Some of Sarah Palin's riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.
The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress.
Can yu just visualize a Presidential race between Obama and Palin? The feathers will come out of the ticking even before it gets started. Would be high ole time at South Park.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 9, 2010, at 2:53 PM
Yuck. That would be a Presidential race where nobody wins.
I couldn't even imagine what the creators of South Park would cook up.
-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Jun 9, 2010, at 2:59 PM
If he isn't concerned even now, then he's a bigger incompetent than even I thought.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 9, 2010, at 4:39 PM
Whoops that wont work, google obama at bat youtube
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 9, 2010, at 4:42 PM
After reading this article we should all remember that while voting to out incumbents may be smart in some situations, you should still be smart about who you vote for.
Presidencies rise and fall far more by their response to great events than to the event itself.
"Presidents are ultimately judged by how they handle the unexpected," presidential historian Richard Norton Smith wrote..."
...
Obama's effort to highlight his command has only underlined his failures. This week he told NBC that he talks to his experts "so I know whose *** to kick." It was like hearing Spock swear.
It was also reminiscent of Bill Clinton in 1995. "The president is still relevant here," Clinton said. But these things are true, of course, when they need not be said.
Obama is flailing. The feckless image haunts him. Meanwhile, from the Korean peninsula to Iran to fragile world markets, myriad potential crises loom.
Obama famously rode an historic wave to the White House. That wave turned on him long ago. But he never seemingly got off. Never succeeded against the tide. Never came close to turning the tide. This is when discipline appears timid, when stability appears stolid and cool appears cold.
Nothing is written. But it's not getting better.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 6:27 AM
Whales sometimes ride the tide to the beach. When the get there, they can't go back and they can't go forward, they just lay there, beached. Liberals run to their aid and try to save them but, more often than not, they fail.
If you're going to ride the tide, it's best to have a plan for what you're going to do when the tide turns. It's clearn Mr. Obama, like the beached whale, has no idea what to do now that he's gotten where the tide left him. I believe all the liberal horses and all the liberal men won't be able to get Obama back in his element again...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 10:36 AM
Obama needs to have his (what was it he called it the other day?) *** kicked out of the White House as soon as possible.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 11:52 AM
Hunter; As for planning ahead, I agree 100%. However, wasn't it Rumsfeld that said we would be in Iraq 6 days or 6 weeks or maybe as long as 6 weeks. Not trying to be argumentive, but didn't he say that? Evidently with GWB approval. It happens to them all and it will never change. How may incumbents were voted out in the primaries Tuesday? I can only think of one but there could be more. If a majority had been voted out I could possibly see some changing coming about but not at this rate. Sad.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 1:04 PM
Mistakes are made, mistakes are corrected. Calculations are missed. Presumptions fall short. If the checks and balances of the system won't hold those accountable - if the media won't report and hold those accountable, then the American public has to. Politicians and special interests seem to believe that the ends justify the means. It doesn't. Ultimately American citizens lose their patience and meet their obligation to step in and reestablish the power of the people. That time is now.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 1:49 PM
Remember, these were primaaries. The other interesting observation would be who was nominated to oppose the incumbents next November.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 2:05 PM
Spaniard, Do you live in Nevada?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 9:41 PM
Ike, thaat "crazy teabagger" according to the polls may very well beat the sox off of Reid which would be good riddence. By the way, you have been asked questions before which you very conveniently "forgot" to answer.
Now I've even forgot the questions been so long ago. For me 5 hours is a long, long time ago.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jun 10, 2010, at 10:58 PM
...President Obama made several initial errors as he entered office and he's paying the price now. He believed that the problems we faced in international relations were simply due to Bush's confrontational attitudes towards the rest of the world. He assumed that the way to fix the economy was to increase government spending and increase the reach of government. And he believed that his mere presence as president would change the world. If Obama wants to succeed as president, he needs to acknowledge his initial errors and alter his course.
The oil spill is coming back to bite Obama who campaigned by blaming George W. Bush for everything bad that went wrong thus providing the perception that a president is responsible for everything that goes on.
Obama is cubic zirconia. There's a lot to that metaphor. Ross Kaminsky then goes on to explain how ridiculous it was for Obama to act as if, as president, he was responsible for something totally outside his control such as plugging the leak in the Gulf. But a man with Obama's view of government cannot admit that there is anything the government can't control.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Sat, Jun 12, 2010, at 7:51 AM
Not all the oil in the Gulf is coming from BP's spill ...
... with gallons of oil spewing every minute from BP's broken well head ... not all the oil pollution in the Gulf is BP's fault.
