American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442455]Dickhead, just answer the question without all the BS. Do you take issue with the MIT prof's statements as presented in the videos or not?

I know Reid, Polesi and Obama are going "Gurber Who", but the White House logs and their prior statements of all three preserved on video tell another story.[/QUOTE]It isn't actually an issue that interests me so I haven't read anything about it, and I never watch videos. Charles What's His Name is a brilliant guy but his brain has been warped by Zionism so I don't pay a lot of attention to him. Sorry.

The Keystone Pipeline crowd just took a hit yesterday as the Senate Republicans failed to override a Democrat filibuster by one vote 59-41. The bill is dead for the year, to be taken up again next year when there will be 8 new Republican senators on board for the oil people.

The pipeline is supposed to run thru 6 states down to the gulf refineries. This will be sand tar oil from Canada, the dirtiest oil in the world. Then it will be sent thru the US to waiting tankers to be shipped to foreign lands. So whose the flunkies in all this, the American people.

The oil company executives have said over and over they cant guarantee how much of this oil will be for US consumption. My question is this: why not. If they could say that say 75% would be used for US consumption it might go over better with the US population.

Another issue is this: the estimation of how many permanent jobs it will create to maintain the line has been way overblown and it turns out it wont create that many jobs at all. Last nite on MSNBC they sited some sources saying it will only create 35 permanent jobs. Say what???

Thanks.

Bayboy.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442447]My community voted to ban fracking and that was ruled to be an "illegal taking" of the property owners' right to frack. My question is, doesn't any zoning restriction constitute a taking of property owners' rights to some extent? And if so, how is this any different? It tends to piss off the citizenry when they vote against something and then big business just does it anyway while government sits idly by.

For the record, I have stated several times that I don't understand fracking and don't know if it's good or bad, and this vote happened before I moved here, but I just don't see the difference between voting to ban fracking and voting to ban say a sale barn or something else the citizenry finds obnoxious or inappropriate for a certain locale. Why is one "zoning" and the other "constitutes an illegal taking"?[/QUOTE]Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?

Just curious, or is your concern selective.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442463]Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?Just curious, or is your concern selective.[/quote]Well, not the same courts. This was our state court and our state has gay marriage although the AG did attempt to block its implementation. Gay marriage is another issue I am not interested in and don't follow. I don't think marriage, gay or straight, has any social relevance at this point, so that means it's just relevant to things like taxes and benefits and inheritance and such. If the question is, do I think states have the right to ban gay marriage, the answer is I don't know or care and haven't thought about it. So, that means I can't answer to whether, if they do ban it, that it's right for a judge to overturn it. I personally am a federalist and find having 50 different states with different rules rather annoying. So in general I am not much for states' rights. The issue should probably be unequivocally decided at the federal level and I don't care at all what they would decide.

On the gay marriage thing, my last observation would be that 100 years ago it was a big deal if two people of different "races" got married, and now it's not. 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable and now it's reality, and my guess is that in 50 more years it won't be a big deal. Basically, I think if someone does not believe in gay marriage, they should not marry a gay person and otherwise they should shut the fuck up.

As I stated, I have no opinion on fracking and so the decision did not concern me. I just think if banning fracking is a taking, then banning junkyards is a taking. That's unless I am missing some key difference rather than some arcane and politically fraught difference.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442464][QUOTE=Doppelganger;442463]Since you are so concerned about a vote by the people to stop fracking has been overturned by a count, so how do you feel about entire states voting to not recognize gay marriage being overruled by those same courts?Just curious, or is your concern selective.[/quote]Well, not the same courts. This was our state court and our state has gay marriage although the AG did attempt to block its implementation. Gay marriage is another issue I am not interested in and don't follow. I don't think marriage, gay or straight, has any social relevance at this point, so that means it's just relevant to things like taxes and benefits and inheritance and such. If the question is, do I think states have the right to ban gay marriage, the answer is I don't know or care and haven't thought about it. So, that means I can't answer to whether, if they do ban it, that it's right for a judge to overturn it. I personally am a federalist and find having 50 different states with different rules rather annoying. So in general I am not much for states' rights. The issue should probably be unequivocally decided at the federal level and I don't care at all what they would decide.

