to the political reality that he is not the king. For example, he WILL not sign this as it stands. BUT If the Rs negotiate a major corporate & millionaire tax hike in exchange for XL, he might sign it.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • My impression of the Tea Party:

1) A lot of angry old people who don't quite know why they're angry.

2) A lot of angry old people who benefitted from American policy, service, and infrastructure, but are now too selfish to pay-it-forward so the next generation can have similar schools, universities, safeguards for food and pharmaceuticals, and protections for the common man against the sharp business practices that promulgated the housing crisis and Wall Street meltdown that nearly torpedoed the world.

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

That has validity. Dont forgrt that until the end of the seventies, veterens had college tuition paid for without having to contribute out of their own meager wages.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Believe it or not...true story...A poll conducted of red state seniors who receive both medicare and Social Security had most claiming that they were not benefiting from any government programs. WTF!

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

That is because of the media-numbing propaganda that provides little information and distracts from real issues. OWS is an important movement that is finally raising a host of important issues about egregious activities by the Big Boys against the rest of us.

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

Could it be because they actually contributed through their paychecks for all of their working lives for the SS and Medicare Benefits they now receive? And its only been the last decade that the number of people not paying Federal Income Tax has grown to almost 50% of the working population so most of those now collecting SS and Medicare Benefits paid Fed Income Taxes during their whole working life too....and now many of them pay income taxes on the SS and Medicare benefit they receive.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Either way, It's a government program.

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

Yes, it is a Government Program but one structured quite differently in that it was supposed to be "self funding". It is paid into by every working person on a "promise" of future returns unlike taxes paid for other welfare programs for which most people will never see any personal return because they will never "qualify" for those benefits.

Unlike Medicaid and other government programs designed to be safety nets, you don't have to "qualify" based upon income and assets because you paid into it just like you did a voluntary 401K or IRA (only you didn't pay voluntarily).

Seniors collecting those returns now are paying taxes on those returns and a small premium for the medical coverage they get (which is effectively being double taxed since the payments into the program were "taxes" and now the "benefits" are being taxed again).

If you are retired and now drawing on your IRA or 401K, would you appreciate it if the Government suddenly decided that you were not entitled to the returns on your investment? Any payment you made into the 401k/IRA were taken out of your earnings each month just as SS and Medicare payments(taxes) were. Have you earned the right to the returns on one but not the other?

There is a wealth of difference between SS/Medicare and other social programs - there was/is a "promise" of personal future return on the "investment".

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You sound like a fan of the government program known as Social Security. Too bad Republicans want to gut it.

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

Both parties have been kicking the SS/Medicare looming deficit down the road. It has been known for decades that the self funding program would eventually be upside down. Yet, neither party has done anything about it.

As for your apparent belief that only the GOP seeks to "cut" SS and Medicare..you might want to broaden the scope of just what you read....

Democrats claim they won't "cut" SS benefits, yet have proposed doing exactly that by tying cost of living increases to a new method of calculation. http://firedoglake.com/2011/07/08/democrats-groovy-new-plan-to-cut-social-security-dont-call-it-cuts/

Democrats claim the won't "cut" Medicare benefits, yet the Affordable Care Act had how much funding cut from Medicare? WASHINGTON — Unflinching on a critical first test, Senate Democrats closed ranks Thursday behind $460 billion in politically risky Medicare cuts at the heart of health care legislation, thwarting a Republican attempt to doom President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34258944/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/medicare-cuts-stay-senates-health-care-bill/#.T0E4MHnCbTo

[-] 2 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

I've never understood how getting your own money back is a "benefit".

[-] 1 points by NewMonkeyMan (-2) 2 years ago

Are you for real, or just a 14 year old screaming for some attention? What happened to bringing an open mind to a debate and finding common ground.....nah, let's just let the id take control since the mind's obviously empty and blurt out loud noises and obsenities...simply ridiculous...

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

When I think of some of the insane rants I've heard from right-wing attack dogs on this forum...With zero respect for the art of logical discourse...You expect to feel guilty for saying my peace? I'm willing to argue in a reasonable manner but until you critics start jumping on the real trolls, I'll title my posts any way I like.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21297) 2 years ago

From the article: "Even if the Keystone legislation makes it to the Senate floor for a vote, getting it passed will be difficult. There are currently 47 Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and they would need to find at least 13 Democrats to agree to move it forward."

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

Let's hope they are stopped in the Senate.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Yeah, let's keep buying oil from our enemies so they can build more arms against us! Good idea.

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

Hold the phone!!!! We probably shouldn't export it then, amiright?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I think they can stop it from even coming to a vote.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I hope so. There is an awful lot of money invested in spinning crap.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I don't see where the article even mentions the Tea Party.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

House Republicans voted in by the Tea Party in 2010. How soon they forget.

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

And exactly how many were Tea Party Candidates? By that I mean new Representatives and not incumbents returned to office?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Did it mention the House of Representatives, Yes. Did it mention, "passed", Yes. And what is required to pass stupid legislation in the house? What is required to pass legislation that most of the citizens want? Most Republicans want? TP.

Been out of the country long?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

So basically if it is legislation you don't like, then it must be the tea party, eh? Couldn't be greedy rich corporations, huh? Maybe you need to pay more attention to facts before you condescend to someone who points out the facts.

Actually, the Tea Party opposes the pipeline:

The latest obstacle to the Keystone XL oil pipeline project comes from tea partyers, much to the delight of environmentalists.

Property-rights conservatives, water supply activists and landowners are banding together along the pipeline’s proposed route through Texas, challenging plans to claim land for the proposed pipeline that will run from Canada’s oil sands to Texas’ Gulf Coast.

“Crippling someone’s water supply knows no party line,” said Rita Beving, consultant to the bipartisan East Texas Sub-Regional Planning Commission. A Republican mayor and a Democratic city secretary lead the group’s fight against the pipeline.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_97/Keystone-Pipeline-Finds-New-Opponents-212467-1.html

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It is the greedy rich corporations that provide the support for the TP candidates. My friend who went to a number of TP events was very much in favor of environmental responsibility but was shouted down by others who knew whose pocket was going to be a comfortable place for them. The mantra of get rid of intrusive government regulation is rather broadly supported among local TP's. Then when the leak pollutes their well it isn't so intrusive anymore.

I also live where the news has been full of a story about a local refinery leaking into a creek a short distance from the river, killing the fish etc.

I am willing to look at regulations one by one, not as "red tape" to confirm that they are needed, that they are cost effective and achieve the desired result. But most of the time when people get rid of red tape somebody else gets sick or dies.

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

And no greedy rich corporations provide support of the Democrats? Or the Occupy Movement itself? Maybe you need to check out all the fundraisers the President has been to lately and just who it is that is paying $35,000 for a ticket....

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

Nobodies fooled by this stuff, and nobodies going for Ron Paul here. Why don't you guys get a life and create your own movement? Ah, I know; nobodies buying it. This forum is for Occupy Wall St., but you know damn well if you start a Ron Paul site it will attract no interest whatsoever. So . . . get a life.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Greedy rich corporations buy favors where they can. Mitt's SuperPac has 8, or is it 9 donors?

Read about the big banks cutting down their contributions to Obama in 2011? The percentage of donors under $250.? It is what it is.

You support the Citizens United decision?

