Dear Right...

[Cannon Shell]

The reality behind "cap and trade" and who is really hurts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I read this earlier.

I anticipate that readers will attack the source rather than acknowledge the damage that this program will cause.

Most dont even bother actually reading the links because as liberals they are just intellectually superior to the rest of us.

The great part about the demise of newspapers is that the WSJ is very well positioned and will survive as the liberal rags go down the drain. Truthfully the WSJ is far too complicated for most liberals.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Most dont even bother actually reading the links because as liberals they are just intellectually superior to the rest of us.

The great part about the demise of newspapers is that the WSJ is very well positioned and will survive as the liberal rags go down the drain. Truthfully the WSJ is far too complicated for most liberals.

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

Just dropping by....nuclear power and desalinization plants are the way to go for the future,imho. This is forward planning....

[Riot]

Obama vowed to go line by line through the budget, and would not except wasteful earmarks. that was during the campaign. now he says he will sign this current budget that contains 9000 earmarks because "we need to move forward"

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)

during the campaign he made a huge deal how he would not hire lobbyists and that he would have none in his Whitehouse. the fact is at last count he has made 19 exceptions to this ironclad promise.

Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.

the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is the one the Petraeus outlined some time back under Bush. Obama has added nothing to this matter other than make a big press conference and announce it pubicly and take credit for keeping his campaign pledge, which he didn't. he did at one point advocate a much faster timetable.

What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?

he made a big deal recently announcing that he was redirecting a particular strike force, that had been training for missions in Iraq for months, to Afghanistan. this was supposedly another campaign promise kept, to pull out of Iraq and re-focus on Afghanistan.

He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)



Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.



What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?



He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

I said that Obama has said things that have turned out to be not true or he reversed course on. This is true regardless of the reasoning.

Obama is nothing but a liberal politican trying to enact a sweeping social agenda and using the politcal cover of economic problems to cover his tracks. That should make him the target of scorn and ridicule for putting his ideology over the best interests of the country. Some of arent fooled by press conference quotes and PR. The proof is in the pudding and his pudding tastes like ****.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

Is this the hill you think he should die on at this time? There is a worldwide financial crisis, threat of depression (if we are not there already) and two wars going on, and I think those more important to his attention at this time (to any President's attention, be it GOP or Dem). Should everything be called to a halt to line-item less than 2% of spending? This budget is only going to get us through September 2009 anyway. All earmarks do not equal pork, nor waste. How much of the 9000 earmarks are truely waste? (I have no idea) The GOP is responsible for 40% of the 7.7 billion in earmarks in this budget, the Dems 60%, and this 7.7 is less than 2% of the spending.

I'm willing to wait and see how Obama handles the next budget. The first real budget that will be within his scope as President (this one was created before he was elected)



Obama has the strictist ethics requirements ever. Period. He gets credit for that. The campaign promise was NOT that he would not hire lobbyists. It is a bit more complicated than that (former lobbyists can do no lobbying while working for the administration, nor have association with the groups they formerly lobbied, etc). I know of two exceptions to those rules (in defense and health) - the only justification is that both candidates are supported strongly for their experience and skill by both GOP and Dem.



What was the campaign pledge you are holding him to breaking? The faster timetable? Is he allowed to adjust based upon information he is allowed to gain only after he is President, or not?



He is pulling out of Iraq and refocusing on Afghanistan. You are basing a "failure" on one unit? Let's look at all the units, and all the deployments.

Cannon said, "Do I have to make a list of things Obama or any other politician has said that they either have done a 180 degree reversal on or were simply not true? His ACTIONS speak louder than his words"

I don't see a complete lie or failure in the least. I see a very intelligent man trying very hard, in very difficult times, to adhere to and implement the course and idealogy he promised.

I am not very liberal, have always been GOP, but voted for Obama and am darn glad he's President versus McCain and Caribou Barbie. Do I support everything Obama wanted to do? Nope. Do I support the entire Democratic platform? Not in the least. I find a few planks downright scary. Did I figure, when I voted, that Obama wouldn't be able to do some of his campaign promises over his eight years for this reason or that? Yup. Like all the other Presidents I've voted for. Do I hold every candidate to every single campaign promise if elected? No. Things change. Do I want Obama to fail? Of course not - that would be stupid and ridiculous for my country. Our country is in too big a mess to put partisan politics before country. I want Obama to succeed. Greatly and impressively and repeatedly.