But even though many millions of gallons of crude oil have leaked into the Gulf, much of what is washing up on beaches near in and around the Gulf is not from the Deepwater Horizon spill.
"We've done a number of tarballs from Florida, Key West, Miami and so forth, none of which so far have matched the Deepwater Horizon," Gronlund said. "The tarballs that have been found on the beach in Florida are fuel oil."
And ... Some of the oil in the Gulf is natural seepage from the sea floor. The Coast Guard's head of research and development ... explained that in the Gulf and other oil-rich spots in the world, crude oil bubbles up through the sea floor and into the Gulf Waters.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jun 12, 2010, at 12:18 PM
Mom,
While there may indeed be some illegal dumping, sounds like that is happening only because they think they can hide it with the rest of the mess.
Having spent the past 10 winters in Gulf Shores, AL, I can tell you I have never seen a tar ball on the beach. Perhaps there were some, but I think there would have been a local awareness of it. Having also been a number of times for a much short visit to South Padre Island, I have seen them there, and they are hard to get off your feet.
Meanwhile from a view of a Gulf Shores Beach on TV, it appears to be drenched in oil at the moment.
Don't know what CNN is trying to prove, but there is no justification for BP's spill nor the Obama administration's poor handling of the cleanup process.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jun 12, 2010, at 12:35 PM
I think our president and his administration are more interested in not letting a crisis go to waste concerning the oil in the water.
If provide for the common defense means defending against an invaision of oil, so be it. But government doing it's best to bring down an industry is not consistant with helping in the matter. It is not the time for finger pointing to blame, it is a time to free up resources and limit restrictions on industry in what's needed to fix the problem.
When it does become time to blame, I will blame those policies that drove the oil industry into deep water when we have plenty of reserves more easily reached.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 12, 2010, at 4:13 PM
"...nor the Obama administration's poor handling of the cleanup process."
It is one thing for an 11 year old child to ask the President "Did you plug the hole yet?" I would think that adults would have more sense than to be critical of the government for not instantaneously "fixing" an industrial accident. Whatever happened to "keep the government off of industry's back."
---------
"...it is a time to free up resources and limit restrictions on industry in what's needed to fix the problem."
Right, OK industry, you are now free to fix your problem. How is it now the government's problem to fix.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 11:02 AM
"...nor the Obama administration's poor handling of the cleanup process."
It is one thing for an 11 year old child to ask the President "Did you plug the hole yet?" I would think that adults would have more sense than to be critical of the government for not instantaneously "fixing" an industrial accident. Whatever happened to "keep the government off of industry's back."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 11:02 AM
Common,
Read my comment and then read your response again.
I said nothing about his stopping the leak. Government has neither the expertise or the tools to fix the leak.
But Obama could either show he is a leader and cut through some of the beaureatic BS to enable cleanup to proceed or get the hell out of the way.
And before you start saying laws prevent it. He has made Presidential decrees before that fly in the face of law. And regards keeping the government off our backs.... damned good idea. The cleanup could be proceeding without government.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 11:14 AM
Don't take on someone else's problem because then it becomes your problem (and responsibility). Obama had taken on the oil spill and now he's made it his problem. He should be made accountable.
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM
Common,
Another thought has occured to me. Do you really believe his 11 year old daughter asked him if he capped the well in the first place? Or was that just another one of his lies to put a personal touch on things?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 1:30 PM
"The cleanup could be proceeding without government."
Without government what? There is nothing that the government has done or said that prevents BP from cleaning up their mess. There are no laws preventing cleanup. Sounds like some one is seeking excuses for an oil company screwup.
----
"President Obama had taken on the oil spill and now he's made it his problem. He should be made accountable."
Please explain how the oil spill has become "his problem." Tracking the issue and monitoring any attempts by BP to fix their problem does not make the current administration "accountable" for it. The accountability remains firmly with the 3 companies that allowed it to happen. And it appears to have been the result of cutting corners to boost profits.
-----
"Or was that just another one of his lies to put a personal touch on things?"
It seems that any statement that comes out of the administration that makes sense becomes branded as a "lie." Why is that?
----
"When it does become time to blame, I will blame those policies that drove the oil industry into deep water when we have plenty of reserves more easily reached."
This kind of thinking seems to be another attempt to shift blame. Like somebody involved in a car crash claiming, if the state had not put in speed limits, I would have been well past the crash site when the collision occured. Some what obtuse reasoning to say the least.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 6:15 PM
Common, Do you think an enviromental impact study that delayed response to the shore bound oil was government out of the way?
Do you think drilling for oil to supply market demand should be restricted in a way akin to speed limits?
Should a president point his finger while saying this is not the time for finger pointing concerning blame?
