Yet another sign to obama that he will no doubt ignore.

[Bubblehead1980]

The unabashed and unwarranted arrogance of Barack Obama is yet again even more obvious as well as disturbing.Tuesday's special election in which a NY congressional district that has not voted in a Republican in nearly 90(!) years went to a Republican candidate is even more writing on the wall for the failure in chief, yet he along with his propaganda minister as well as other supporters in denial such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz etc refuse to see this, admit failure and change course.

The 2010 mid terms were a "shellacking" as Barry put it, yet no change in course.Dipping polls and negative economic news are yet more warnings but Barry and his cheerleaders refuse to admit they are wrong and change course.Now a district that has been safe fro nearly 90 years is gone and they refuse to admit it was a referendum by their own on their lousy job on pretty much all fronts.Again, no course change will be made as barry tries to shove more spending(the "jobs" act) down our throats.These people have the nerve to go on TV and claim the district is actually conservative(lol) so the election was about Weiner and not the Democrats and/or their joke of a President, how far out of touch can they get?

Best part of all this is able to see so many people who were stupid enough to fall for obama's crap last time regret their vote and admit it.Sad part is, many of us are suffering due to the mass stupidity in 2008.

[CCIP]

Yet another thread that yubba will no doubt not ignore :D

[AVGWarhawk]

In before yubba! :D

[Hottentot]

In before the 10th page. :D

[Blood_splat]

http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/image/2007-133-love-politics.jpg

[Oberon]

Yubba deployment imminent. Clear the area.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Meanwhile in Europe according to German Marshall Fund survey conducted in 12 Eurepean contries Obama is still very popular in Europe. Three of four persons who answered to survey were happy into Mr. Obama's way to handle international issues. He is most popular in Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands.

In comparison during last year of President Bush's term only about 20 % of Europeans participating in the survey were happy into his performance.

Source is Helsingin Sanomat newpaper's article which is in finnish and available here (http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Obama+yh%C3%A4+huippusuosittu+Euroopassa/1135269356723). Finnish speakers please correct me if I missed something or did translation error.

[Hottentot]

Finnish speakers please correct me if I missed something or did translation error.

Correct as far as I can see. The only thing I'd stress is the part about international matters, which of course to us mean the most. Obama might be a better diplomat than Bush, but not necessarily a better president.

[vienna]

There was a lot more to the loss of NY9 by the Democrats than a "referendum" on Obama. The campaign for the seat took a particularly vicious turn via GOP mailer:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/campaign-anthony-weiners-seat-has-gotten-ugly/42347/

The truth is, aside from voter anger over Weiner's action's and the associated taint it put on any potenetial Democratic candidate for the seat, there were a great many local issues within the district and the City of NY influencing the voters. To take the loss of one House seat out of 435 total seats as a sign of the rise of the GOP and the fall of the Democrats and Obama is a bit premature. The GOP has only to look back at the heavy loss they took after the launch of their "Contract with America" during the Clinton administration (including the loss af two consecutive House Speakers within a month's time after demonstrating their adherence to 'family values') and the losses suffered during the midterms in George W's last term to realize that any gain, is at best, tenuous. Add to the this recent polls, by all types and stripes of pollsters, while showing Obama's approval and popularity falling to 50% or below, the approval and popularity of Congressional Republicans is half that of Obama. Regardless of what Russ, Sean, et al, would have the public believe, the foot of the GOP is very shaky and unless they provide voters with tangible results and not just rhetoric, one seat may be the best they can look forward to....

[Takeda Shingen]

<Insert words here>

[mookiemookie]

More well reasoned and completely impartial political analysis from General Topics.

[Sailor Steve]

<Buk...buk...buk...b'GAWK!>
Okee dokee. :D

[joea]

More well reasoned and completely impartial political analysis from General Topics.
:haha::har:

[Bilge_Rat]

special elections mean nothing, never have never will.

Obama is in trouble, no one can deny that, but the election is still 15 months away, which is several centuries in politics.

The 1st key is the economy, if it does'nt get better and there are no indications it will, then Obama is in DEEP trouble.

The 2nd key is the Republican nominee, can Romney or Perry beat Obama? Those are the only two who have a real shot. Perry, right now, actually looks like a weaker candidate than Romney.

Romney, to me, has the best shot to beat Obama, since he will be able to point to his credentials as a businessman and to his moderate record as governor of Massachusetts (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, government health care that works) to appeal to independent voters. Don't forget independent voters will decide the 2012 election. Romney's only negative is the fact that he is a mormon which still scares a percentage of the electorate that view it as a sect.

The 3rd key is money. Obama should have between $500 million and $1 billion to spend on his re-election, certainly more than the Republican. However, he cannot win on this alone. He needs 2 out of 3 of the keys.

[Platapus]

Hmm so a special election went to a Republican.

I think that Obama should just resign and the entire Democratic party fold.

The signs are unmistakable. :doh:

[Bubblehead1980]

Over and over again the policies of the Democrats and Obama are rejected yet they feel they have a PR issue and nothing to do with their flawed core beliefs and economic policy.Oh no, it could never be that lol.

I dislike Perry just about as much as I do Obama because he is a corrupt, ignorant, religious nut hick from Texas but honestly Obama is much, much worst for many reasons.Just hope GOP does not screw up and goes with Romney or Herman Cain even.honestly going to rethink my future in this country if Obama is reelected.Not sure where could go because the US has kind of been the last bastion so to speak, we shall see.

Sure its a while before the election but let us be honest, Obama is not going to change course and do anything that really improves the economy because he does not know how, nor do his supposedly bright advisors, they are all left wing hacks.

Like I mentioned, it's just nice to watch him fall because he was someone who was absolutely made out to be something he is not and unfortunately many people fell for it.Sad part is he is taking many people down with him..

[Bubblehead1980]

Hmm so a special election went to a Republican.

I think that Obama should just resign and the entire Democratic party fold.

The signs are unmistakable. :doh:


A district held for nearly 90 years by the Democrats, absolutely should be a wake up call.People were not that angry about Weiner, they have soured on Obama and his Anti Israel actions in addition to his inability to foster policies that help the economy heal.

[Takeda Shingen]

I am always amused by the unshakable confidence Bubblehead has in telling us what others think and say. :doh:

[Sailor Steve]

Not a bit biased. Just ask him.

[vienna]

Not a bit biased. Just ask him.

Are you suggesting he's "Fair and Balanced..."...

[mookiemookie]

Surely he approaches every issue with an open mind and a null hypothesis. A college student has the life experience, intellectual background, and cachet to have their words mean more than a sparrow fart in a hurricane. Duh!

[Hottentot]

A college student has the life experience, intellectual background, and cachet to have their words mean more than a sparrow fart in a hurricane. Duh!