Oh, I haven't seen any money coming to the OWS or 99% movement so far. Have you? How much went to the TP? The Koch's have pledged $100 million, $60 million this election from the brothers alone. I see the Donate button on this site but if the total were more than $100 K, not $100 million, I would be surprised. I don't think that money is a road you want to go down, is it?

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

No I don't support the Citizen United decision. I am a supporter of Public Financing of Campaigns.

You haven't seen any money coming into OWS?

Michael Moore donated 2.5 million to OWS http://occupywallstreetdeception.blogspot.com/2011/10/michael-moore-donates-25-million.html

The adbuster site which is credited for putting out the call to occupy is funded by Sorros' Tide Foundation. Moveon.org - another Sorros funded group backs OWS.

Now, I can hear you saying "but they are not "donating" funds to the OWS". And you'd be correct. Yet, you refer to the Koch brothers as "donating" funds to the Tea Party when in actuality, they donated to groups that like - moveon and the Tide foundation - were previously established and publicly came out in support of the movement.

Truth is that special interests play by the same rules all the while pointing the finger at the other side for "doing it first" or "doing it more".

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I would be happiest with your approach, Public Financing for all elections. I don't know the Tide Foundation. And I am unaware of contributions to Move On by the Koch brothers. It doesn't seem compatible with the rest of their activities and agenda. But sometimes it is hard to decode the actions of others. When I said I didn't "see" I didn't really mean to imply that my vision was as good as your hearing (I can hear you saying). Maybe I should have said, "I am unaware of any activities that are funded by..."

I want to get ALL special interests out of both the election and governance processes.

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

Ah ha! We agree on something...

George Sorros funds moveon.org and the Tides Foundation both of which support OWS in various ways.

The Tides Foundation provides grants to nonprofits working toward political and social change in the US and abroad with a commitment to promoting progressivism. The Tides Foundation is the umbrella over the Tides Center which is a 501(c)(3) . "Set up in 1976 by California activist Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used. " It operates under "donor advised giving". It is even involved in the Pew polling data.

My point was that you pointed to the Koch Brothers as funders of the "tea party" yet, they like Sorros with OWS, never donated directly to the Tea Party. They donate to organizations (like Sorros does to the Tides Foundation/Center and moveon.org or media matters) .....who support - in various ways - the tea party as sponsors. Groups like Americans for Prosperity who help to fund national rallies for the Tea Party just as other groups have provided funding for OWS activities.

Anyway, the reality is that Sorros has a political agenda as do the Koch brothers. Both sides push the boundaries of the tax laws in order to bring about that agenda.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And what is it that we agree on? Is it, "I want to get ALL special interests out of both the election and governance processes."?

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

Yep...public financing of campaigns with limits on spending so that if one "buys" an entire cable channel to do 24/7 campaigning the other has the same funds to do it as well.

And I'm sure we could also agree that transparency is needed in the 501(c)3 and so on tax exempt organizations.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Good. I would limit campaigns to 6 weeks. Candidates could write books to present and support their platform and their opposition research. Debates during the 6 weeks with feeds to any news outlet that wants them and posted on Youtube.

501 (c) 4's should go away? I think non profit status should go away.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

but that's not money from greed.......it's money from........uhh, umm, hey anyone know where this money comes from?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

When you don't have a level playing field yet.

Do you propose that one party should tie their hands behind their back? or be the one legged person in an ass kicking contest?

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

Okay. Got it now. If the Republicans do it its because they are greedy. If the Dems do it its because the Republicans did it.....

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (26862) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No. If it is necessary to be competitive, that is what it is. Untill we get money out of politics this will be the playing field. Period.

This makes initiatives like people united necessary to remove personhood from corporations. This is what makes the Campaign finance reform initiative important to get passed.

So please try not to be so stubbornly dense. Try to stop attacking what is a necessary evil for all to have to play until it is made that no one can play it.

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

Now, what you wrote in the second post is something that we can agree on. Your first post had the smell of "two wrongs make a right".

Campaign finance reform is needed - no argument there at all. What we disagree on is where you appear to imply that the Democrats only take special interest money because the Republicans did it first when the actual truth is that the system of campaign financing has evolved through decades and decades of changing campaign needs.

Both John McCain and Obama pledged to use public funding for their presidential runs in the general election. Obama went back on that promise. He outspent John McCain by $16,689,079.00 in the general election.

Real campaign finance reform will only come when Americans stand up and demand that all candidates rely only on Public Campaign Financing. Public Financing. Nothing would work better to reduce the power of big money in American elections because it would limit the influence of special interest donations, and allow candidates with limited resources to run for office.

Perhaps most relevant at the moment, considering that our President is reported to have had 30 fund raisers from January 2011 through June 20th of that same year, it will eliminate the need for these types of events allowing sitting officials to actually do the job they were elected to do.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

What about the Tea Party reps in the House? How did they vote?

[-] 1 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

It's time the Adults start to take back the Govt. The progressive,leftist man-child Barry is incapable of making a non-political decision on this vital issue. Barry can only bend over for his environmental terrorists green mafia,Barry can't do what's best for the country only his re-election

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

That's a pretty weird remark coming from the jaxxen (5).

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

What's best for the country is to have leaking oil pipe-lines destroying vital aquifers across the country so oil barons can sell oil to China? Your adults got us into a useless and costly war, destroyed millions of lives and left us bankrupt and in economic free-fall. I'll take my adults over yours any day.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

selling oil to make jobs sounds pretty good to me

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

The sad fact is that there really is a disturbing varitation in human intelligence, and I don't mean that facetiously.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

There are better ways to make jobs.

[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Well they are going to move the crap, either by boat, rail or truck, PERIOD.

Now if anyone had any sense they would tell the fucking useless Canadians to gasify their oil sands at home for very clean energy and insist that the Government simply does not allow Buffet, Hillary or the Kock Brothers to make a damned dime off any of it by preventing one lump of it from being transported anywhere in the USA..... however, all Obama's buddies are all poised perfectly to profit greatly, one way or the other..... and they will as well as share with Obama.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I agree. They should make the resource public. Screw the capitalists. Energy is too important to trust to the private sector.

[-] -1 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 2 years ago

Tell everyone how that works for you after you braindead commies re-elect your elitist money man pretending to be for The People.

NDAA 2012 Drones and much more.....

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Elitist money man pretending to be for The People...sounds like you're referring to Mitt Romney.

[-] -1 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 2 years ago

Of course! The Obama's certainly are right on the verge of being impoverished!

They aren't anything like vulgarly wealthy, now are they?

Let's see, the Obama's net worth prior to being elected to any office, prior to being elected to the Whitehouse and net wealth today...

You don't know any of the numbers do you?

You really don't think he is regular people, do you?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

No, I think he is President of the United States, something Mitt Romney will never be.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

there are over 55,000 miles of oil pipelines in the usa. Are they all leaking?

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

Most of them are, to one degree or another.

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

can you support that with any facts? cite any sources for those " facts"?

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

You can't be this google challenged, can you?

Even the guy putting in Keystone acknowledged that they know it's going to leak. Do you really think oil men are so stupid, that they wouldn't factor that into their calculations?

They just work the legislation to put most of the risk of major leaks on the public.

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

Wait, shooz........didn't you provide this exact same documentation a few weeks ago? It had to be you or epa1.