Do you defend big government and all it's baggage or are you just concerned that some may try to blame the president?
Not being beligerant, just trying to understand you logic.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 7:28 PM
"...just trying to understand you(r) logic."
The logic is very simple. I maintain that there was no requirement for any "environmental impact study" for BP to start separating oil from water. If you have already created a massive "environmental impact" any corrective action, short of making the hole bigger so the oil will run out quicker, is a positive action. Presumably if EIS is an excuse, for delayed action, BP will grab on to it.
--------
"...point his finger while saying this is not the time for finger pointing concerning blame?"
There is no question that the finger should be pointed at BP, it was and is their well. The finger pointing President Obama alluded to is between the owner and their contractors.
-------
"...or are you just concerned that some may try to blame the president?"
There is no blame whatsoever on the government. My concern is really the hypocrisy of conservatives who say on one hand the the government "can't do anything right" and on the other "why hasn't the government fixed the problem."
Only conservatives appear to be able to have it both ways.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 7:51 PM
Old J. ... Think we've noticed that a few times over the past couple of decades ... and that we might suspect it goes much farther back than that ... the idea that our government leaders in particular should not let a good crisis go to waste?
See Obama is going to the coast for the 4th time. If he flies there enough times, do you think he'll eventually come up with a solution to the oil spill? You know me ... I think most presidential trips to anywhere is a waste of time and (our) money.
Anyway ... and I AM smiling! ... sometimes one person's logic is another person's illogic (no, that probably isn't really a word). It's often almost obvious that there are a few who absolutely could not/would not fault our president (past, present, future) no matter what he/she does. I think it's called 'blind loyalty?'
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 7:58 PM
There is no blame whatsoever on the government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 7:51 PM
There is no blame on government when they fiddle while Rome is burning? I believe the people on the Gulf see it a little different.
When the man in charge, you know, the one where the buck stops here, will not allow burms to be built in Louisianna, where equipment sits and waits because of a technicality, where burning the oil off is not allowed because of the lack of an environmental impact study, where foreign help cannot be used because it might offend some union.... you bet there is blame on government!!!
At least the good people of Magnolia Springs Alabama stood up on their hind legs and said they were going to protect their shores regardless of what Washington DC said or did not say.
I have friends in Gulf Shores Alabama who are suffering because of the inaction of the Obama White House!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 9:03 PM
Common, I do understand that many can't be open to contemplate anything against their bias of "my thinking right, your thinking wrong"
The impact study I had in mind was the one that prevented the laying of barriers along the coast.
To pigeon hole conservatives in this respect is only asking for more of the same countering rhetoric that adds nothing to the discussion.
Should the federal government dictate what course of action the company takes? Seems to me the company has as much at stake in fixing this as anyone.
A lot of things to consider.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 9:05 PM
"It's often almost obvious that there are a few who absolutely could not/would not fault our president (past, present, future) no matter what he/she does. I think it's called 'blind loyalty?'"
I guess that when a group faults our President, no matter what he does, it should be called blind disloyalty.
-------
"...burning the oil off is not allowed because of the lack of an environmental impact study, where foreign help cannot be used because it might offend some union.... you bet there is blame on government!!!"
Burning of oil can only be done if the seas are so calm as to allow a sufficent quantity of oil to collect on the surface to allow it to be set aflame. This is per the US Coast Guard. Even the "foreign help" could not calm the gulf sufficently (unless they were to come from the sea of Gallilee.) There is also no credibility to the claim that foreign help was denied. BP does seem to be a foreign company already. "Offending some union" is an assinine assertion.
--------
...who are suffering because of the inaction of the Obama White House!"
Get serious, your friends in Gulf Shores are suffering because of the actions (and inactions) of BP, Transocean and Haliburton (take your pick.) You really expect anybody to believe that these companies are innocent bystanders and that "government inaction" is the cause of the entire problem.
----------
"Should the federal government dictate what course of action the company takes? Seems to me the company has as much at stake in fixing this as anyone."
I have neither seen nor read anything to indicate that the government is dictating a "course of action". I would think (hopefully) that BP realizes how mch they have at stake. Actions that would stem the oil flow would be gratefully accepted by everyone. If there were to be some solution that might have run contrary to some type of "government dictate," I am sure that BP would recall that "it's easier to get forgivness, than to get permission." Obviously were BP able to fix the problem in some manner that had not been "government approved" they would NOT be told to undo the fix.
------
"...will not allow burms (berms) to be built in Louisianna, (Louisiana)..."