No, that's a high school student. A college student can do all that while drinking beer.

[Castout]

If you think Obama is bad what do you call George W Bush Jr White House tenure?

If you think Obama is bad, you think the other presidential candidates can at least perform as 'worse' as Obama?

I see this man as having the integrity, character and willingness to do what is right. He's your clean dignified presidential guy.
Why is this hate towards Obama? Because he doesn't come from a very influential political dynasty or because he doesn't have much money or because he's black? I'm convinced had Obama commanded hundreds of million of dollars people would have been more respectful. Sad society we have because world's greatest scums command billions.

I want a Martin Luther King Jr, I want another JFK but they are probably going to shoot them too. The old times really had some great men.
I consider Martin Luther King Jr and JFK huge assets that America lost prematurely. Big loss. Can you imagine how much global influence they would have had had they not been killed? They were killed so that the small people can get away with their smallness.

[Catfish]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/teaparty.png

[AVGWarhawk]

If you think Obama is bad what do you call George W Bush Jr White House tenure?

If you think Obama is bad, you think the other presidential candidates can at least perform as 'worse' as Obama?

I see this man as having the integrity, character and willingness to do what is right. He's your clean dignified presidential guy.
Why is this hate towards Obama? Because he doesn't come from a very influential political dynasty or because he doesn't have much money or because he's black? I'm convinced had Obama commanded hundreds of million of dollars people would have been more respectful. Sad society we have because world's greatest scums command billions.

I want a Martin Luther King Jr, I want another JFK but they are probably going to shoot them too. The old times really had some great men.
I consider Martin Luther King Jr and JFK huge assets that America lost prematurely. Big loss. Can you imagine how much global influence they would have had had they not been killed? They were killed so that the small people can get away with their smallness.

The Obamas did and do command millions of dollars. He well off as a Chicago politician and she head of the largest hospital in the Chicago area I believe. Obama traveled the world and graduated from the finest college. Passed the bar exam. The money has little to do with respect .

[Castout]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/teaparty.png

:hmmm: :DL

The Obamas did and do command millions of dollars. He well off as a Chicago politician and she head of the largest hospital in the Chicago area I believe. Obama traveled the world and graduated from the finest college. Passed the bar exam. The money has little to do with respect .

Millions don't make you that rich. A member of my family has got millions too. You need hundreds of millions to be considered very rich or influential in the global world.

Privilege, capability and integrity don't come often in one package. In my opinion Obama has the most of all three compared to other candidates. It is not often that you see that 'idealism' in a man that goes all the way up. When you do, do put him all the way up because he's one of a kind. In this time and age most people are pragmatic. I see the other candidates arguing for the sake of politicking and politicking only. What can they offer? Your country is in deep trouble and times ahead will be worse if this debt isn't handled well. US could end up like Greece exactly because people never think it would end up like Greece. If US goes bust South East Asia and that's me too will be put at disadvantage, economically and politically. Sayonara human rights and democracy.

[AVGWarhawk]

:hmmm: :DL



Millions don't make you that rich. A member of my family has got millions too. You need hundreds of millions to be considered very rich or influential in the global world.

Privilege, capability and integrity don't come often in one package. In my opinion Obama has the most of all three compared to other candidates. It is not often that you see that 'idealism' in a man that goes all the way up. When you do, do put him all the way up because he's one of a kind. In this time and age most people are pragmatic. I see the other candidates arguing for the sake of politicking and politicking only. What can they offer? Your country is in deep trouble and times ahead will be worse if this debt isn't handled well. US could end up like Greece exactly because people never think it would end up like Greece. If US goes bust South East Asia and that's me too will be put at disadvantage, economically and politically. Sayonara human rights and democracy.
Millions don't make you rich? What does it make you? Priviledge, capable and integrity. We are not comparing BO with the other candidates. We are looking at BO alone. BO is not one of a kind. DC swallowed him into the same old Capital Hill system like his predecessors. As far as the other candidates, when BO has a debate with them he too will be politcing as well.

[Castout]

Millions don't make you rich? What does it make you? Priviledge, capable and integrity. We are not comparing BO with the other candidates. We are looking at BO alone. BO is not one of a kind. DC swallowed him into the same old Capital Hill system like his predecessors. As far as the other candidates, when BO has a debate with them he too will be politcing as well.


Yes couple millions don't make you THAT rich. 50 millions make you to enter the club of the rich. High net worth people. Those super car dealers know that their customers are at least worth 50 million dollars.

Couple millions make you well off.

There's a difference when one argues for something he believes in or for the sake or arguing. I don't know how Obama will debate his rivals, I hope it won't be the latter.

[danasan]

As far as I can see - from the other side of the Atlantic - anybody who is supported by the Koch Brothers (http://www.google.de/#hl=de&sugexp=gsis%2Ci18n%3Dtrue&cp=7&gs_id=q&xhr=t&q=koch+brothers&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=koch+br&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fc60922421e97449&biw=1440&bih=729) can consider himself to be rich...:hmmm:

[Catfish]

You mean this "Koch" ?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

:dead:
Some people make me sick.

[danasan]

Is it me or him making you sick? I do not get the point here.

[Catfish]

Oh i thought it was obvious - as obvious as this Kochtopus :

" ... Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power.

"Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests", it said. "But you can do something about it."

The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders.

The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice.
David Axelrod, Obama's senior adviser, said, "What they don't say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens' movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires."


Enough already. If you look at that picture in the link, you look at a megalomanic egoist. The only hope is such people will eventually die out. Koch and likewise business, and the people who believe them make me SICK. Gawd how obvious has something to be to be realized by people.

[flatsixes]

Knock yourselves out.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes couple millions don't make you THAT rich. 50 millions make you to enter the club of the rich. High net worth people. Those super car dealers know that their customers are at least worth 50 million dollars.

Couple millions make you well off.

There's a difference when one argues for something he believes in or for the sake or arguing. I don't know how Obama will debate his rivals, I hope it won't be the latter.

It makes you rich enough. I believe the Obama's net worth in 2008 was 4.5 million. I think that makes you THAT rich. A super car can be had for $150,000.00. Well within the Obama's reach if so desired. There were plenty who became president that were just well off.

Obama will have to debate. It's how the election process goes. He will have a lot answer for this time. He can not run a campaign on hope and change. That slogan is a wash.

[Oberon]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.ch/6/67/Fgsfds-37219.jpg

[Castout]

It makes you rich enough. I believe the Obama's net worth in 2008 was 4.5 million. I think that makes you THAT rich. A super car can be had for $150,000.00. Well within the Obama's reach if so desired. There were plenty who became president that were just well off.


No 4.5 million doesn't make you THAT rich. My extended family member has more than that.