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

I'm sure somebody did.........:)

It's not like the info is that hard to find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

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

Well, that's what I am talking about. This is repetitive.

So, help me..........could they possibly dumb it down anymore.

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

The Paulie boys are back too.

Do any of them ever fact check anything?

Or use a modicum of logic?

I fear not.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

northern nj , the huson river , brooklyn and queens must be an oil soaked mess (they aren't ). how do you think the planes at jfk get their fuel? uundergound pipelines.

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

Still google challenged?

There's a big difference between a line moving kerosine, and one moving crude.

I know a engineer that works on the pumps for oil rigs. He's working on one in Africa at the moment.

It takes special high pressure pumps to move crude through a pipe 20 or more foot around.

Now, type pipeline leaks into google, and realize these are just the ones that get press.

The leaks are calculated into the system at the corporate level.

They aren't stupid, no matter what you think.

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

so, there have been some leaks , but in general, it's the most efficient way to send it inland, unless you're warren buffet and own the burlington northern santa fe rr.

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

Some leaks????

You sure do change your mind quick.

Being google challenged is no longer an excuse for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

i never said that there were no leaks. what i said was,.......... 55,000 miles of pipelines in the usa, are they all leaking?

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

And I said, yes they do.

I thought we moved on and were examining the evidence.

Are you also link challenged?

[-] -3 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

so, you're saying that all of the 55,000 miles of pipelines in the usa are leaking?

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

No. You intimated that.

I attempted to explain to you that there are different types of lines, with different leakage risks, and you failed to understand that.

I offed you some links, that you didn't look at.

At the moment, I must ask.

Get to the point, Edith.

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

i aid there are 55,000 miles of pipeline in the usa and asked you if they're all leaking.YOU said most of them are, to one degree or another. read your own posts.

[-] -3 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

More bullshit about the Pipeline that would have created thousands of jobs and help to bring down oil and gas prices. But your adult prefers to play politics with the economy of this country,what a piece of crap.

Obama (your so-called adult) has:

"got us into a useless and costly war (Libya,maybe Syria now), destroyed millions of lives (unemployment actually over 19%,As In FDR-Great Depression Unemployment) and left us bankrupt ($4.6 trillion more and counting) and in economic free-fall (gas has went up 83% since your adult put his hand on the Koran and took an oath to destroy the Constitution)". So wake up and pull your face out of your bowl of bullshit flakes and look around you,Obama is a looter and destroyer.

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/real-unemployment-rate-under-obama-over-nineteen-percent-as-in-fdr-great-depression-number/

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Sorry I can see the forest for the burnt trees, and the little boy with the lighter was Bush. And American's know that.

[-] -3 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Yeah sure,whatever delusion get ya through.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Talk to me after we re-elect Obama.

[-] -3 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

I think the more important issue here is you dealing and coping with having President Santorum hammering the nails into the coffin of Obamacare and the EPA along with every other Liberal holy grail. Let the good times roll........!!!

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

The problem is we don't have enough sanitoriums to hold everybody for Santorum. But still, there aren't enough of these whackos out there to ever elect that Nazi.

[+] -4 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Ya dun been a dyin' ta use dat "sanitoriums" werd ya dun thunk up all by yer little self now,ain't ya? HeeHaw,shazam,youse is city slicker,ain't ya?

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

I can't help it if he's insane and his name is Santorum. That was God's doing.

[-] -2 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Speaking for God now are ya?

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

No, God spoke for himself. But don't worry about it, the ultra-wealthy puppet masters of the Republican Party will make certain that the rugged, individualist Tea Partiers and Liberatarians swallow Mit Romney and like it. So you'll need to find another sanitorium.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

If Santorum moved any further right he'd be joining the Taliban!

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

This is actually true. In fact, I see very little difference between Santorum and the Taliban. They are equally against women's rights, human rights, and have an equally right-wing theological outlook on the world. I think perhaps you understated the case when you said, "If Santorum moved any further right."

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Well, Santorum wouldn't insist that women wrap themselves in scarves, but otherwise, yeah, same sort of social agenda.

[-] -3 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Actually Obama is the Muslim sympathizer.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Yes, we all know Obama is a sleeper-cell Muslim super-agent just waiting for the right moment to impose Sharia Law on the entire Western World. Yeah, sure, whatever delusion get ya through.

[+] -4 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Well,you're half way to coming to your senses but I don't believe you really want to be there.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Yeah, the other half would be me accepting Rick Santorum as my lord and master and ultimate moral compass...You are right. That's a place I definitely don't wanna be. I think I'll stick with being an enlightened adult.

[+] -4 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

"enlightened adult"

To be one,you must first become one.

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

So then, when are you going to start working on that?

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

You guys need to make up your minds, there's bunch of other threads here were they bitch about him blowing them up.

What's next? The birth certificate again?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Dream on. You need a windmill and a Sancho Panza.

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

I think you are glorifying this guy with this analogy. He needs a toilet and a place for his TP.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Well, Don Quixote was a self-deceived dreamer. Granted much classier than jaxxen. Still, it makes sense that jaxxen would be trying to take out a clean energy windmill. Haha.

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

That would be fun to watch . . . one of those ten stories tall? LOL!!

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It would make a great video for the anger management crowd.

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

HA!!!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jaxxen (-19) 2 years ago

Your powers of perception and comprehension are non-existent,but keep throwing bullshit until something sticks I guess.

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

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

Care to provide the link to Alex Jones?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hedleymnn (14) 2 years ago

The kenyan reject, commando Odumbo already trashed the Country

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You're a racist. I get that.

[-] 0 points by hedleymnn (14) 2 years ago

I am a racist because I do not like Obammy??

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

hedleymnn said 1 day ago at Feb. 17, 2012, 8:34 p.m. EST (delete)

The Rep cannot fuck up the economy because the nigger already trashed it

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You're a racist because you called Obama a nigger in the PM you sent me.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

retitled to

Keystone Pipeline Bill Passed By U.S. House, Senate Action Uncertain

http://occupywallst.org/forum/forum-topics/#comment-645581

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

cool more jobs for Americans, even if their ugly sill puts Americans to work

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That's a good corporate citizen, Daniel.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

you don't even know what a corporation is, go read a book.

jobs are jobs and we need working man jobs not service jobs. We need a stronger middle class and this men and women who will maintain this pipeline will always be needed. if you look at the big picture its a good thing. We use oil in everything so lets make it cheaper.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

It won't be cheaper. But I see shooz has already schooled you.

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

By cheaper, do you mean less profitable?????

They don't want to do that, you know.

Or do you mean cheaper for them and more expensive for us?

I think maybe you should read that book too.

'Cause as you well know, when everything else fails, they raise prices.

It's in the charter.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Thanks for stepping up while I'm at work. Much appreciated ;)

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

No prob......:)

Glad you don't mind.

He quit before I was done anyway.

They get into a loop, where they just keep repeating themselves, break the loop and they get lost.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You must have found the flaw in his programming. Like the FORCE you have the ability to confuse the weak-minded.

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

Sometimes it's like talking to tech support in the Philippines, they have trouble talking off script, and can rarely cure the problem...

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

o shooz one question mark would sufficed.

yes they don't want to lose profits because that's what a business is about making money even if its not for profit they still needs to make money.