They are not talking about some above water structure, they were considering pumping sand from the sea bottom to try to protect coastlines. The fact that a small degree of wave action could easily negate any berm built is worthy of consideration. Again, this is a situation where action could be taken unilaterally, but it's sometimes safer to claim that the "government didn't let us do it."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 10:50 PM
Common, Have you ever argued with a fence post?
It's kinda like arguing with yourself. You seem to be doing that now.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 11:09 PM
Old John,
Obama makes a sharp turn... common has a broken nose.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jun 13, 2010, at 11:33 PM
The Obama administration is, apparently, willing to sink to outright lies in order to make a gesture that makes it seem as if they're actually doing something useful regarding the BP oil spill.
The Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar inserted his and Obama's preferred policy recommendation, a moratorium on oil drilling, into a report from the experts that the administration had consulted about oil drilling. Salazar's dishonesty was so blatant that the experts had to issue a statement saying that they had never recommended such a moratorium.
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium -- something they actually oppose.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.
"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
Remember, this is the administration that was going to restore science to its rightful place in making decisions. Except when the science doesn't agree with them. Then they'll just make stuff up.
Now that they've lied about the recommendations of the experts concerning their moratorium on deep-water drilling, the Obama administration is having to deal with the financial impact of their bone-headed decision. And they really don't seem to have a clue of what they have wrought.
Jindal said he had a conference call with President Barack Obama's senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, and appealed to her to shorten the six-month moratorium, arguing that a half-year pause would force oil companies to move drilling operations overseas for years and that the federal government could easily impose new safety standards and monitoring in a shorter time frame.
"She asked again why the rigs simply wouldn't come back after six months," Jindal said. "What worries me is I fear they think these rigs can just flip a switch on and off."
these rigs are too expensive to let them sit idle waiting for the Obama administration to figure out what a mistake they've made with this moratorium.
Gross ignorance is all that [it] can be called. These rigs cost about $500,000 a day for oil companies. You do the math. Those owning the rigs probably wouldn't mind sitting around, doing nothing and getting paid 90 million for each rig. But the oil companies are going to move them, while they have them under contract, to foreign leases they own in order to seek oil.
Exploration rigs have always been at a premium (which is why their daily rate is so high), and they're constantly working somewhere -- as long as the price of oil supports such exploration. But since half a year is the apparent non-negotiable moratorium, those rigs are going to pull up stakes and move to foreign leases -- leaving the oil untapped, and providing jobs elsewhere. We end up with higher unemployment and more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
And our leaders haven't a clue.
And why should they have a clue? They've never run any business in the real world so they don't understand costs and unintended consequences? They figure that they can just send the bill to BP, but BP does not have a limitless budget and they're too busy paying for their own mess without having to pay for the one that Obama created all on his own.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 5:45 AM
If oil in the water isn't enough hurt for coastal economies by damaging sea food production, let's shut down the oil industry too. Many folks along the gulf work in the oil industry. Then with the help of constant video of oil ruined beaches, we can retard the tourism industry and drive property values down. And that's when we step in to help by making them all completely dependant on us.
Ok, just jokingly thinking out loud, nobody get you shorts in a wad!
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:41 AM
Rick: I'm going to play Wiffle here. Do you have a link to that last paragragh you posted?
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:46 AM
Nothing was "wasted" in the workers and progressive Americans running against DINO Senator Lincoln in Arkansas. It's never a "waste" to work for a candidate who truly stands for justice, and that this campaign and who supported the mainstream candidate and who supported the candidate of REAL change just proves, once again, what a preposterous load of malarky the claim that Obama is a liberal is. He is, like Bill Clinton, a centrist "Democrat" trying to drag our party to the right, to be nothing more than "Republican lite."
The unions did the right thing, and that they lost doesn't change that or make it a "waste".
-- Posted by ColumbiaCowboy on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:58 AM
The moratorium isn't the problem. The problem is it was put into affect too late. Once again, instead of representing what we ELECTED him for, Obama caved in to the right and "Drill, Baby, Drill!" and the spill in the Gulf is the result we all knew would happen. To think, even as our Gulf is being fouled beyond all imagination, that we should should crank up MORE offshore drilling, and keep on murdering people in the Middle East in war after war...rather than for pity's sake STOP USING SO MUCH **** OIL just makes no sense at all.
-- Posted by ColumbiaCowboy on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:02 AM
Columbia Cowboy wrote:
"...rather than for pity's sake STOP USING SO MUCH **** OIL just makes no sense at all."
And what alternative do you propose we use?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:28 AM
Welcome back?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM
Do you support Fiorina?
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:18 AM
Why do you ask? Many accomplished leaders have tried and failed. I would appreciate an elected official that has had a number of levels of real life and leadership experience. I would think this matters mostly to the folks in California. Who do you support?