True you can buy super car for 150 grand(here you need 500 grand for even an F430 Ferrari) but those who buy it on average have net worth of 50 million bucks and no less.

True that there were plenty US presidents that were well off but today is not the same age like those days. Those days people were more decent in general and those days well off meant respected rich as the number of rich people were not as large as today and not as rich as today.

[flatsixes]

Hmmm... (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63508.html#ixzz1Y7lnXcvz)

To be sure, Obama’s ground game relied on organized labor, particularly public-sector unions, African-Americans, Latinos and progressive activists. But these groups have not emerged stronger from his three years in office.

Instead, the major winners of the Obama years have been the big nonprofits, venture capitalists and, most obviously, the financial aristocracy. These have all benefited from the Ben Bernanke-Timothy Geithner — previously the Bernanke-Henry Paulson — policy of cheap money and near zero-interest rates, which have depressed the savings of the middle classes but served as a major boon to Wall Street. This has benefited mostly the wealthiest 1 percent, which owns some 40 percent of equities and 60 percent of financial securities.

This Wall Street-first approach makes Reaganite “trickle down” look like a populist torrent.

[Penguin]

Knock yourselves out.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/summary.php

I am not quite sure how to read this:

Obama:
Total Raised: $48,662,185
Total Spent: $80,235,455
Cash on Hand: $37,110,346
Debts: $412,878


He spent 30 million more than he raised, but still has 37m on hand and only half a million debt? It confuses me even more that the article states no candidate self-financing for Obama.
Or is money he raised for the previous election not counted in the raised sum.

And vote for Buddy Roemer, folks: not only the coolest name, but also the poorest candidate! :know:

[flatsixes]

I am not quite sure how to read this:


He spent 30 million more than he raised, but still has 37m on hand and only half a million debt? It confuses me even more that the article states no candidate self-financing for Obama.
Or is money he raised for the previous election not counted in the raised sum.

And vote for Buddy Roemer, folks: not only the coolest name, but also the poorest candidate! :know:

The figures don't always add up because of reporting lags. Some numbers are reported quarterly (like donations), others (like expenditures) come in in bunches. What I found interesting in this report was the list of Obama "bundlers," that is, folks who collect money from like-minded individuals and lump it into one big fat (read: "hard to miss") donation.

Check out what industries these big Obama donors come from (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638):

Top Industries of Obama Bundlers
Industry Min. Raised # of Bundlers
Securities & Investment $7,200,000 44
Lawyers/Law Firms $6,100,000 54
Business Services $3,900,000 22
Real Estate $2,300,000 15
TV/Movies/Music $2,100,000 10

I'm not saying that that maybe somebody hasn't been entirely square with those "hardworking American families" we hear so much about. But that list is chock-full of hedge funds, baby. Millionaires and Billionaires galore. Should make you want to know more about whose telephone messages are getting answered.

[AVGWarhawk]

No 4.5 million doesn't make you THAT rich. My extended family member has more than that.

True you can buy super car for 150 grand(here you need 500 grand for even an F430 Ferrari) but those who buy it on average have net worth of 50 million bucks and no less.

True that there were plenty US presidents that were well off but today is not the same age like those days. Those days people were more decent in general and those days well off meant respected rich as the number of rich people were not as large as today and not as rich as today.

4.5 millions makes you rich. Compared to the blue collar worker making 35k or less a year, 4.5 is rich. As far as there and here, super car can be had for 150k. After all, Obama is here. He did his world travels as a kid already and attended the finest college. Much like the other guys.

Back in the day people were decent, yes. But more so respectful and had manners. As far as rich of today compared to back then, is all relative. 25 years ago one could get 2 packs of smokes for $1.00. That $1.00 back then was like spending the $7.00 today for just 1 pack.

[Sailor Steve]

Why is this hate towards Obama? Because he doesn't come from a very influential political dynasty or because he doesn't have much money or because he's black? I'm convinced had Obama commanded hundreds of million of dollars people would have been more respectful. Sad society we have because world's greatest scums command billions.
No, it's not family and it's not wealth and it's not color.
The simple truth of it is that there are people around who think that their view of the world is the only one, and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot, a fool or just "the enemy". I'm no fan of Obama, but I wasn't a fan of Bush either, nor Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan, Carter, or pretty much any president I can remember. That doesn't mean they didn't do good, or bad; it just means I wasn't a fan. But for some people there have to be sides, and if the person or party in power isn't their side then that person or party is automatically selling us down the river, and must be hated. It's a shallow, immature viewpoint and serves no purpose other than to make the holder feel superior.

As for $4.1 million making one "rich"? Perhaps not relatively speaking, but I certainly wouldn't turn it down as being "not enough".

[flatsixes]

No, it's not family and it's not wealth and it's not color.
The simple truth of it is that there are people around who think that their view of the world is the only one, and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot, a fool or just "the enemy". I'm no fan of Obama, but I wasn't a fan of Bush either, nor Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan, Carter, or pretty much any president I can remember. That doesn't mean they didn't do good, or bad; it just means I wasn't a fan. But for some people there have to be sides, and if the person or party in power isn't their side then that person or party is automatically selling us down the river, and must be hated. It's a shallow, immature viewpoint and serves no purpose other than to make the holder feel superior.


Good points, but let's remember that the "us versus them" mentality that you decry is an essential ingredient of a two-party system. That, and the fact that fully half of us are below average. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Good points, but let's remember that the "us versus them" mentality that you decry is an essential ingredient of a two-party system.
Also a good point, but the founders never wanted a party system at all, though they ended up creating one almost from the start, and neither do I.

That, and the fact that fully half of us are below average. :D
True, but I'll bet at least 90% consider themselves above average, and that's a major part of the problem.

[flatsixes]

I go back and forth on the merits of the two-party system. On the one hand, it always seems like I'm picking the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, there's only two evils, adding a third, fourth or sixteenth evil isn't go to make things any easier, or any less frustrating. Now, if I was King....

[yubba]

Forgive me, royal subjects ooops, I mean citizens, I have sinned, I have strayed from our founding, I have trampled on the constitution, I have spat upon your liberties, I believed that it was Bush's fault, and thought the European model would have been the way to go, but I was w-w-w wr, well any how I see now that unfettered c c cap it alllll ism is the way to turn things around, we all can come together as one nation and right our ship, we need to do this right!!!!! away. This would be something I would like too hear from President Obama.

[Oberon]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp3ry2x6X71qby3d2.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't know of anyone who "hates" the current President. I do strongly dislike his policies, as they are demonstrably failures, I strongly dislike his views on the role of government, as he has shown that he feels government is the answer over the private sector. I strongly disagree with his refusal to listen to the will of the people regarding major issues in this country, like true debt reduction (vs nebulous cuts in GROWTH somewhere down the road), health care (which the majority of the country opposes "Obamacare") - mandates from on high (health care, emissions, financials, etc).