On the gay marriage thing, my last observation would be that 100 years ago it was a big deal if two people of different "races" got married, and now it's not. 50 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable and now it's reality, and my guess is that in 50 more years it won't be a big deal. Basically, I think if someone does not believe in gay marriage, they should not marry a gay person and otherwise they should shut the fuck up.

As I stated, I have no opinion on fracking and so the decision did not concern me. I just think if banning fracking is a taking, then banning junkyards is a taking. That's unless I am missing some key difference rather than some arcane and politically fraught difference.[/QUOTE]Then I guess we can agree that people are not interested in an issue and don't follow it should shut the fuck up when it comes to comments.

I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. I'm not interested in telling people what gender their bed partners should be.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442468]I'm interested in the issue I commented on, which is whether zoning regulations are illegal takings similar to fracking bans. [/QUOTE]You're not asking the right question. Fracking occurs underground, and I'm very skeptical that it causes environmental damage. I don't think it should be an issue. The question you should be asking is whether drilling an oil or gas well in someone's backyard is an illegal taking. The criticism directed towards fracking should actually be leveled towards faulty cement jobs or problems with the plumbing and surface footprint associated with wells.

Part of the answer to your quesetion would involve timing. If I own a house, and then some commercial development company comes in and gets government to re-zone an area and to force me to sell, then I think that could be an illegal taking. That may be similar to the situation you describe. The oil company has already paid money for the oil and gas leases, paid money for geological and seismic work, and then is deprived of that asset by a ban instituted after the leases were obtained.

I can see both sides to banning drilling in populated areas in Colorado. Banning it in rural areas is stupid, especially where the production is primarily natural gas. Anyone who believes global warming is real and who wants to ban fracking to produce natural gas is indeed an environmental nut job. Natural gas has done much, much more to reduce carbon emissions in the USA than any renewable energy source. Natural gas displaces coal for electricity generation, and coal emits much more CO2 per BTU than natural gas.

[URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/[/URL]

It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.

There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.

ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.

And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.

There is no movement to ban fracking in the rural areas. Rednecks love fracking for whatever reason. It's the cities on the Front Range that want to ban it, or in my case, the county. Actually it was a moratorium and not a ban. I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.

One thing I was looking at recently was how the factory capacity utilization ratio still has not gotten back to historical norms. I think if capacity were tighter there might be more incentive to look for alternative energy sources, and for innovation in general. Now, of course, with gasoline prices sinking like an Italian cruise ship, there will be less incentive in the short run. The energy industry has repeated quite a few of its mistakes and if oil prices stay low for any length of time, some of the latest investments in the shale side of it might not work out. There are still several ghost towns in CO and WY from the last shale bust. Of course, there are rusty derricks all over TX and OK, etc., from conventional drilling's inevitable cycles so why should shale be any different?

But nobody's answering my question: What the fuck is so special about fracking? My community can decide it does not want massage parlors or e-cigarettes or angle parking or buildings over X feet high or almost anything else. So why can't they ban fracking if that's the community's desire? The one thing I came up with is that zoning changes often grandfather in existing uses, for the reasons Tiny mentions, but apparently we can't even ban it for newly purchased land. So, to me, it just looks like special treatment for the energy industry.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442471]I've never lived anywhere that I knew of that used coal to generate power and I know I'm supposed to shut the fuck up about stuff I don't know anything about but coal just seems icky to me. [/QUOTE]I'd be very surprised if you never lived in a place that used at least some electricity generated from coal, considering about 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were.

Coal 39%.

Natural Gas 27%.

Nuclear 19%.

Hydropower 7%.

Other Renewable 6%.

Biomass 1.48%.

Geothermal 0.41%.

Solar 0.23%.

Wind 4.13%.

Petroleum 1%.

Other Gases < 1%.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442471]Natural gas I like, although natural gas heating is not the best thing in the world for you. You're always going to have environmental issues in extractive industries, so my thinking is to minimize the need for and use of extracted products. I don't look for it to happen overnight.[/QUOTE]I also like gas, but what's wrong with heating with gas? Gas is used safely for cooking, hot water, and heating in a huge number of American homes.

