@DCGoldPants Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Na, didn't you see Cain's interview with Barbera Walters? He's gonna be Secretary of Defense.---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 01:14 PM ---------- And Reagan would be ostracized in today's GOP. Negotiated with terrorists, as well as with Iran. Raised the debt ceiling, raised taxes. I'm on the phone so I can't pull up the link, but there's a great video mashup of Obama and Reagan essentially giving the same speech on taxes on the wealthy. Reagan? Today Jesus would be called a socialist wealth distributing anti-capitalist commie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Drop the commie part and it could possibly fit , but he wasn't trying to run a country or world,nor force his views on others. Want the rest of his views IMPOSED on the country?....that would be some real social justice.:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 You don't see a problem with cutting a dedicated tax for programs already heading for disaster? Yeah, you're a big defender of anybody who threatens to reduce SS revenues, or who threatens it's long-term solvency. Every time some politician proposes it, you're right there telling them that they're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 need more straw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 need more straw? What, to point out yours? Your first attempt was to try to claim that you, and the Republicans, opposed this tax cut because of their opposition to tax cuts being sold as economic stimulus. And your second is to try to argue that they're opposed to it because they're opposed to anything that reduces SS's solvency? What's next? Gonna try to argue that Republicans believe that, when a tax cut is passed through Congress by including an expiration date, then Republicans believe that it's immoral to try to extend that expiration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I don't speak for the Republicans,those are mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 And they aren't your reasons, either. As I've pointed out. You don't have any problem with tax cuts being sold as stimulus. In fact, it's one of your favorite shticks. And you don't have any trouble with removing revenue from Social Security. At least, not if it's part of a plan to get rid of it entirely. You have a problem with this tax cut. I've proposed one possible theory, to explain that. And you've come forth with two unbelievable whoppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I guess the highlight of dedicated tax eluded you,as well as the matter of entitlements even after a illustration of a tax break that generates NEW tax revenue not already in play What do you think the return on this tax cut will be? but you are right I don't oppose removing both future recipients and funding for SS if linked directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Let me tell you, I am the Tim Tebow of the ES forum Seriously though Perry's original Tebow reference was absolutely hilarious Don't kid yourself, boss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I find a lot of what Perry does hilarious,but I can afford to laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I think that the odds of the Redskins winning out and making the playoffs are better than the odds of someone entering the race, now, and winning. Are you kidding? If Jeb Bush jumped in the race today he'd be at the top of the polls by at least 15% tomorrow. He might not win Iowa, but that's because caucuses are somewhat unusual, especially when you factor in the "Upper-Midwest-in-January" part. I looked up what the critics were saying about the pipeline an unexpected argument. They claim that allowing this pipeline to be built would INCREASE the cost of heavy crude to americans. They provided a link to the Transcanada's permit application that appears to support that. http://stopbigoilripoffs.com/documents/keystone-xl-pipeline-application-section-3-supply-and-markets/at_download/filepage 7 of the pdf: Padd II defined (34th page of the pdf, page number 21) This argument also leads into questioning the reasoning for this pipeline. It's being sold as delivering fuel to the US from our friendly neighbor to the north. However it appears the point is to reach a deep water port for export, not to facilitate delivery to the US. What are your thoughts on that? My personal response would be, "And?" There's a glut in the Midwest because they can't get all of the oil to refineries or a port. Seems to me that either destination will do good things with the oil, and the only downside is that some places in the Midwest will have to pay market prices like the rest of us. I don't really see a problem. I also don't put much stock in the aquifer complaints. This is a map of current oil pipelines in the US. I won't post it directly because of size issues. Needless to say, when you look at the map, you have to wonder what "virgin" aquifers this particular pipeline is going to threaten. FactCheck article on the debate. "a few claims we found worthy of quibbling over" sounds like about as close to a stamp of accuracy as I've ever seen from FactCheck. Accuracy? Bachmann made it sound like Gingrich was going around throwing parties every time someone got an abortion. He was trying to prevent Republican candidates from being denied funds if they didn't favor a ban on partial abortions. This would have included candidates who won the GOP nomination. That seems perfectly rational to me, and I'm rather pro-choice (although I think I've settled on a position that would, in fact, ban almost all partial birth abortions). It's not like the Democrats who would have won instead would have been likely to be more pro-life than their opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 . I also don't put much stock in the aquifer complaints. This is a map of current oil pipelines in the US. I won't post it