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:44 AM
"And what alternative do you propose we use?" -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:28 AM
Suggest that one means of reduction would be to use less of the stuff - in addition to the other means such as finding other stuff to use in the place of oil.
Some suggestions, shamelessly borrowed from other sources, for consideration -
* Four-day work week to cut 20% of the typical workweek commutes.
* Explore the expansion of diesel-fueled motors for smaller vehicles, evaluating the balance between increased fuel economy versus fewer gallons of diesel than gas available per barrel of oil.
* Sure to be popular - a cap-n-trade system where each licensed vehicle would be permitted for a fixed number of gallons to purchase at market rates. Those needing more gallons would have to purchase these permits from others at prevailing free-market rates, just for the 'permission' to buy fuel at market rates - a double-whammy toward the effective cost per gallon. The number of permitted gallons would be reduced each year, until a state of euphoria is achieved, world peace is obtained, and rainbows can be seen at night. :-)~
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 10:00 AM
Let the anti Fiorina rhetoric begin.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 10:02 AM
I'll have one of whatever Fxpwt is drinking. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
I could use a lift this morning.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 10:05 AM
The four day work week assumes that we will stay home on days we don't work. Most people take advantage of three-day weekends to travel. I don't see how trading commuter traffic for leisure travel will save much.
I have no problem with increasing the number of small diesels in operation, but it does not really reduce oil consumption, unless the economy is drastically greater than gasoline engines. I suspect that, were that the case, diesel engines would be more prevalent than they are. It is my understanding that the primary advantage of diesels is the amount of horsepower produced per gallon, not the number of miles per gallon, thus making diesels preferred for high-powered usage as opposed to high-economy ones. However, Europe has reportedly had some success with high-economy diesels, and it would behoove our auto manufacturers to explore that.
Environmentalists have an aversion to diesel engines, which are stereotypically regarded as dirty and inefficient, though that is not necessarily the case.
Cap-and-trade is a scam designed solely to ration free-market access to fuel and to raise prices, with the government taking in the excess. It is taxation-disquised-as-environmental-policy, and should be opposed by freedom loving peoples, no matter how noble the pitchmen make it sound.
________
The fact remains that oil is the only economical source of portable power we have. Unless and until we have a viable alternative, the only options being offered involve forcing us to sacrifice our livelihood for the 'common good'. The problem is, those making those demands of us do not seem willing to lead-by-example, leading me to believe that it is more about power than about economy. Al Gore, the 'champion' of the movement, is enriching himself while leaving a carbon footprint that most of us could never dream of matching.
When Al begins to spend his millions to build energy-efficient homes, when he looses the 100 ft. houseboat, sacrifices his private jet in favour of more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, and otherwise reduces his footprint I may be willing to believe his rhetoric. In the meantime, his "do as I say, not as I do" attitude leads me to believe that the only 'green' he is interested in is the money to be made by selling his environmental bill of goods.
You can sacrifice your lifestyle in favour of economy if you wish, you don't need a governmental edict to do so. The rest of us will continue to use the most economic power available - oil - until market conditions justify a move to something else. Perhaps this oil spill will lead us there, perhaps not, but I'm not willing to shift to a life of austerity to satisfy the demands of those who consider themselves 'more equal' than the rest of us. If our government expects economy, let them lead by example.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 10:30 AM
^^ Doggone - done vacuumed all the fun out of this. However, all seriousness aside, I generally agree with Shapley's perspective.
Figure as long as engines intentionally radiate heat - there's opportunity to improve fuel economy. Heat is available work.
Figure more people show up to work on that fifth day of the workweek than would travel on every three-day weekend. Ah, but then there's the difference in mileage travelled, etc.
Figure with the U.S.'s coal reserves, the better path is to research and develop how to use it within restrictions, before dumping wads of cash into switching over to alternative sources. One suggestion has been that new coal plants should be within certain efficiency boundaries (BTUs of heat consumed vs kilowatts of electricity produced), and for each kilowatt of new capacity added, a portion of a kilowatt of inefficient capacity must be retired or otherwise removed from service.
Figure as long as there's sufficient cheap oil available from land, wiser to go after it wherever it is, before the higher-risk water drilling.
Figure that one of the environmentalists' game plans is to increase the cost of conventional fuels through emissions limits and point-of-acquisition availabilities to a pricing level where non-traditional fuels become cost-competitive. End result - higher energy prices whichever fuel is used.