Its funny how when one articulates points of disagreement, they are immediately a "hater". People can accuse others of wanting to hang blacks from trees (not true), say that people with opposing political views can "go to hell", even encourage violence to "take them sons o'bitch" out, and thats not hate. Disagree with the president or his policies, and your a hater.

How about that "civil dialogue" the President talked about - then ignored? For a man who claimed he only wanted to unite, he has done more to divide this country than almost any political figure in the last 100 years.....

[magicstix]

This thread is obviously a smear/rumormill designed to embarrass our glorious president. Therefore it has been reported to attackwatch.com so that the poor misguided souls can be reeducated for the good of the state.

:P

[Tribesman]

Its funny how when one articulates points of disagreement, they are immediately a "hater".
Funny how that is the line someone spins when religion is involved.:yep:

For a man who claimed he only wanted to unite, he has done more to divide this country than almost any political figure in the last 100 years.....
Same as the last pillock that was in the White House then.

[Sailor Steve]

Its funny how when one articulates points of disagreement, they are immediately a "hater".
That's not true in this case. The tone of the opening post, while not exactly hate, does qualify at least for the charge of dismissive condescencion.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Oh the facepalms....:roll:


I cant believe how stupid some people can be...

Clinton left office with a relative surplus. Bush steps in and the money disappears over the 2 terms he was president. Its pretty dam obvious was bush did wrong. Now, because Obama is president, the republicans are not only putting the huge majority of blame on him, but theyre making him out to be the devil.

Republicans will not close loopholes, will not regulate wall street, will not regulate housing. The idiocy and corruption of not regulating wall street from gambling the ginourmous amounts of global influence in wealth they possess is ridiculous. All the while having the audacity to pin it all on him, and psychoanalyze everything he does. When in all reality, Congress has the majority of power, and presidents can hardly "change" anything unless Congress too agrees.

Damn near every republican candidate is beyond the pale of stupidity this election too. Is obama a good president? No. But should he be tarred and feathered so republicans will look like angels and get their Imbeciles elected?

Nobody in this election is anywhere near the right direction. Not obama, not Perry, CERTAINLY not bachmann. Nobody. its one hell of a dangerous catch 22

[Armistead]

Bush was worthless, so we vote in a Dem, Obama was worthless, so will vote in another Republican that will also be worthless.

Each will pander to the lobbiest that own them and the rich will get richer and poor poorer, doesn't matter.

[Madox58]

It don't matter who you vote in.
When someone spends MILLIONS of dollars to win a job that pays LESS then what was spent to win it?

Does that not make you understand what the REAL rewards are?
:nope:

'I was President, I get MILLIONS if not Billions after I leave Office.
I don't understand why you all can't get a job like me.'
:stare:

I'll never live long enuff to see what I'd like to see.
:nope:

That's a Public Servant, paid by Tax Payers, that does the job they were hired for on a scale that matches non-Government wages with the same requirements.
You screw up? Your gone!!

[magicstix]

It don't matter who you vote in.
When someone spends MILLIONS of dollars to win a job that pays LESS then what was spent to win it?

Does that not make you understand what the REAL rewards are?
:nope:

'I was President, I get MILLIONS if not Billions after I leave Office.
I don't understand why you all can't get a job like me.'
:stare:

I'll never live long enuff to see what I'd like to see.
:nope:

That's a Public Servant, paid by Tax Payers, that does the job they were hired for on a scale that matches non-Government wages with the same requirements.
You screw up? Your gone!!

I'd just settle for a President that practices Lex Rex, and believes in the rule of law...

How's that for some gasoline to this flamewar? :>

[Madox58]

I'd settle for ANY elected official that actually did what he was elected to do!

I'd also like to see a Law that allowed execution of those who did not.
:arrgh!:

[magicstix]

I think we should choose our President battle royale style! 12 politicians enter the ring, only one leaves. Solves two problems at once! :>

[Madox58]

THUNDER DOME Elections!!
:rock:

12 Men enter! Only one leaves!!

[mookiemookie]

Oh the facepalms....:roll:


I cant believe how stupid some people can be...

Clinton left office with a relative surplus. Bush steps in and the money disappears over the 2 terms he was president. Its pretty dam obvious was bush did wrong. Now, because Obama is president, the republicans are not only putting the huge majority of blame on him, but theyre making him out to be the devil.

Republicans will not close loopholes, will not regulate wall street, will not regulate housing. The idiocy and corruption of not regulating wall street from gambling the ginourmous amounts of global influence in wealth they possess is ridiculous. All the while having the audacity to pin it all on him, and psychoanalyze everything he does. When in all reality, Congress has the majority of power, and presidents can hardly "change" anything unless Congress too agrees.

Damn near every republican candidate is beyond the pale of stupidity this election too. Is obama a good president? No. But should he be tarred and feathered so republicans will look like angels and get their Imbeciles elected?

Nobody in this election is anywhere near the right direction. Not obama, not Perry, CERTAINLY not bachmann. Nobody. its one hell of a dangerous catch 22

Good points and agreed on all. Obama had the chance to achieve a lot, and he squandered it. He entered office with outrage at Wall Street excess at an all time high. People of all political stripes were ready to tar and feather investment bank executives. What's he do with that? He goes after health care with a bill that was written by the insurance lobby. :doh: Wall Street reform...going back to the days of Glass Steagall, repealing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, the things that made the crisis possible...would have sailed through Congress. Instead he pursues divisive legislation that puts more money in the pockets of Big Insurance and entrenches the partisans on both sides of the aisle. Stupid.

[Castout]

4.5 millions makes you rich. Compared to the blue collar worker making 35k or less a year, 4.5 is rich. As far as there and here, super car can be had for 150k. After all, Obama is here. He did his world travels as a kid already and attended the finest college. Much like the other guys.

Back in the day people were decent, yes. But more so respectful and had manners. As far as rich of today compared to back then, is all relative. 25 years ago one could get 2 packs of smokes for $1.00. That $1.00 back then was like spending the $7.00 today for just 1 pack.


If you're speaking relative yes, 4.5 mil is rich but in fact if you're speaking relative it could also mean no.

I just read a yahoo article that one now needs 2 million bucks for their retirement funds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113507/generation-y-2-million-dollar-retirement-usnews?mod=oneclick


Looking at that value 4.5 is not that much.

I believe my country's president has more than what Obama have. In fact if you compare Obama's wealth to his counterparts in South East Asia you could probably say Obama is relatively 'poor'. Heck Singapore PM takes home US$2.5 million ANNUALLY and his family is excessively rich.