Overall the prices should come down since the oil is coming in from a more secure place and doesn't have to travel over half of the world on something that could be hijacked or destroyed other ways.

and if it doesn't o well we have new jobs for Americans sounds like a good thing to me

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

Gosh, where you when we lost millions of auto worker jobs?

Singing a very different tune I'll bet.

Care to address the second part of that post.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i have one comment space elevator brings in million of jobs and success for Americans. look it up

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

Which of course, avoids answering the questions.

Par for the "conservative" course, of course.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i wasn't singing any tune when those workers lost their jobs because i did not know what to think but since them I've gone through three years of a very good education at Purdue University and my understanding has changed an now that im looking for jobs. I made sure that i understand the market. this isnt a Conservative decisions is a economic one and im very progressive when it comes to market choices. America down right now but my generation is taking it back to beyond what it was.

and about oil leaking we advance everyday in the field of nanotechnology and microorganisms that eat and get rid of oil. So unless people think using bacteria is inhumane i think we good.

also im very serious about the space elevator it would be the step into the next generation of travel. It would be very good for the economy and for science.

I've read my books its time you, shooz and hitgirl read yours it may clear some things up.

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

So , what is it you learned at Purdue, that has you convinced that oil corporations, "might" let prices fall?

You know they won't. yet you put that "should" out there anyway.

Oil corporations are among the most manipulative out there, and will encourage war, if they need to manipulate supply to insure ever rising profits. BTW: We, the "consumers" pay for that too.

Perhaps you read the wrong book?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

well as a engineer i learned that stable income of resources make for a cheaper product. But there is so much more than that it is beyond what i could put in simple words on this forum. You would need years to understand what i have learned and i dont have time to teach someone who refuses to learn

oil corporations are bad but you have to think did we make them that way are they the product of over regulation or manipulation from the government that they have been corrupted to no end. We must take in all these ideas into consideration before we can act. But then also a business is private property and it is a weird breach in laws to say to them what they can and can not do. We a a society try to balance this out so we do not punish those or breach into personal lives.

also if you don't want oil try living on another planet because we been using it for years

there is no such thing as wrong book we must read all books to understand all opinions and ideas. to say i read the wrong books is like saying you chew backwards there is no such thing.

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

So, Purdue taught you how to avoid answering questions?

In that case, you paid way too much. You could have become a teabagger for a lot less.

Nice prose though.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no you are a jackass and i love the fact that you completely ignored my space elevator idea that has been push for by the scientific field.

also here is my plan of study try to https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME/Academics/Undergraduate/index.html i plan on to work in nano manufacturing

try to comprehend what im doing

read my friend read

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

Yes.....You're an ASS, Jack!

Space elevators are a long way off, and you know this.

If you can explain how nano tech is going to lower the price of oil and gas, please do.

In the mean time please answer the questions. They are starting to build up.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes i am an ass i know that.

no we have all the material and technology to build a space elevator i know we will have one before i die perhaps two. That is the future of clean energy so we can go to the moon and mine for clean burning fuel. Or the h3 that we will use for our fusion power plants.

nano tech will drive prices down maybe the two fields are distant cousins of each other. I have no goal to drive down oil prices. I want to design nanobots for manufacturing purposes of medical field purposes. You could then take, as i stated earlier, the nanobots to the oil and have them "eat" it and move it.

now the question that i guess i haven't answered is why oil companies wont drive down gas prices well they should but in reality they wont gas prices may drop down to 2.50 or 3 depending where you live. I can not predict the future i can just make obsubtions based on observations and past situations

The government also wants the prices high because higher prices make the public want new cars that are non gas based. also ask the government to lower prices because they are driving them up single handily with taxes that are push on the consumer. See when you tax something like gas the company just pushes the tax on to the consumer this why smart people such as economist push for lower taxes on businesses. If you ever took econ in high school you should of learned this fact.

i answered all your question read and you will find the answer

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Just a comment - when you condem Tea Party Republicans you are condeming Americans.

When you condem Democrats you are condemming Americans

When you condem Republicans you are condemming Americans.

So, it seems to me for those of you who condem instead of being able to debate are "Un-American".

How about trying to learn to leave your "feelings" out or your remarks when you try to make a point.

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • I don't condemn Tea Party Republicans. I simply point out that they are misguided. They have bought the mantra that there is a Free Lunch.

  • Corporations are not evil. Nor is government. Society needs both to work effectively.

  • Corporations and government serve different purposes. We need both - and they both need to work well.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Where do they claim a Free Lunch. What they want is less government.

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

** Less of which specific government programs?

1) The programs that provide for the national defense?

2) The programs that safeguard the food we eat?

3) The programs that insure that the pharmaceutical products that doctors prescribe are safe and effective?

4) The programs that build the national network of highways, bridges, public transportation, air traffic control, and other infrastructure that make possible that corporations can develop, build, market, ship and consume the vast array of products that we buy and sell every day?

5) The programs that make sure our money is safe within the banking system?

6) The programs that watch over the Wall Street securities industries to make sure that they don't gouge the public, deceive investors, and apply sharp business practices to consumers?

7) The programs that safeguard natural resources so they are extracted in ways that harm the public?

8) The programs that provide National Parks, wild lands, and open recreational lands, safeguarded so they are never turned into massive commercial developments and housing tracts?

9) The programs that are aimed at keeping America strong by having an educated workforce capable of meeting the needs of the business sector??

10) The programs that are aimed at targeting criminals -- blue collar, white collar, no collar.

11) The programs that stimulate universities and scientists to conduct research and development?

12) The programs that are aimed at stepping in when a tornado, earthquake, hurricane or other disaster strikes our citizens?

13) The programs that provide a safety net for citizens so that when they are too old to work, and haven't amassed a fortune like Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch, that they can live out their final years with a modicum of dignity and comfort?

14) The programs that provide a hot meal in school to the tens of millions of children who are living in poverty and, for them, that is their only nutritious and hot meal?

15) The programs that make sure our air is not polluted and causing health problems?

16) The programs that strengthen international trade through efficient and robust ports, channel dredging, and trade agreements?

17) The programs that oversee what is shipped into and out of the United States to make sure that there is no contraband, drugs, weapons, and illegal goods.

18) The programs that make sure that terrorists are not infiltrating America?

19) The programs that establish cooperative agreements with other nations?

20) The programs that helped the Auto industry rebound after it nearly tanked?

21) The programs that watch over and manage America's monetary system?

. . . . .we could go on and on and on. But I think you get the point. Programs are created to meet specific problems or needs of society.

  • "Less government" is an empty phrase aimed at pushing hot buttons for the uninformed.
[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Also some wealthy shysters like the idea because with "less" government they can get away with more.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That was awesome and needed to be said.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

good post you may be the smartest person on this forum but dont let that get to your head

i agree we need to focus on both government and corporations to make things run smoother and more fair

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

As are statements that the Tea Party Republicans will "f@@ up America". Or that they want "no government".

How about the fact that they think that 15 governmental food agencies whose responsibilities overlap is "too much government"? Do you disagree that consolidation into one agency might be a better solution? Do you agree that the Food Modernization Act didn't go far enough to take care of this issue of too many "cooks in the kitchen?" Or that it went way too far in aiding Monsanto with its genetically modified food implementation?