I don't have a thing against alternative energy sources when they become economically feasible, but they are not without problems of their own. I don't think you'll see fossil fuel energy go away in our lifetimes.

I dunno bro. Maybe. I grew up with heating oil. It could be that CO was using coal fired plants in the 70s and 80s. I did know it was still the largest single source. On (forced air) natural gas heating, it's not good for your skin and your sinuses (your hair too according to my lady friends, but I haven't actually noticed that) and if you don't clean the ducts regularly some people can get respiratory issues. That is probably more of an issue in the dry climates I've lived in than maybe where y'all are from. I'm not saying it's unsafe, just not as healthy as say radiant hot water heating. My favorite kind of heating is those tubes under the floor, similar to what they use for driveways in some places. Quieter too. I spent a summer in college putting those things in, hard fucking work too. I guess it might be the case with natural gas, in some locations, that the ultimate consumer might not know how the gas they are using is generated? Don't the utilities kinda buy that shit from wherever?

Let's shoot for a modest goal. I believe that in 20 years less than half the private cars will use fossil fuels and virtually none of the public transit. And the mileage of the remaining fossil fuel cars will be say 75 or 80 MPG. We can do that, right? I also think there is a lot of potential energy savings to be had in these apps where you can control your thermostat from your cell phone. Shit, I live in a three year old townhome and it doesn't even have a programmable thermostat (not that my friend who owns it would be able to figure out how to use one if we had one, but still). Seems like that should be a requirement for all new construction.

[QUOTE=RevBS;442470][URL]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/4/[/URL]

It's a big read. Hope you can handle it. Why Gruber is a side-show.

There are people who can't get over the ACA being passed and how it was passed. They claimed that they should have been consulted, wined and dined(no leadership) to have their views presented. And then, they would have no complaints if a health reform bill with universal care had been passed. Bi-partisanship, yeah right. These are the same people who would have opposed the Civil Rights Act had they been there in 2004.

ACA was the legacy that Obama wanted to hang his hat on. Do or Die. Mission accomplished. Even at the expense of Immigration Reform, although he will attempt to do something about it as he lame-duck to 2016. The Latinos are about to stone Obama, but wait, they must. It will be the Democrat's baby for 2016. Republicans can self-immolate on this issue, but it's their choice.

And sure, ACA is full of holes, but it is a beach-head secured. And if you are one of those soldiers that Obama sacrificed and left to die, I salute you. For you, Arlington awaits.[/QUOTE]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?

[QUOTE=Jackson;442477]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?[/QUOTE]The "means" were that the ACA was passed by majority vote in both chambers of the US Congress, signed into law by the sitting US President and later declared Constitutional by the SCOTUS. The "end" is that the USA finally offers affordable healthcare to all its citizens and becomes the last member of the civilized world to do so.

Get over it!

The people can have health care.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442477]So, in your opinion, the end does in fact justify the means?[/QUOTE]

Regardless of what the means were, I don't think the merits of the ACA can be judged for many years, perhaps as long as an entire generation. My guess is that one of its biggest benefits will turn out to be the encouragement of entrepreneurship and small business incubation, by freeing creative talent from dependence on employers due to their dependence on employer health insurance. Possibly maybe perhaps some of the silly math I've pointed out will be partially somewhat corrected, maybe. Rates went down in much of my state due to new entrants to the marketplace, so I think the existence of the government subsidies is attracting more competition. Note the difference between the subsidy being given to the consumer, creating demand and competition, rather than to the provider, which would stifle competition. So I think they got that part of it right.

But it will be hard to put a dollar value on a healthier population, if one indeed does result. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the increased freedom of movement that labor will have, but it should increase efficiency in the long run. It will be hard to put a dollar value on the social benefits of fewer unwanted babies. Another result I predict is that personal bankruptcies will drop substantially, and you [B]really[/B] can't put a dollar value on putting a bunch of lawyers out of work.