[magicstix]

If you're speaking relative yes, 4.5 mil is rich but in fact if you're speaking relative it could mean yes or no.

I just read a yahoo article that one now needs 2 million bucks for their retirement funds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/article/113507/generation-y-2-million-dollar-retirement-usnews?mod=oneclick


Looking at that value 4.5 is not that much.

I believe my country's president has more than what Obama has. In fact if you compare Obama's wealth to his counterparts in South East Asia you could probably say Obama is relatively 'poor'. Heck Singapore PM takes home US$2.5 million ANNUALLY(salary).

No matter how poor, the poorest American is still part of the bourgeois elite when viewed from a world perspective.

[Bubblehead1980]

That's not true in this case. The tone of the opening post, while not exactly hate, does qualify at least for the charge of dismissive condescencion.


1.)I tend to be condescending to idiots 2.) If you voted for obama when it was soooooooo easy to see through his facade, you are definitely on the lower end of the totem pole when it comes to brain power.

[Madox58]

1.)I tend to be condescending to idiots 2.) If you voted for obama when it was soooooooo easy to see through his facade, you are definitely on the lower end of the totem pole when it comes to brain power.

And if you voted for anyone else?
You show the same level of brain power.

It's a Catch 22!

You prove to me that ANYONE voted into a Government Office has kept the promises that got them there.

If you believe anyone of them actually care about you or I?
You need a brain scan.

[CaptainHaplo]

That's not true in this case. The tone of the opening post, while not exactly hate, does qualify at least for the charge of dismissive condescencion.

Oh I agree the OP was indeed biased as all get out. I don't approve of that one either. Lets debate in the arena of facts and ideas, where every person can decide for themselves.

I was refering to the question/accusation raised in post #23

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1750694&postcount=23

Also - for those mocking the intelligence of someone based on who they voted for, cmon - mockery does nothing but show your own argument is flawed, or you simply lack the ability to defend it.

[Takeda Shingen]

1.)I tend to be condescending to idiots 2.) If you voted for obama when it was soooooooo easy to see through his facade, you are definitely on the lower end of the totem pole when it comes to brain power.

Interesting. You paint with such a broad brush and still manage to miss a great deal of canvas. You should read more of Haplo's posts if you want to see how to argue from the conservative viewpoint. There is a great deal to be learned from his text.

[magicstix]

Lets debate in the arena of facts and ideas, where every person can decide for themselves.


Hmm, facts... You mean those inconvenient things? Ok, I'll bite that trollbait, as well chum the waters with my own! :>

Hypothesis: The current administration shows little respect for the Constitution and rule of law, choosing to enforce or enact laws as it sees fit.

Evidence:

Cap and Trade fails to pass in Congress. President uses backdoor executive order to make the EPA regulate carbon emissions and the coal industry directly.
Impact: Immediate effects on coal miners, powerplant workers, and support infrastructure for both. Layoffs ensue as plants are unable to suddenly enact new requirements and it is deemed cheaper to decommission them. Electrical grid is unduly stressed. Obama is forced to backpedal on new limitations after public outcry.

DREAM act fails to pass in Congress. President uses backdoor executive order to Homeland Security to not prosecute and deport captured illegal aliens. President then later brags before Latino special interest group saying "we choose how to enforce the law."
Impact: President gains bounce of support from Latino special interest group.

Federal court rules Obama administration does not have the authority to enact wholesale ban on offshore drilling. President ignores court ruling and maintains ban in place, uses propaganda tactics to demonize judge presiding in case as a shill for the oil industry.
Impact: Ban on offshore drilling in Gulf of Mexico causes economic harm to local industries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. President's refusal to honor court ruling chips away at balance of power between Executive and Judicial branches.

President refuses to defend Defense of Marriage Act (a law I don't necessarily agree with, but nevertheless is the law of the land), despite it being his Administration's job as defined under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Impact: President commits dereliction of duty under the Constitution and undermines the law-making authority of Congress.

President launches military action against sovereign nation-state of Libya. Action persists for more than 90 days. President ignores obligations under the law to report to Congress and seek approval. President sidesteps the issue by unilaterally redefining what "military action" means.
Impact: President severely weakens Congress's check on Executive power and Congress's sovereign ability to declare war. Admittedly, this power has been ever-weakening since the Vietnam war, but this is the first precedent in which the President outright ignores the War Powers Act or limits on Presidential war-making powers in the Constitution (even Bush sought and received Congressional approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan within the 90 day timeframe). Snippy side remarks: Didn't the President promise us this would be a campaign lasting days, not weeks, 6 months ago? Do we know who's in charge yet in Libya? Oh, and how 'bout that "lead from behind" stuff he was talking about? (Hint: Sarkozy and Cameron were in Libya receiving a heroes' welcome, no mention of Big O though...) :>


I'll save the next hypothesis for later, as I assume this thread will continue getting more popcorn-worthy.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Illegal immigration is where me and Obama completely split.

Its really beyond explanation how these idiots are allowing these "latinos" to come in unmolested and get MORE benefits than an american citizen. The dream act, which is going to pass in california, gives illegals a college education for FREE, spending OUR money to put THEIR kids through college while we get the finger.

im so infuriated at the stupidity, corruption, and Bull that has become our entire system of government and the PEOPLE IN IT. Is there No person in this country who can actually do something RIGHT. Democrat, republican, independent, i DONT care. I simply cant see this country burn by the hands of the IDIOTS that other idiots elect to burn this country.

Disgusting...:nope:

[Castout]

No matter how poor, the poorest American is still part of the bourgeois elite when viewed from a world perspective.

Ah forgot to mention that if you take home US$35.000 annually you're considered lucky here. Very lucky in fact. Most probably more than a manager. Director perhaps. But perhaps the living costs there are way higher.

[magicstix]

Ah forgot to mention that if you take home US$35.000 annually you're considered lucky here. Very lucky in fact. Most probably more than a manager. Director perhaps. But perhaps the living costs there are way higher.

I remember a friend at work from the Phillipines talking about why he doesn't give money to homeless people in America. It went something like this:

"I'm from the Phillipines where everyone is poor and that's just how it is. Some people don't even have houses. In a place like America there's no reason to live like that since you have so many opportunities."

[Castout]

I remember a friend at work from the Phillipines talking about why he doesn't give money to homeless people in America. It went something like this:

"I'm from the Phillipines where everyone is poor and that's just how it is. Some people don't even have houses. In a place like America there's no reason to live like that since you have so many opportunities."

Hmm that's a bit harsh there are unlucky people in every society for many different reasons.

But I agree being poor in America is not as bad as being poor in developing country. It's till bad though.

[magicstix]

Hmm that's a bit harsh there are unlucky people in every society for many different reasons.