[-] 3 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Read my post. Above.

  • People like Grover Norquist have stated that they "want to shrink government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub."

  • That pretty much sums up both the Tea Party and the Grove-Meister.

  • Having an unelected guy pressure elected officials to sign a "no-tax" pledge -- which is pretty much what the 'taxed enough' tea party group is saying is frightening enough.

  • But to see Republicans march in lock step with this unelected ideologue is even more frightening.

  • Grover and Tea Party people have no qualms lowering taxes -- ever. Mainly because they both adhere to the "starve-the-beast" propaganda that will end up making America a weak and third class nation. Shameful!

  • You can always find inefficient programs that no longer deliver the payoff we'd hoped for. You can always find things that need to be fixed in government. Areas to make more effective. Same with private sector.

  • But to make a blanket statement that you want less government is empty rhetoric.

  • Read my earlier post. I stand by what I said. What programs do you want to cut?

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

I don't want to "cut" any specific program. What I want is "reform".

You write that "to make a blanket statement that you want less government is empty rhetoric". I contend that to state that the Tea Party as a whole supports the desire to "to shrink government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub" is also "rhetoric. Just as it would be to say that the entire Occupy Movement seeks to turn our system of government into "communism".

The "platform" of the Tea Party includes the following goals - eliminate excessive taxation; eliminate the National Debt; eliminate Deficit Spending; protect free markets; reduce the overall size of Government and so on.

There are even some similar platform goals between it and the Occupy movement - promote Civic Responsibility; believe in the people; counter the influence of special interests and lobbies; maintain local independence free of any central leadership.

Despite the "rhetoric" that the Tea Party is the only segment of the American populace that feels that the rich are taxed enough, an October 2011 poll showed that 53% of Americans believe the top 1% of Americans should pay less than 30%, and the average fair rate suggested by Americans was 24%.

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • HUH? What does that mean?

  • YOU state that Tea Party wants to eliminate "excessive taxation."

  • First of all the word "excessive" begs the question. Of course, if something is "excessive" then we are better off without the excess.

  • But you fail to explain or define what would be "excessive."

  • Instead you continue to mouth the Tea Party rhetoric. Empty words.

  • See my earlier posts.

  • WHICH AREAS DO YOU WANT TO CUT SPENDING? THEN I WILL TELL YOU HOW MUCH REVENUE SOCIETY NEEDS TO SPEND

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

I wrote about the Tea Party Platform in response to your general statements about it....It is not "rhetoric", it is a statement of their platform. If you want to flesh it out, how about you spending some time on their actual websites rather than reading the inflammatory "reporting" of its platform by media?

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

The amazing part is, (R)epelican'ts made the HUGE government in the first place. The only time they really bitch is when a Democrat is at the top.

Makes you wonder why the teabaggers joined the (R)epelican'ts.

Teabaggers raised my taxes, and went against the State constitution to do so.

(R)epelican'ts have go to go!!!

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Sorry your are completely wrong about all these programs being claimed by the Tea Party.

You know why, because most of them already have been implented because of our dumbed down society that thinks its the governments responsibility to nurture them, provide for their needs, tell them what is good for them and making them government dependent.

Those are not "Tea Party" values those are our "societies" values

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Steve, you need to travel more. I have seen countries that don't "nurture" their citizens or "provide for their needs."

  • They call 'em "Third Word Countries."

  • A couple wealthy powerful people at the top, and a whole nation filled with sick, desperate and hungry citizens.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I have traveled thank you - been to Europe and the far east. You see, our society "expects" the government to do for them what they "don't" want to do for themselves.

Take any individual in this country who has never been out of this country and put them in a 3rd world country and they wouldn't survive. We are a country of wimps not people who know how to survive.

So, with that being said it follows what I said - "our society thinks that it's the governments responsibility to nuture them, provide for their needs, tell them what's good for them and making them "government dependent""

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

Did you open your eyes when you traveled? Did you observe the differences between the quality of life in European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France. Compared with the quality of life in third world countries that are run by corrupt politicians, the people live in desperate poverty, and the rail, roads, medical and other services suck?

I stick by my posts above and below. Stop pimping for the richest 1%

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So, what does Denmark, Sweden, Norway and France have to do with what's going on in the United States?

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

You are the one who brought up your world travels. Were you just dithering, or do your travels have a point? But more to the point, you failed to answer what government programs you desire to cut.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

No I wasn't "dithering" I was making a point. The point being that todays younger generation don't know how to survive. That's the point.

And when you have a society that wants the government to provide everything for them how can you expect the government to cut expenses. It won't happen.

There are lots of programs within the government that should be cut - welfare without drug testing, oil subsadsies, energy grants, government selection as to who will be bailed out and who won't, grants for buying new vehicles, grants for going to college grants to big businesses, the list goes on and on.

Until this country stops being whiney and needy expecting the government to do for them what they can do for themselves, this economy will never change.

As it stands right now, unemployment isn't going to get better anytime soon because about 45% of the pouplation is up to their eyeballs in debt. Until that changes, the economy isn't going to change anytime soon.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Steve, I don't know which country you grew up in.

  • I have know many many extremely hard working and talented young people who have had far less than I had in the 1950s - 1970s relative to affordable high quality education and job opportunities.

  • These people aren't asking for handouts. And they are not only surviving but growing, albeit less robustly than young people in my generation.

  • Stop blasting our youth. They are America's future.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I don't disagree that there are hard working and talented young people who aren't asking for handouts and are surviving. I'm not talking about them.

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

So you want to talk in generalities about our youth?

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Steve, let's take just the ones who "bought a house they couldn't afford." OK?

  • Buying my first house, the banks (under old business model) had set a high bar.

  • Your income had to be verified. Your mortgage had to be about 1/4th to 1/3rd of your income. You had to put 10% minimum down, preferably 20%.

  • The thing that caused the housing meltdown was the BANKS. They loaned money to anyone with a pulse. No standards... whatsoever.

  • THat is a corrupt and sharp business practice. And it nearly brought down the world's economies.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

I am talking about the ones who whine because they are into debt up to their eyeballs at the age of 25 and think it's the governments fault for them not having a job.

I am talking about the ones who whine because they bought a house they couldn't afford in the first place, lost it because they lost their job and are expecting the government to do something about it

I am talking about the ones who whine because they think they should have everyting life has to offer at the ripe old age of 30.

I am talking about the ones who whine because they think it is unfair for someone to have more then them yet they are not willing to go out and work to have it.

I am talking about the ones who whine because they think wall street is the problem when in fact it's the governmemt who is the problem but because they have been brainwashed into thinking being wealthy is evil they condem those who are wealthy.

I could go on but I am sure by now you get my point.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

1) The programs that provide for the national defense? For it! One of the few things the government is actually mandated to provide in the Constitution. Needs improvement.

2) The programs that safeguard the food we eat? For it! Needs improvement.

3) The programs that insure that the pharmaceutical products that doctors prescribe are safe and effective? For it! Needs improvement.

4) The programs that build the national network of highways, bridges, public transportation, air traffic control, and other infrastructure that make possible that corporations can develop, build, market, ship and consume the vast array of products that we buy and sell every day? For it! Needs improvement.