I find Limbaugh-like partisan nitpicking, a couple months into Obama's Presidency, the obvious Obama-hate, outside of discussion of these terrifying and major issues we have, and discussion of possible various solutions, to be narrow-minded anti-country idiocy.

I have lived through several Presidents I haven't voted for. The election of two of them was downright scary to me. One supports the country, and the President, and goes forward.

this is all so laughable, like our president. are you receiving your daily DNC talking points?

Obama has taken a bad situation and is making it much worse.
I would be only laughing at the situation if it we weren't so close to financial collapse.

btw, here is another laugh, regarding this most ethical of administrations. they claimed paying taxes was patriotic. we find ourselves with an economic disaster. they claim to know what to do because they will put their big brains on the case. only one problem, the department we need up and running right now to fight this war is the treasury. the treasury is off to a sputtering start because its run by a tax cheating incompetent, and surprise surprise, they're not staffed yet because they can't find people without tax issues!!! you can't make this stuff up. they have to outsource some of the trade missions now to the State department because Geithner is swamped.

one more guffaw for tonight. this bestest most smartest president in history yesterday said he wanted to reach out to Taliban moderates. WTF is he smoking? yeah how about reaching out to moderate maniacs, and moderate muderers while we're at it.

i guess if appearing weak and stupid on the world stage (hit the reset button with Russia?), while tripling the deficit and plunging headlong into a depression, while trying to erect a utopian socialist society is partisan nit-picking, then yes I'm guilty as charged.

fyi- I don't like nascar and I'm not religious. I saw your stereotypes yesterday.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cardus or Cannon, have you guys ever been called liberal?

The article:

Eventually we are goint to have to get off the carbon atom.
Its just a matter of time. Nuclear power is the first viable
alternative. If France produces 70-80% of their power using Nuclear why cant we?We produce more wind power in Texas than we
can actually deliver so our two coal plants in San Antonio
keep pumping along. And yes they cause bad air alerts,
something that we never use to get. Asthmatics and
allery sufferers have elevated effects with more crap
in the air. The Carbon atom comes with other elements
hanging off of it, even in the very cleanest coal and the
sweetest crude. And it gets in the air. No one denies this.
(I wont even get into the issue of greenhouse gases
as this is still debatable
as to how much effect humans have on climate.)

I dont know if its the right time, or the right way to do it,
but its pretty clear Obama wants us off the carbon atom.
This article is obviously much more specific than what
I am giving you. Ill-conceived taxes, promises broken,
etc...

As an aside we have had two kids die at our school due
to asthma attacks. There is no PE on air alert days as
both occurred on these days. We have (in this city)
many more breathing related problems that we ever
have after we put up additional turbines and Braunig
and Calaveras Lakes (our coal plants).

The article presents this carbon tax is the wrong way to do it.
Fine. It does make sense.The alternative is...
because we gotta get off
the carbon atom. We have to.

im working on two in texas right now..the windmills are an eyesore and it takes
81 of them to = 1 small coal fired or steam turbine

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

im working on two in texas right now..the windmills are an eyesore and it takes
81 of them to = 1 small coal fired or steam turbine

And coal plants are beautiful?

81 of them. That is much better than I thought.
So you were told they are producing more energy than
we can carry via wire, eh? ANd What the heck are you
doing there birthday boy? Out in beautiful West Texas?
Or are you in the middle/up to panhandle area?

[Riot]

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

And you agree that now is the time to start this process?

I mean before you said Obama was too busy with his job to do his job (you know actually read the budget and eliminate those pesky earmarks that he said he was going to)

But he isnt too busy to try to start projects that put a financial strain on the people of the country with no actual tangible benefits?

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

Actually the studies show the "kill" rate for the WT Farm is far far less than Auto strikes. It's all part of the enviromental impact study....

Originally Posted by Riot

Wind farms have some of their own serious concerns regarding environmental impact (birds, bats, etc). Yes, I find them ugly, btw.

I agree, we need far less coal dependency. And the end result of nuclear power is steam.

The bats and birds, shifting wind patterns are minor imo compared to coal.