But I agree being poor in America is not as bad as being poor in developing country. It's till bad though.

To be fair, a large portion of the homeless population in America is either mentally ill or homeless because they appreciate the freedom it provides.

Also, $35k can allow one to get by in America very easily, depending on where you live. Location can make it so a person making $35k is actually better off than someone making twice that when you take into account the vast differences in cost of living in the USA. Unfortunately, our tax code doesn't take this into account at all, nor does our President, who thinks anyone making more than $200k a year is a part of the "evil millionaires and billionaires" club (perhaps the most ironic thing ever for a President who hangs out at Martha's Vineyard and gives government sponsored loans to his rich contributors).

[Castout]

To be fair, a large portion of the homeless population in America is either mentally ill or homeless because they appreciate the freedom it provides.
Yeah thought so too.


Also, $35k can allow one to get by in America very easily, depending on where you live. Location can make it so a person making $35k is actually better off than someone making twice that when you take into account the vast differences in cost of living in the USA. Unfortunately, our tax code doesn't take this into account at all, nor does our President, who thinks anyone making more than $200k a year is a part of the "evil millionaires and billionaires" club

I see.


(perhaps the most ironic thing ever for a President who hangs out at Martha's Vineyard and gives government sponsored loans to his rich contributors).
Ours robbed a bank......we think, more than 14 billions USD of the funds. Just to put things into perspective.

[magicstix]

Ours robbed a bank......we think, more than 14 billions USD of the funds. Just to put things into perspective.

Ours robbed the Treasury of $1 trillion USD and is now seeking to steal $500 billion more so he can get reelected... ;>

[Castout]

Ours robbed the Treasury of $1 trillion USD and is now seeking to steal $500 billion more so he can get reelected... ;>

:o

Not really it was called stimulus. Ours REALLY robbed a bank not with guns but with political power. Well it was said(rumored) for funding his party in the last election.

[CaptainHaplo]

Hmm, facts... You mean those inconvenient things? Ok, I'll bite that trollbait, as well chum the waters with my own! :>

Hypothesis: The current administration shows little respect for the Constitution and rule of law, choosing to enforce or enact laws as it sees fit.


Evidence:


I assure you - its not trollbait - at least regarding me. For some surely it is, but that is their issue. I fully agree with the hypothesis, and the evidence you cited (along with much more) demonstrates it.

See, pointing to evidence and making an arguement based on reality (instead of insults and generalities) is what a discussion is about. Others will chime in with their viewpoints, agree or disagree, and the points can be disputed as to how they should be interpreted (since facts remain facts - it is the interpretation of them that defines a perspective).

[mookiemookie]

I assure you - its not trollbait - at least regarding me. For some surely it is, but that is their issue. I fully agree with the hypothesis, and the evidence you cited (along with much more) demonstrates it.

See, pointing to evidence and making an arguement based on reality (instead of insults and generalities) is what a discussion is about. Others will chime in with their viewpoints, agree or disagree, and the points can be disputed as to how they should be interpreted (since facts remain facts - it is the interpretation of them that defines a perspective).

Unless of course one's interpretations of facts are presented as the facts themselves, which is the case with that list.

[Sailor Steve]

To be fair, a large portion of the homeless population in America is either mentally ill or homeless because they appreciate the freedom it provides.
Well, since I absolutely hated the three years I spent without a home I guess the former applies.

No, really. :sunny:

[magicstix]

Unless of course one's interpretations of facts are presented as the facts themselves, which is the case with that list.

At which point you are more than welcome to provide a counter interpretation or cite evidence for your statement rather than an ad hominem attack.

[magicstix]

Well, since I absolutely hated the three years I spent without a home I guess the former applies.

No, really. :sunny:

You'll note that "...a large portion..." does not equate to "...all homeless people..."

A minor oversight on your part, I'm sure. ;)

[Tribesman]

At which point you are more than welcome to provide a counter interpretation or cite evidence for your statement rather than an ad hominem attack.
It was self evident.
Also it certainly wasn't an ad hominen.

You'll note that...
So define what you meant.
Or can it be simply written off as a totally meaningless statement you made where you tried to present a very strange interpretation as a fact.

[magicstix]

It was self evident.
Also it certainly wasn't an ad hominen.


So define what you meant.
Or can it be simply written off as a totally meaningless statement you made where you tried to present a very strange interpretation as a fact.

It's self evident how? I presented falsifiable facts that have not been falsified and an interpretation of those facts. You can either falsify the fact or present a counter viewpoint. That's called debate. Or did you mean "it's self evident because I disagree, therefore you're wrong."

[Sailor Steve]

You'll note that "...a large portion..." does not equate to "...all homeless people..."

A minor oversight on your part, I'm sure. ;)
No oversight at all - I knew what you meant. I mentioned it because in my case you might just be right.

[Tribesman]

Its self evident in the first line, you presented an interpretaion and presented it as fact then did an interpretation of your interpretation.
Simple facts to establish, what was the timeline of the legislation in question.
If article A is in motion and article A passes then that is a fact
If article B is in motion and article B doesn't pass then that is a fact.
Saying someone is using article A as a backdoor to article B's failure is pure bollox and all the "impact" comes from article A not the actions following the failure of article B.
What you are presenting is an arguement from someone who is opposed to A&B but is trying to portray A as B.

Plus of course your arguement following that is also nonsense as the action isn't suddenly "enacted".

[magicstix]

Its self evident in the first line, you presented an interpretaion and presented it as fact then did an interpretation of your interpretation.
Simple facts to establish, what was the timeline of the legislation in question.
If article A is in motion and article A passes then that is a fact
If article B is in motion and article B doesn't pass then that is a fact.
Saying someone is using article A as a backdoor to article B's failure is pure bollox and all the "impact" comes from article A not the actions following the failure of article B.
What you are presenting is an arguement from someone who is opposed to A&B but is trying to portray A as B.

Plus of course your arguement following that is also nonsense as the action isn't suddenly "enacted".

If the timelines of the legislation and the executive orders are in question, that can be presented as opposing evidence. Instead you merely chose to say "it's bollocks!" This is not debate, this is "I disagree with the points you've made, therefore you're crazy!" If you think a point I've made is "nonsense" then present your point of view or evidence as to why it is nonsense. Otherwise, you might as well just troll with "u suck, republican nazi! don't u have some old ladies to throw off cliffs?"

I had posted facts and my interpretation of them, with the hope that someone might present a counter viewpoint that I could use to test my reasoning as a check on my own personal bias, and thus, in effect, learn something and grow as a person. I also had hoped that my presentation of the facts and interpretation thereof might inspire the same self critiquing in others.

Unfortunately, it would seem that hope is futile as I am attempting to use the internet as a vehicle for that discussion.