5) The programs that make sure our money is safe within the banking system? For it! Needs MAJOR improvement/overhaul. Dodd/Frank is making it worse. The libs create the problems and then claim to have fixes for them. This is just one example.

6) The programs that watch over the Wall Street securities industries to make sure that they don't gouge the public, deceive investors, and apply sharp business practices to consumers? For it! Needs MAJOR improvement/overhaul.

7) The programs that safeguard natural resources so they are extracted in ways that harm the public? For it but the government has gone way too far with this and it is becoming dangerous to count on our enemies for our energy supply.

8) The programs that provide National Parks, wild lands, and open recreational lands, safeguarded so they are never turned into massive commercial developments and housing tracts? For it but the government has gone way too far with this. Re: a puddle on a family farm can be deemed a Protected Wetland in many areas.

9) The programs that are aimed at keeping America strong by having an educated workforce capable of meeting the needs of the business sector?? The DOE regulations have done just the opposite. Get rid of it.

10) The programs that are aimed at targeting criminals -- blue collar, white collar, no collar. This is called "law enforcement". For it in general, of course, but they also have gone way too far in deciding what is criminal behavior. See the Bill of Rights for more info.

11) The programs that stimulate universities and scientists to conduct research and development? Who picks the winners and losers? The money goes to whatever happens to fit the agenda, not necessarily what is important.

12) The programs that are aimed at stepping in when a tornado, earthquake, hurricane or other disaster strikes our citizens? For it! Needs MAJOR improvement/overhaul. Re: FEMA

13) The programs that provide a safety net for citizens so that when they are too old to work, and haven't amassed a fortune like Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch, that they can live out their final years with a modicum of dignity and comfort? Needs TOTAL overhaul. Current systems are unsustainable and destructive.

14) The programs that provide a hot meal in school to the tens of millions of children who are living in poverty and, for them, that is their only nutritious and hot meal? So these kids are all starving on the weekends and during vacation time while they are watching TV on the parents big screen? Some do need this program but most don't.

15) The programs that make sure our air is not polluted and causing health problems? Who wouldn't be for clean air? But the EPA is out of control and has become destructive.

16) The programs that strengthen international trade through efficient and robust ports, channel dredging, and trade agreements?

17) The programs that oversee what is shipped into and out of the United States to make sure that there is no contraband, drugs, weapons, and illegal goods. For it. It's called law enforcement and national defense.

18) The programs that make sure that terrorists are not infiltrating America? For it. It's called law enforcement and national defense.

19) The programs that establish cooperative agreements with other nations? To general to comment on.

20) The programs that helped the Auto industry rebound after it nearly tanked? In general, against it. There were already legal procedures in place to deal with this.

21) The programs that watch over and manage America's monetary system? Seriously? How has that worked out so far???

. . . . .we could go on and on and on. But I think you get the point. Programs are created to meet specific problems or needs of society.

The TEA Party is not an anarchist group. We want limited government based on the constitution but we also understand that there should be a safety net for those unable to fend for themselves but not for those that choose not to.

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Maybe not all anarchists. But some of them brought our government to a screeching halt, blocked payment of bills for things we already bought, blocked appointments so the government could not conduct its business, blocked a host of things. That smacks of subversion.
[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Actually, we were blocking the subversion. When the government is going in the wrong direction, it is our duty to stand against it. Isn't that what you want to do as well? You just don't like that it's your ox that's getting gored.

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

Can you cut through the generalities and rhetoric and level specific criticisms. So far all I see from you is sophistry and sweeping generalities. What do you stand for?

  • What DO you stand for?

  • WHAT do you stand for?

  • What do YOU stand for?

  • What do you STAND for?

  • What do you stand FOR?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Damn, dude, scroll up a few posts!

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Uhhhh. . . you mean the part where you copy my lengthy post, and then make a few vacuous and vague statements about wanting a Constitutional government???

  • Dude, we still don't know what you stand for. Please illuminate us.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

What do you want, an essay for each line item? Do some research outside of HuffPo and MoveOn, you might learn something.

BTW, did you learn the improper use of bullet points from ZenHog or are you him?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Just remember less government = banking crises. Repeat it like a mantra until you get it through your head.

[-] 0 points by hedleymnn (14) 2 years ago

Just remember less commando Odumbo, the Kenyan loser = banking crises

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

This bill is GREAT! Drill here, drill now! It's about freakin' time.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You are a traitor who wants to run a leaky oil pipeline across our great nation to feed oil to China. Makes me wanna puke.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Yeah, lets keep buying the oil from our enemies instead! Good plan.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

If that's the purpose, why not build a refinery in Canada?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Are you opposed to drilling for our own oil here and off-shore and building more refineries?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I think it only benefits the corporations at the expense of We the People. But guaranty me in writing that the price of oil will go down to and not exceed three dollars a gallon for X number of years and you can drill wherever the f#@k you want. What, you can't do that??? Then get the F@#k OUTTA MY FACE!

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

So oil is ok and screw the environment as long as it's cheap. Got it.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Oil at any cost makes even less sense.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

But that's what we will end up because our enemies are in control of it. Perfect example: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/19/exports-cut-to-britain-france-iranian-oil-ministry-says/

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

No comment, HitGirl?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

Not building the pipeline will not stop what will indeed happen, money will be made, by a very small handful, regardless if it is trucked, railroaded or shipped to Texas for preparation to be sold to China.

http://patriotupdate.com/17597/buffetts-railroad-among-winners-from-obamas-keystone-pipeline-denial

[-] -2 points by smellyowsloozer (-51) 2 years ago

Thank God somebody has sense. To to take ALL the control away from the village idiot Obama

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

So what's wrong with offshore oil drilling and opening up parts of the Artctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling?

Or should we continue to import oil and continue to be "oil dependent" instead of being "oil independent".

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

I think this is the stupidest comment I have seen on this forum in 4 months. There really should be some kind of prize for that.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Apparently you don't read your own comments.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Oh really then if you are that concerned about the enviornment and drilling for oil, let me suggest the following:

Stop buying electronic devices because they are made from oil

Stop driving your automobile because it uses products made from oil

Stop buying new vehicles because all the plastic in them is made from oil

Stop buying groceries at the big box stores because all the containers used are manufactured using oil

Stop buying groceries at the big box stores because all the products that arrive there are delivered by "diesel" trucks.

You can also move to the country, live off the land, build your own house from the forest, farm the land and live happly ever after. Lets see how long you wold be able to do that - especially without yorur "Ipod made from oil".

You say my comment is stupid - how stupid are you for not supporting drilling for oil when all the products you use are made from oil. Seems to me you are talking out of both sides of your mouh.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That is not enough oil to make us oil independent. Why ruin are waters and oceans and air when it won't make a difference? The age of oil is over. Time to move on.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

So how about all of the natural gas we have? I'm sure you're against drilling for that, too.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That would depend how it's drilled for and where. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil and emissions can be reduced to near zero with advanced catalysts.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

You have to drill for it where it is, not where you wish it was.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

Obama said he wanted to create jobs (didnt say how many). He said he wanted to be oil independent.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

How does selling oil to China make us oil independent?

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

What? Selling what oil to China. The discussion was him STOPPING the Keystone pipeline. Creating American jobs and doing business with our neighbor to the north. China....... ?