IIRC (it's been 15 years), the prime driver for diesel cars in Europe at that time dealt with the difference in taxes between fuels. Interesting at the time, they were just coming out with 'green' gas - our unleaded, which had been out for 20 years. Had a Renault up to 227 km/h on the A1 Motorway in France - so the diesels were certainly no slackers. Trains were certainly no slackers either - had one blow by me after I had slowed to a leisurely 140 km/h.
Ahhh, people who lead by example, instead of by hook-and-crook. What a concept! :-)
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 11:28 AM
We have one source far more plentiful than oil...Hydrogen. Besides, what helps make uop hydrocarbons?
Yes, I know the arguments, too expensive, cost of mass production, and one and on and on with more excuses.
We need a leader as JFK was with the space program and going to the moon.
Let us set a national goal to achieve hydrogen fuel development, production and distribution in 10 years and then do it!
We have stupidly spent billions achieving what? Bailouts? Consider what we can achieve with hydrogen fuel production. Hydrogen available locally, No more money flowing out to mid east tyrants or elsewhere. Hydrog4n would solve several problems.
Yeah I know, Al Bore would only dream up some excuse to tax it and put big bucks in his pocket. With hydrogen, we can tell AL to butt out and take a flying leap off the Emerson Bridge (or any other that's handy).
The money stays home in the USA, and we have independence from foreign sources.
At least think about it.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 11:47 AM
Rick: I'm going to play Wiffle here. Do you have a link to that last paragragh you posted?
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:46 AM
Snopes says President Obama did not say those words and that it is "fictional dialogue" from John Semmens. Also, President Obama never proposed that the military pay for their own injuries. Here's the link:
-- Posted by concerned4all on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 11:54 AM
Heh, Snopes says its 'Mostly False', a satirical rendition base on some of silly notions Obama's administration really did consider. They are so silly.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 12:50 PM
concerned4all: Thanks for the info. I can't imagine I would not have heard of that statement over and over.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 12:55 PM
I'm going to emulate Obama, I am going to figure out who's Arse to kick come November.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 1:10 PM
blogbudsman - I would imagine that all sorts of ideas are thrown out there, but the fact remains, President Obama didn't say those things or call to action those ideas.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 1:14 PM
Wheels - really so you are changing your tune? Nope - same old news (day-after-day)!
-- Posted by concerned4all on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 1:17 PM
Blog,
I asked because you seem so proud (your posted link) of Palin's endorsements. You are correct, ...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 1:58 PM
Thank you Theo, your support is greatly appreciated.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 3:06 PM
blogbudsman - I would imagine that all sorts of ideas are thrown out there, but the fact remains, President Obama didn't say those things or call to action those ideas.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 1:14 PM
Given the ineptness and audacity of what they do say and the actions they do implement - can you even imagine what their bad ideas are like? No wonder satire has erupted. The political fringes are equally appalled. Strange bedfellows indeed.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM
Hmmm, that's odd - nowhere near a full moon.
-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 6:48 PM
Now Rick, you know I was just correcting an incorrect statement/so-called quote. I'd do the same for you.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 6:58 PM
Yep Rick, they are still out!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 7:03 PM
Only the Grade A Certifiable lunatics "OWs" wait for the full moon. The also rans and wannabes try it anytime, anywhere but just can't make it to the first rung.
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 11:39 PM
Blog...we agree on so little, ...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 8:31 PM
I'd be pretty confident that's not true. :)
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 4:45 AM
Day 56
-- Posted by *Rick* on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 9:10 PM
And the beat goes on.
-- Posted by WHY NOT on Mon, Jun 14, 2010, at 10:02 PM
------
An unforseen industrial accident causes the death of workers, economic damage to 100's of thousands of Americans, and untold environmental impact to the Gulf and it's shorelines...
And these characters are happy about it. Another example of really good, patriotic citizens.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 7:19 AM
And these characters are happy about it. Another example of really good, patriotic citizens.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 7:19 AM
It's not so much that the Obama administration is happy about it, just that they see it as another crisis to take advantage of. Although they are incompetent managers of our country's business, they are very accomplished politicians. Why do you think international energy companies and global financial institutions donate so much to their political campaigns?
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 7:59 AM
blog: You missed commonsense's point. The people he/she are talking about are you right wing posters. You see catastrophies as a way for your folks to gain political advantage. Your mantra is becoming "never let a good crisis go to waste".
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 9:18 AM
Howdydoody,
That differs from the left's response to Hurricane Katrina how?