And yes, in America an executive order is "suddenly enacted" and carries the same force as a law, which is why it is a dangerous precedent to use them to rule by fiat as a means of getting around Congress's law making authority.

[mookiemookie]

At which point you are more than welcome to provide a counter interpretation or cite evidence for your statement rather than an ad hominem attack.

Review the definition of an ad hominem attack before falsely accusing someone of making one.


I had posted facts and my interpretation of them, with the hope that someone might present a counter viewpoint that I could use to test my reasoning as a check on my own personal bias, and thus, in effect, learn something and grow as a person. I also had hoped that my presentation of the facts and interpretation thereof might inspire the same self critiquing in others.

Two people have now pointed out that your "facts" are in reality "interpretations." There's your critique.

[Tribesman]

If the timelines of the legislation and the executive orders are in question, that can be presented as opposing evidence.
All the evidence needed was supplied.

This is not debate, this is "I disagree with the points you've made, therefore you're crazy!"
No this is "I disagree with you presenting interpretations as facts and then doing interpretations of those "facts" and claiming they have a factual basis"

I had posted facts and my interpretation of them
No.

BTW as a simple example of how you are talking bollox again.......
And yes, in America an executive order is "suddenly enacted"
The claim you made was about the changes to plant under the EPA legislation and the costs associated with those.

[magicstix]

All the evidence needed was supplied.


No this is "I disagree with you presenting interpretations as facts and then doing interpretations of those "facts" and claiming they have a factual basis"


No.

BTW as a simple example of how you are talking bollox again.......

The claim you made was about the changes to plant under the EPA legislation and the costs associated with those.

Here, let's learn how to debate and refute points. It's easy! I'll show you how.

Claim: The President's new executive order to the EPA to limit pollution from coal plants has harmed workers as plant owners have decided it is cheaper to decommission the plants rather than comply with new EPA regulations (regulations btw, not legislation, as legislation is passed by the legislative branch of the government, whereas regulations are issued by a regulatory agency, such as the EPA). This has resulted in layoffs, further exacerbating the unemployment problem, and placed undue stress on the electrical grid, as coal is the number one energy source in the United States.

Bad example: "That's bollocks!" This merely makes an emotional exclamation, rather than attempting to refute the point, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Good example: "That's bollocks! Most plants are able to afford the new regulations, and the implementation of them provides new jobs to workers at other plants. The plants that close down were nearing the end of their lives anyway, and the workers who worked at them will still have a job in their decommission or can work in other power plant infrastructure that doesn't use coal. Furthermore, the grid won't be stressed, as new super clean fairydust powerplants are coming online to replace the coal plants before they go down, thus giving us a surplus of energy that we can sell to Canada and even help the debt!"

Claim: The President is purple, this must mean he is an outerspace alien hellbent on destruction of the Planet Earth.

Bad example: "That's an interpretation! Not a fact!"
Good example: "Clearly anyone can see that the President is not, in fact, purple. Have you tried adjusting the color hue on your television set? I'm sure you'll find that once you have determined the President is not, in fact, purple, you'll find your fears that the president is a space alien are unwarranted. In fact, here's a picture showing the president is not in fact purple: ..."

Claim: The President is using executive orders to rule by fiat in an attempt to advance his agenda while ignoring checks and balances placed by Congress when they fail to pass legislation he wants. Example: Fact A. Fact B. Interpretation: Fact B is a direct result of Fact A.

Bad example:"You have presented interpretations as fact." "How?" "That is self evident."
Good example: "While both Fact A and Fact B are matters of public record, there is no correlation, as Fact B occurred before Fact A and is thus incapable of being the effect of cause Fact A. [However, this does not refute the interpretation that the President's implementation of a law by executive order that Congress has denied through consensus vote undermines Congress's authority as the lawmaking arm of the US Government] Furthermore, the President's executive powers have been used for many centuries to enforce the president's agenda, and thus Congress's power as a law making body has already been compromised, for better or worse. See: Andrew Jackson's infamous '...now let them enforce it...' rebuttal to the Supreme Court's ruling that it was unconstitutional for him to force the relocation of certain Ancient American tribes."

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[mookiemookie]

Here, let's learn how to debate and refute points. It's easy! I'll show you how.

<words>

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

A condescending attitude isn't going to make people want to debate with you.

[magicstix]

A condescending attitude isn't going to make people want to debate with you.

Awww, sounds like someone needs a hug. <3?

Edit: And I disagree with your statement, as your condescending attitude devoid of facts or counter arguments but full of evasion has only made me want to debate more. :>

[Tribesman]

"That's bollocks!" This merely makes an emotional exclamation, rather than attempting to refute the point, and adds nothing to the discussion.

No, that happens to be a very good word which sums up the entire point in one fell swoop with no emotions apart from those which take it so, like you have.
Another example of bollox is your "claim" ... "good example" post.

Face it stix you are just another one of those usual talking pointers who is repeating the same back door rubbish that has been doing the rounds, I fully expect a rant about ebony next.

[magicstix]

No, that happens to be a very good word which sums up the entire point in one fell swoop with no emotions apart from those which take it so, like you have.
Another example of bollox is your "claim" ... "good example" post.

Face it stix you are just another one of those usual talking pointers who is repeating the same back door rubbish that has been doing the rounds, I fully expect a rant about ebony next.

Now *that* was a good ad hominem. Thumbs up, mate!

[Oberon]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/political-pictures-plenty-scandal.jpg

[magicstix]

Oberon how dare you attempt to add levity to this thread through hilariously captioned pictures! :>

[joegrundman]

Now *that* was a good ad hominem. Thumbs up, mate!
no one does it with the panache of tribesman!

[magicstix]

no one does it with the panache of tribesman!

If only his debate skills were as polished! Then we could have some fun!

[Oberon]

Oberon how dare you attempt to add levity to this thread through hilariously captioned pictures! :>

I'm sowwy :oops::03:

[Tribesman]

If only his debate skills were as polished
The skills are polished all they need to be, you are presenting something as something it is not, you are then taking that thing and inventing an arguement out of "facts" you just made up, even the arguement from your made up facts invents more "facts".

Simple question for ya. Under these terrible executive orders(which your current president seem to be getting a historicly low number of written) and under the sneaky "backdoor" that amazingly is the frontdoor plans....when will the power plants be affected (apart from those that have applied for new extentions to their existing facilities)?

A further question to see if you can actually think.
Given the large astroturf and lobbying outrage being widely vented in relation to the coal industry with the clean air, can you link through the EPA to another system of permits that is up for serious review following the huge problems the industry has created in utilising its "cheap fuel" policy?

[magicstix]

The skills are polished all they need to be, you are presenting something as something it is not, you are then taking that thing and inventing an arguement out of "facts" you just made up, even the arguement from your made up facts invents more "facts".