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

There was always something about this pipeline that struck me as odd. Why "must" the pipeline go to Texas? There are much closer refineries. And why does it have to go all the way to the Gulf?

Keystone showed its hand when President Obama postponed the project. They announced that if we didn't allow the pipeline to be built, China - our good friend China - was willing to put up the money for a West Coast terminal instead. Yeah, like the folks in British Columbia will allow that, eh?

Keystone has been planning to sell the oil to China all along. That's why the pipeline "must" reach a port. Of course they will sell us part of the oil, at a competitive price.

They also will generously allow us to have front row seats to any disasters that occur. Remember this thing will pass right through major tornado, flood and earthquake zones. I'm sure they will even let us help clean up after.

I hope that clears this up.

-From Herald and News

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 2 years ago

It clears up that liberals always have an excuse to stop America. I would assume you are typing on a home computer, manufactured in China, powered by an electric power plant within 100 miles of your home, powered by coal, oil or gas. You will consume huge amounts of electricity putting tons of stuff in the air and then claim how much you care about the environment. Typical.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Liberals aren't the ones stopping America from freeing herself from the shackles of oil. That would be the profiteers and their Republican stooges. How typical of you not to notice.

[-] 1 points by thewalrus (5) 2 years ago

no, it's a persons desire to eat food(fertilized with petro chemicals) drive cars, and buy things made of plastic. And liberals buy these things all the time.

we're shakled to oil because there isn't a cheaper alternative.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

We are making the alternatives cheaper all the time, but the oil trolls keep getting in the way. That was my point, wasn't it?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You Repubs ain't gettin your pipeline to China if I have any say in it.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

obama lied, as usual.

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

This provides perfect cover for Obama.

[-] 4 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Care to explain that?

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

The bill would strip Obama’s authority to decide on the Keystone XL pipeline. If the pipeline gets approved by someone else; then it gives the president political cover ......... because he wasn't the one that made the decision. If he made the decision alone; for or against; it will cost him votes. It will piss someone off. As far as a political standpoint, it's his best move. If he's 'not involved', then he can't be blamed.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

And why would House Republicans want to do that? Is this leading to some head-ache inducing conspiracy theory?

[+] -5 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You can suck on a shit hole hitdouche. Bite a rectum with a bloody hemorrhoid slut hole.

[+] -5 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

yes, and that solar and wind power is really working out well. Got to go, my solar powered car needs to have a wind mill installed on its roof.

[-] 5 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Actually the japanese took the idea and ran with it, developing a new type of windmill that is more efficient. One of the northern european companies also has developed small wind powered generators to collect the wind created by vehicles on highways. Perhaps if you put as much energy into developing ideas as you do into being negative, you could contribute to solutions to polluting technolgies.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

i'm not negative just am resentful of the government subsidizing these failing 'green' energy companies while other companies like where i work have to make it on our own (as it should be). Government makes a crappy Venture Capitalist. i also don't care about polluting as much as i do care about getting away from using oil and supporting the crazy oil producing countries (i.e. the mid east, venezuela..). the wind idea sounds interesting, but i wonder if a small wind generator on a car could help keep a battery charged, i know that planes use them as emergency generators.,

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Government should subsidize innovation that has potential to help the nation, especially when powerful industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and are them selves subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars, despite making record breaking profits....

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

if what you say is true about highly subsidized powerful industries (i doubt it), at least they are producing a product that works.

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

I am referring to oil companies specifically, and it is a fact, not a supposition.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what you are talking about are tax breaks, subsidies is to 'aid or assist with public money' . This is like what the 'green' energy companies are getting. a tax break isn't a subsidy.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You would have to have a basic understanding of thermodynamics. The wind drag caused by the wind generator would drain more than you could gain.

[-] -3 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

solar and wind, a waste of time and money, unless you're a solar or wind company that gets taxpayer money from obama.

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

You skipped over the biggest waste of time America ever had.

George W. Bush and his (R)epelican't followers.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by hedleymnn (14) 2 years ago

You skipped over the biggest waste of time America ever had and that is commando Odumbo. The muslim pretend leader

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

shooz, for your age you should have more sophisticated comments. you sound like some college radical with a bandanna over his face.

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

The truth sound radical to you, because you've allowed your brain to go to waste on the likes of Limbaugh and FLAKESnews.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

like i said, i'd think you'd have more to say.

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

Well gosh, and I thought that someday you would admit to some level of truth.

It becomes increasingly unlikely, with your every post.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

your opinion isn't necessary 'the truth' . It's very arrogant of you or anyone to assume that what they believe is 'the truth', its opinion.

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

Except that I issued a true statement, not an opinion.

The inability to differentiate between the two, is a symptom of overexposure to "right wing" propaganda machines.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

what prey tell was your true statement? that foxnews is bad? that obama is great, that bush was a terrorist? its opinion if you can't see that difference you are going to end up an old grumpy man. Oh wait that's already happened. Well you know what i mean

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

The inability to operate a simple forum is yet another symptom.

Spewing twisted assumptions, based on that inability, is also on the list.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

shooz, shooz, you live in a liberal bubble, get out and see the world, not everyone (thank God) thinks like you and your friends.

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

Good thing most people don't ignore reality, like you and your friends do.

There's still hope.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

You very politely and benevolently did not point out how fawking retarded the idiot is.

I'm pretty much a live and let live kinda gal, but, there should be open season on shooz and his gang of idiots.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 2 years ago

yeah thanks JaninaDrum, you are correct.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

changing the subject does not change the truth about solyndra.

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

Solyndra represents 1% of the green energy energy R&D and industrial investments of the US. (And it was initiated by Dubbya originally.) All other investments are doing fine. That's a 99% success rate. It's a record of investment a venture capitalist would cum in in his pants over.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

it represents 100% wasted taxpayer dollars.

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

That statement only demonstrates how very very very little you know about capital investing. A 1% failure rate means a bare minimum of a 99% return. But, since government investment typically returns between 3x and 10x the initial investment to the economy, you're really talking about a 300% return as a minimum.

That's a net GAIN, not a net loss. The entire portfolio has to be looked at, not one single item on it. As i said, any private venture capitalist would cream for those kinds of numbers.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

wasted taxpayer dollars unless you were on the receiving end of this fraud. then your pockets were lined curtesy of the american taxpaying population. there No return . lost , wasted money.

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

You are as thick as a brick. How many investments were made in EKG machines before they paid off? How many in computer technology? How many jet engines failed before they were perfected and could be used for civilian transportation? What about the development of nuclear power? These are all things the government invested in that we now have the use of. You don't pay attention to the things that failed at the time, because you don't know about them.

Do you understand what an investment portfolio is? Do you get that it is speculative by nature? Do you get the fact that if only perfectly safe investments were made, we wouldn't have the things listed above, or a thousand other things for that matter, because private business would not have made those investments? Did you ignore the fact that overall the government's return on its investments have yielded a 300 to 1000 percent return?

The whole point of government investment is to put money into promising technologies that are too risky for private venture capitalists to risk. It has been that way since WWII, if not longer. Along the way, there have been lots and lots of failures, but even including them, America has come out WAY ahead.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'd prefer the government do the research over paying a private company

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

You mean as it has always done, and successfully? When Universities make promising discoveries, the government keeps those experiments funded. Does the US have to build universities? When it wanted to translate military jet technology to public use, should it have built factories to rival Boeing or Lockheed Martin? Wouldn't that be really wasteful?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no

the government money would not have been lost to profit for those private companies

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

It wasn't lost to profit. It added to the economy. The tax revenue alone covered all the costs, and it created jobs.