"Never let a crisis go to waste" is attributed to Rahm Emmanuel, hardly a right-winger he...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 9:25 AM
Howdy,
I believe that term comes fromthe present administration. Why does it bother you when you see someone else mention it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 9:26 AM
blog: You missed commonsense's point.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 9:18 AM
No, commonsense didn't have a point. But I did.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 9:29 AM
The title of this thread is Correcting our Mistake.... America's mistake is in the White House, now how do we correct that?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 10:27 AM
Have_Wheels wrote:
"The title of this thread is Correcting our Mistake.... America's mistake is in the White House, now how do we correct that?"
We strip him of a majority in November, and strip him of office in 2012...
Without a majority, he will have to negotiate and compromise, or be rendered effectively powerless. We did this with President Clinton in 1992, and the effect was generally good. But then, President Clinton was pragmatic, and could tell which way the winds were blowing. I believe Mr. Obama is too busy creating wind to look at the weathervane...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 10:33 AM
Shapley,
Are you thinking that would give Obama the bipartisonship he was calling for during the campaign? ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:03 AM
Have_Wheels,
Of course! We're told he has the ability to 'reach across the aisle'. This will force him to do so...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:07 AM
This will force him to do so...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:07 AM
Shapley,
That is kind of harsh. Didn't you mean, that will give him the opportunity to reach accross the isle? ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:17 AM
It has taken Congress less that two years to trash Obama's presidency; a marked improvement over the six years it took the media and shreeking Democrats to tarnish Bush's. Not having to be 'for it' before they were 'against it' probably accelerated the process. Now the Republicans are faced with the opportunity to perform their magic in four years as opposed to eight. Will we ever learn? Can we?
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:29 AM
"Im' a uniter, not a divider" GWB Your are assuming if GOP gains enough seats they can unite BHO like Ted Kenedy united GW with the education bill. I dont think that will happen. The agenda will stay the same unless Obama leaves, [may slow somewhat] and then you always have the possibity of a republican president eager to please all of the people all of the time.
I think it would take a large majority of real conservatives in congress and a conservative president to make a big turn around in our longterm direction toward a socialist fascist government that falls doom to total dictatorial control.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:35 AM
Have_Wheels wrote:
That is kind of harsh. Didn't you mean, that will give him the opportunity to reach accross the isle? ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Quod Scripsi, Scripsi.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:36 AM
Quod Assumpsi, Assumpsi is the degree by which assumed information about unclaimed territories with no direct importance to anyone's work is protected. This principle works hand in hand with Quod Scripsi, Scripsi, but is used more frequently as the Yin to QSS's Yang. The difference: QSS-protected data can be changed only in rare cases by the consensus of the entire group, while in the case of QAA changes can be made easier, especially when a country gets a "real" caretaker.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:52 AM
Back up your words Man/Woman!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:51 AM
I'm man enough to wear pink, my dear.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:52 AM
Got to check with Old John on that one. (Meaning... I don't have a SA answer.) ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:56 AM
... and Theo, you can't separate the issues from the people. This is human governance. We elect people to deliberate with other people to somehow represent all the people. No one likes to watch sausage being made, but the results can be delicious. How about saying it starts with me and you. Let's debate.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 11:56 AM
Theorist, I try to post something like that now and then just to fit in with those less fortunate
by not having my oustanding intellict and spelling
abilitys.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 12:25 PM
Old John,
The libs still think Socialism works. They cannot see or understand what is going on around the globe. You would have thought Greece would have been an eye opener.
But sheep follow their liberal leaders blindly.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 1:03 PM
Yeah, sure thing there, Ike. And just how do you anticipate the Dimocrats will rebrand themselves after next November, huh Ike? That is, what's left of them.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 1:08 PM
Wheels, Spaniard cuts to crust of the matter somewhat in that so many jump in and present themselves as conservative, then when in office vote the Joanne Emerson way. Sitting on the oposite side of liberals in congress does not a true consevative make.
It is easy to spot a liberal in liberal clothing. Not so easy to spot a liberal in conserative clothing.
I fear the Tea we drink will have a little kool ade in it at election time.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 1:12 PM
Actually Spaniard ain't too far off. The electorate's sentiment for all elected officials is rightfully (or leftfully) low. Republicans better find conservatism in a hurry. Heck, Democrats better find moderate conservatism in a hurry. Trashing the tea party is fair game, but ignoring them is suicidal. Keep swinging Ike, if we're not up to the argument and let you win, shame on us.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 1:14 PM
Old John, my man. Well said.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 1:15 PM
Spaniard,
Given the current state of affairs, the Republicans don't have to change much to rebrand themselves. Compared to Mr. Obama and the Congress of Ms. Pelosi, even the free-spending President Bush looks outright frugal.
The Democrats campaigned in 2006 against a deficit of what...$460 billion? That was the FY2004 deficit, which was on its way down until the Democrats won Congress. And what has the deficit picture looked like since Ms. Pelosi has had control?