Simple question for ya. Under these terrible executive orders(which your current president seem to be getting a historicly low number of written) and under the sneaky "backdoor" that amazingly is the frontdoor plans....when will the power plants be affected (apart from those that have applied for new extentions to their existing facilities)?

A further question to see if you can actually think.
Given the large astroturf and lobbying outrage being widely vented in relation to the coal industry with the clean air, can you link through the EPA to another system of permits that is up for serious review following the huge problems the industry has created in utilising its "cheap fuel" policy?

Ahhh I love that "holier than thou" attitude of the ultra-left. It makes things so much more fun. :]

Good to see you've actually managed to produce a little substance, small as it may be; though you still need to work on your 5-year-oldesque "nuh uh, u suck!" method of arguing your point of view.

The number of executive orders by the President is an irrelevant point. We're arguing quality over quantity here and whether issuing directives to the EPA to carry out regulations that have already been tossed out by Congress undermines Congress's authority, a point which you have heretofore ignored.

Since you seem interested in arguing the impact of the EPA regulations, I will present a relevant Regulatory Impact Analysis by the EPA regarding one of their recent rule changes.

The RIA for the "Final Transport Rule":
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf

A few lovely tidbits:
"This selected remedy covers the electric power industry and allows interstate emissions trading of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the covered states..."

In other words, the EPA is implementing interstate cap and trade, something which Congress struck down. In effect, an executive agency whose only oversight is the office of the President of the United States has directly undermined the authority of Congress to make law. In addition to this, selling credits doesn't tend to make the problem better, it just moves a bunch of money around between people who were already polluting and people who weren't going to pollute anyway, thus resulting in no net effect on the desired outcome: to reduce emissions.

However, I digress, what you're interested in are the costs on industry with complying with this executive fiat. Very well...

"... the final rule expedites the adoption of SO2 emissions controls that are planned in the base case to occur after 2012 and be underway by 2014..."

In other words, the EPA has expedited changes the industry originally had 3 years to implement instead of 1 year, to answer your question of when industries will be affected. As an aside, the RIA uses the base goal of 2014 to determine economic impact, while sidestepping the very relevant issue that moving the required compliance date ahead 2 years will have a non-trivial cost impact (actually they agree that it will cost more to move implementation ahead 2 years, but bury that point deeper in the executive summary and don't elaborate).

"Retail electricity prices are projected to increase nationally by an average of 1.3 % in 2012 and 0.8 % in 2014 with the final Transport Rule. "

In other words, "screw the poor who will be disproportionately harmed by this rule, I want my hippy green votes!"

"The average delivered coal price decreases by about 1.4 percent in 2012 and 0.5 percent in 2014 relative to the base case as a result of decreased coal demand and shifts in the type of coal demanded. EPA also projects that delivered natural gas prices for the electric power sector will increase by about 0.3% over the 2012-2030 timeframe..."

In other words, those who rely on natural gas for heating will have to pay more for it. This disproportionately affects poor Americans in the Northeast. Oh, and what about the coal miners, who are often predominately poor, who will now be adversely affected by the decrease in coal prices? Screw them, I guess, since they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway...

"Economic impacts do not take into response of electric power consumers to changes in electricity prices..."

In other words, "we're ignoring free market factors in a free market economy."

"Compliance costs based on the pre-policy output levels would be overstated if we do not consider the new lower levels of consumption as a result of higher market prices."

In other words, "since this rule is likely to reduce the standard of living for Americans, things could be even cheaper to implement!"

Oh, and the kicker:
"Because it is not a distribution, it is not possible to infer the likelihood of any single net benefit estimate. "

In other words, the entire RIA is blowing smoke with pretty powerpoint graphs, and the EPA just doesn't know how beneficial the new rule is.

[Tribesman]

Ahhh I love that "holier than thou" attitude of the ultra-left. It makes things so much more fun. :]

You wouldn't recognise the ultra left if it was dancing nude with a full orchestra while teabagging you under a neon sign saying "this is the ultra left"

The number of executive orders by the President is an irrelevant point.
Is that because it undermines your "current administration" rant?

We're arguing quality over quantity
So you want to go over a bigger pile and demonstate that the little pile is all much worse.


Good to see you've actually managed to produce a little substance, small as it may be
All the substance needed was in the first post.

a point which you have heretofore ignored
Not in the slightest, congress say bye bye over 40 years ago, keep up with the times young man.

I do like the way you use "in other words"
The funniest is of course "free market factors in a free market economy".

[mookiemookie]

Awww, sounds like someone needs a hug. <3?

Edit: And I disagree with your statement, as your condescending attitude devoid of facts or counter arguments but full of evasion has only made me want to debate more. :>

I don't need a hug. And I'm not debating your interpretations because they're black and white proclamations that lack any nuance, and the world is full of it. On some of the issues you've pointed out, I agree that the President has gone around the normal process and there's no debate to be had. On the others, I don't care to rehash the same talking points that have been debated and countered and disproven to death before. Frankly, it's very boring.

[CaptainHaplo]

Magicstix.... a word of advice.

Some here will debate you - others will insist on avoiding any actual debate by constantly circling from subject to subject, instead of focusing on the issue at hand.

Those that refuse to debate won't care for facts or proof. Its best to just ignore them, as it does no good to argue with a stop sign.....

Find those who can stick to a topic instead of bandying semantics and you will find good conversation.

[mookiemookie]

Magicstix.... a word of advice.

Some here will debate you - others will insist on avoiding any actual debate by constantly circling from subject to subject, instead of focusing on the issue at hand.

Those that refuse to debate won't care for facts or proof. Its best to just ignore them, as it does no good to argue with a stop sign.....

Find those who can stick to a topic instead of bandying semantics and you will find good conversation.

Hopefully this was not an implied shot at me. History shows there have been times that I've systematically and factually dismantled your arguments without "bandying semantics."

I simply find the current argument stupid and boring and refuse to be drawn into it.

[Tribesman]

Some here will debate you - others will insist on avoiding any actual debate by constantly circling from subject to subject, instead of focusing on the issue at hand.

Hey Haplo, want to to do scripture?
Any canon you want you false preacher:yeah:
Oh sorry I didn't mean to imply that a religious voccalist should have some arguementative basis in scripture:rotfl2:

issue at hand
Issue at hand A is C and B wouldn't be as bad as D even when D is B which is C & A.
Partisan crap , which to Haplo could add "sulfur ain't in the bible apart from as linked to the devil":har::har::har::har::har::har:

Hopefully this was not an implied shot at me
No worries mookie its about his false "christian " rants which he can't defend, I don't recall you getting on his "xTIAN" hit list