directly because of size issues. Needless to say, when you look at the map, you have to wonder what "virgin" aquifers this particular pipeline is going to threaten. That's a mighty big assumption. The Keystone pipeline will be far larger than any of those, and the current route runs right through the heart of the Ogallala aquifer, which is only about 50 feet below the surface and waters about a third of America's crops. Doesn't it make sense to be sure that the proposed route is a safe one, rather than bypass normal environmental review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 how is this bypassing normal review? ....is it simply because it passed ALL the environmental reviews? Hasn't it been three yrs? The review is done..in fact THREE have been done http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/08/tar-sands-pipeline-environmental-review-positive/1 "The Final Environmental Impact Statement reaffirms the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment," said Russ Girling, president and CEO of Calgary-based TransCanada. He said the pipeline would create jobs and energy security. add Why is a very small chance of a impact on the aquifer more important than the shores endangered by the more risky tanker traffic required to make up that oil?? NIMBY's should have their gas cut off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 how is this bypassing normal review? ....is it simply because it passed ALL the environmental reviews?Hasn't it been three yrs? The review is done..in fact THREE have been done http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/08/tar-sands-pipeline-environmental-review-positive/1 "The Final Environmental Impact Statement reaffirms the findings of the two previous environmental impact statements that the Keystone XL pipeline will have no significant impact on the environment," said Russ Girling, president and CEO of Calgary-based TransCanada. He said the pipeline would create jobs and energy security. Do you know anything about environmental law? Do you know where the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report fits in to the process? Do you know why EIRs get invalidated? More to the point, did you even bother to read the freaking article you linked before you quoted the President of the oil company? Yet Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones, in a conference call with reporters, repeatedly emphasized that the review is not indicative of the final decision, expected by year's end."This is not the rubber stamp for this project," Jones said, noting eight other federal agencies still need to weigh in on its merits. ""It should not be seen as a 'lean in any direction.'" Moving on... Why is a very small chance of a impact on the aquifer more important than the shores endangered by the more risky tanker traffic required to make up that oil?? NIMBY's should have their gas cut off You don't know if it is a very small chance. You don't know spit. You never do. You just know which side you want to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I know the risks of transporting oil (figures any high school kid can read amigo) Wipe the drool off your chin and look it up , I also know the environmental review continues even thru construction and beyond I also know your fears over a significant impact to the aquifer are overstated.....water the crops ---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 08:46 PM ---------- Tell ya what, you NIMBY"s in Cali increase your oil production to make up for it....or cut down on your driving,flying and excess consumption go green my friends....Embrace the suck ---------- Post added December-16th-2011 at 09:20 PM ---------- from prior link "Whether to approve this pipeline is the most important environmental decision President Obama will make before the election," and the squish punted...as usual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I'm awaiting more info on the bypass of the normal environmental review while I wait...the State dept statement http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open Pipeline official proganda http://www.transcanada.com/5852.html The environmental review process for Keystone XL (culminating in the FEIS) has been the most exhaustive and detailed review for a cross-border pipeline that has ever been undertaken by of the Department of State. "We know how hard the Department of State has worked to make this review process as transparent and thorough as possible, including consulting with more than 10 other federal agencies," Girling added. "We appreciate their continued commitment to completing their review by the end of this year." The nine-volume FEIS is more than 1,000 pages in length. Keystone XL has gone through an exhaustive 36-month review, including numerous public meetings, multiple public comment periods, submittal and review of thousands of pages of information and responses to hundreds of detailed questions. add Did Hillary throw Obama a curve ball by allowing the finalized review? :evilg: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/191225-obama-im-the-decider-on-the-keystone-pipeline We await the Decider to decide.....can't vote present now,but delay and obfuscation are always in a politicians tool chest while people scratch their unemployed ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 I have my share of love for liber-Ts, Ron Paul, and several of the so-inclined posters here (as I have often stated), so forgive me you guys in particular. But I had this thought go through my head a few days ago... ....Ron Paul fanboys are like the Juggalos of politics. :evilg: :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 ^^^ That one's good. As I've noted often for awhile, it's like the GOP has decided to seize the dem's mantle of "Supreme Self-Destructors" and do everything in their power to blow what should be shooting ducks in a barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.