It wouldn't take much of a recast to make Republicans look fiscally responsible. Hell, even a $460 billion deficit looks refreshing in the face of what we're facing today.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 2:01 PM
Politics is like driving: If you want to go in reverse, put it in "R" and if you want to go forward, put it in "D".
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 2:07 PM
Howdy,
In the 5th grade I learned that FORD means Fix or Repair Daily.
The 5th grade is where that asinine comment you made belongs.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 2:50 PM
Yes the Republican Party has a problem with running as conservative and then trying to break the bank when they get elected. Same with the Democrats, they try to run as centerist and then go
Socialist on us when they get elected. Obama is the most current example.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 2:53 PM
IF we can go backward to the days when the federal government limited itself to those things it was constitutionally empowered to do, the States limited themselves to do only those things they were empowered to do, then I would vote to put us into reverse all the way back to that point.
As it, seeing as we're pointed towards the edge of a sheer cliff, methinks shifting into R is the best choice.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 3:00 PM
Your mantra is becoming "never let a good crisis go to waste". -- Posted by howdydoody
No, no ... That's a politician's mantra! Probably upsets them that so many people may have caught onto that concept.
... We're told he has the ability to 'reach across the aisle'. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter
Reaching across the aisle? Wasn't that a Once Upon a Time Fairy Tale which seems to be revived in every major campaign any more? Hmm ... makes one suspect that politicians view that as something many people want ... so how come the Fairy Tale goes back into the archives after each election?
... if you want to go forward, put it in "D". -- Posted by howdydoody
Going 'forward' isn't necessarily all good, howdy ... Just as going in 'reverse' isn't necessarily all bad. Putting your foot on the accelerator and zooming forward into a tar pit might not be the best idea ... reversing into less government control/interference might not be the worst idea?
Seeing that Shapley, as usual, stated that very, very well. My problem is trying to comprehend why some people just can't use enough logic or common sense to see some of those very obvious things. Is it that their party-leanings (no particular party targeted) just get so much in the way of actually using their mental abilities?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 4:00 PM
Hey Wheels: Got a burr under your saddle...he he
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 4:59 PM
Hey Wheels: Got a burr under your saddle...he he
-- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 4:59 PM
Naw Howdy.... just hate it when adults act like children.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 8:33 PM
Spaniard wrote:
"I don't recall Bush vetoing any of Ms Pelosi's budgets."
I didn't say he did. I even called him 'free-spending'. However, surely you recognize that Ms. Pelosi has held the purse strings since FY2008, and that the deficit has risen markedly ever since. I'm sure you know, even if you won't admit, that the deficit was declining from the FY2004 peak of $460 billion up until Ms. Pelosi took hold of said strings.
Mr. Bush was no spendthrift, but compared to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Obama, he was downright frugal.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 8:47 PM
Just love the word "penurious" which connotates being downright stingy and a penny pinching tightwad as opposed to a frugal which may imply possessing a saving and careful management nature.
Penurious is something Ms. Pelosi and Company need never be concerned being accused of being.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, Jun 15, 2010, at 10:28 PM
Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Jun 16, 2010, at 6:17 AM
Well caddy, if I include you with 99 of the folks I interact with daily we'd have to report that 1% of Americans still hold on to a sliver of Hope that Obama's handlers really didn't completely hoodwink the snot out of everyone, stomp on their hearts, crush their souls and completely fail a trusting American public that changed the history of our country believing what he told us and elect him president. Something along those lines. Fool me once...
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Jun 16, 2010, at 10:40 AM
In the squares of the city, in the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office, I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me? - Woodie Guthrie
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 5:29 AM
I like Poles that support my position. Are positions supported by poles? Do you mean some polls shouldn't be touched with a 10 foot pole? cadillacman and Spaniard - strange bedfellows. Does that make me a uniter? So two of you two don't believe in polls at all? Zip?
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM
... a little mystery to figure out. :)
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 11:35 AM
nope , i ain't worse off but my kids and their kids are ...
how many "give the man a chance" does he get ?
-- Posted by *Rick* on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 11:28 AM
I think you, like most of us who are tryint to look into the future are pretty much in the same boat... we are just waiting for the "gotcha" to "getcha".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 11:44 AM
Cadillac, Did you entice Vandeven into your back yard with something good to eat and keep him there? We haven't heard anything from him for a while. I bet he brought the fixings and you all did'nt invite me again!
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jun 17, 2010, at 3:44 PM
Menu
"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/White_House_official_Organized_labor...
Some of Sarah Palin's riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38302.html
The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608
Replies (102)