If the government had to build every facility for every area of R&D or any attempt support industries that were deemed in the public interest, it would cost hundreds, it not thousand of times more. And there would STILL be no profits, since the government doesn't have iPod stores.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the government could have added that same money to the economy through paying it's employees

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

It did, in fact it created some new jobs.

I really don't understand your objection. We have thousands of things we use, including this internet itself, that was funded by the government. Would you rather not have these things?

Right now, the government is trying to get up to speed (and catch up to China) by investing in green energy projects, both in terms of R&D and fledgling industries. If successful, it will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, re-establish the US as a manufacturer, and help ween us off of dependance on foreign oil. What's to object about? This is investment in future infrastructure.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

solyndra was a scam, from start to finish.

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

You are a moron, start to finish. Maybe you should actually learn something about what Solyndra was about, and why it was such a promising technology, before you stick your foot in your myopic mouth again.

[-] -2 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

solyndra made solar panels that cost too much to be competitive . A fact known form the beginning. .

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

NO. There were two issues. The costs would have been competitive if the Chinese hadn't subsidized THEIR solar panels that they were actually selling below the cost of manufacture. At the time of Solyndra's founding, that was not yet the case. Second the INITIAL costs were too high: it was matter of economies of scale. If enough panels could be made and sold, the costs were projected to come down to competitive rates. So you are wrong for both reasons.

The private sector also invested heavily, more heavily than the government, because this company was seen to be viable and potentially profit-making. They would not have done so otherwise. Neither the public nor the private sectors intentionally invested in a known bankruptcy waiting to happen. It doesn't work that way. They don't say to themselves "Hey, this is sure to fail, so lets throw some money at it: we have too much to begin with."

You have swallowed the propaganda Cool-aid, and likely a lot more besides. You fail to understand (what a surprise!) that the entire "scandal" is part of a broader concerted campaign of distortion and attack on green energy itself by Big Oil and it's FauxNews and GOP shills.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011093713/phony-solyndra-solar-scandal

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/38406/the-phony-solyndra-solar-scandal

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/09/15/solyndra-scandal-is-washington-business-as-usual/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-hayes-explains-why-solyndra-bankruptcy-is-not-a-scandal/

http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/03/big-name-investors-to-recoup-losses-before-taxpayers-in-obamas-failed-green-tech-bet/

http://dirtyhippies.org/2011/09/28/solyndra-scandal-about-big-oil-king-coal-power-and-intimidation/

From the last link:

The government — under Bush first, then under Obama — was right to assist Solyndra and other solar companies. Our government wants to help us capture some of the new green-energy industrial revolution for our country. It is millions of jobs and trillions of dollars coming down the road. To accomplish this the government stepped in to help explore promising new technologies, just like they do with cancer research. Solyndra had a promising new technology and that is why the Dept. of Energy started considering them for a loan guarantee – under the bush administration – that would encourage private investors to take the plunge.

That is all that happened here. Period. One company went under but the technology was promising and still is. Jobs were created – here. Research was funded – here. Facilities were built and will be used – here.

But China stepped in and put $30 billion into winning this bet – there – and this drove the prices down, so one company here went out of business. That is what happened.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

time magazine is garbage. 'terrified"? really sir, you need therapy.

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

Really? You read the articles yet?

Coward.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

anyone who cites the ny times and mediaite ,ourfuture,ecocentric , dirty hippies and smirkingchimp to back up their "argument" is laughable.

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

You are fact-challenged. You would rather believe in your unfounded stupid, oil industry promoted lies than actually have the COURAGE to learn the truth about anything.

God forbid you read any genuine investigative reporting. Time Magazine is obviously such a "liberal" source.

You are TERRIFIED that you might be wring on this, because it might raise the specter of possibility that you are wrong about other things, too. Morally and intellectually, you are a coward, a terrified little mouse, hiding in your little hole of ignorant certainty.

Coward.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

sloyndra , money laundering scheme/scam, from start to finish.

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

The quickness of your reply indicates that you didn't bother to go to a single link I posted. Your's is an insistence of believing in and spread false myths. It is utterly fact-challenged. It is completely deceptive. It is stupid beyond belief, and most of all, it is immoral and indecent.

Put more succinctly, you are a scumbag.

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

LOL....It was a change of subject in the first place.

The pipeline should not be built.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

why not? most of the pipeline already exists.

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

Why do want higher gas prices?

Why would you build such a line on a dangerous fault, right through the breadbasket?

Why do you hate America?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

bought gas lately? the prices are steadily climbing. i want lower gas prices. don't you? I love america, libs/dems/ progressives do not.

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

OK, I can see you have a reading disability, so I will repeat myself for your benefit.

The pipe is being built to RAISE prices in the US.

Got that? The Kochs are anything but Dems.

If you're going to post BS, at least try and make it somewhat believable.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why would building a pipe raise oil prices?

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

One of the effects will be a reduction of supply in the midwest.

It's projected it will raise prices around 30 cents a gallon.

It's really just another market manipulation scheme.

A manipulation that once again places all real risk on the US public.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what do supplies in the mid west have to do with the pipeline?

"It's really just another market manipulation scheme."

that I believe

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

It's a quote from a radio interview I heard with a guy involved in building it.

He just said it would reduce midwest supply and allow for the price raise.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

No dear, the pipeline would allow oil to got to texas to be refined. right now tha usa is exporting refined oil ( gaoline) and the price of gas in the usa is going up. do you know who owns the train line ( the santa fe)that is going to carry the unrefined oil? warren buffet. whith the price of gas rising , even if you don't own a car , everything you buy will continue to go up in price because everything is trucked in. the truckers will be pasing their increased cost of fuel to the wholesalers and retailers who will passing it along to you. everything from aspirin to toilet paper to shampoo to clothing, to food.

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

Warren Buffet? The President's go to guy on taxing the rich?

But, one thing.....since the price of a gallon of gas has gone up 92% since Obama took office aren't the prices of "everything from aspirin to toilet paper to shampoo to clothing, to food" already going up?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

Warren Buffet owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe RR.Yes, everything is going up in price and will go up more, the CPI does not include the cost of food and energy so the "official" inflation numbers are phoney. have you noticed that the amounts are smaller,..orange juice is no longer 64oz, no more coffee sold in pound cans,, no more half gallons of ice cream, small amounts of cottage cheese ( used to be 8 oz) , smaller sizes of laundry detergent, smaller amounts in cereal boxes, etc.

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

My point exactly. One cannot point to the proposed pipeline and say that it is "intended" to increase the cost of everything when everything is already going up by intent. Candidate Obama made that perfectly clear when he stated that he wanted a "gradual" increase in the price of a gallon of gas to force us into greener energy. Nothing wrong with that IF Americans are working but there are too many on the Unemployment Rolls and too many who have given up looking for work - and too many whose wages have been stagnant compared to the increases in the cost of living. These increased costs and the increased implementation of governmental taxes and fees on everything we purchase are squeezing the middle class out of existence.

Again, to point specifically to the pipeline is to leave out the whole of the story.