American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.

How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL!). Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!

Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!

Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".

Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann]Esten, I just don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief! LOL! Your last rebuttal post can simply be put as a total "liberal denial" of current events in the USA! I cannot even begin to comment on your arguement as it is so out of touch with what is going on here stateside it absolutely cracks me up. Do you even live here? Inquiring minds want to know. LOL.

How many polls, liberal senate resignations, recent election results do you need to just "SHUT THE F$CK UP! I suggest you stop this crazy retoric and just have the last laugh in Novemeber (NOT HAPPENING! LOL! Your boy in Nevada gets the boot next week. I am sure you already have this rationalized as a "Bush" conspiracy. I am guessing you live in San Fransisco or some other crazy out-of-touch place like Chicago or Seattle! LOL!

Read the poll results and make an intelligent arguement please. Your boy Obomination was elected by a couple points based on the independent vote here stateside. Not only are the independents banging their heads on the bed poste in disgust right now with regret but the liberal "red dogs" are in theraphy as we speak. In case you are not paying attention, Obomination will go down as a worse President than Carter, and it hasn't even been two full years yet! LOL! God it's good to be #1!

Gosh, what is the color of the sky in your world. I suggest you start sharing PM's with EasyGo in Seattle and stop polluting this thread with utter and total nonsense supported by your rabid support of a "failed leader".

Pack up your tent and head to Canada buddy. You won't be viewed as a total idiot there. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Sounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Sounds like you are really "stoked" already. Cut down the viagra / cialis intake to recommended levels.[/QUOTE]Too funny blackshirt. Good one. Monger On Dude. Toymann.

Ps. This thread could stand a bit more levity!

Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.... :)

[QUOTE=Esten]Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)[/QUOTE]Esten would need also need to:

- export his prius (purchased in part with cash for clunkers dough that he got for ditching his 1972 Volvo - although he was able to save the greenpeace and Dukakis '88 stickers)

- find a new home in a country where compact fluorescent bulbs (despite being laden with mercury, a toxic element being eliminated from as many products as possible - except compact fluorescent bulbs)

- Chose a place with excellent free health care, extensive well fare, strict workplace regulation, income redistribution and all the other trappings of a leftist-marxist utopia.

On second thought, Esten should stay right where he is.

[QUOTE=Esten]Toymann, yes I do live in the US. I would leave the country like you suggested, but my welfare check won't cover my moving expenses.:)[/QUOTE]Just when I thought I had seen it all. Good one Esten. Monger on Dude. Toymann

There's been some discussion on whether Obama is showing enough emotion on the BP story (which seems a little superficial to me) but this segment by Stephen Colbert was too funny. BP CEO "Tony Hayward" comes on the show in the second half of the video.

Colbert Shows Obama Real Anger At BP By Beating Up A Tony Hayward Impersonator.

[url]http://vodpod.com/watch/3790718-colbert-shows-obama-real-anger-at-bp-by-beating-up-a-tony-hayward-impersonator[/url]

The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.

It does not take an Einstein level intelligence to know that the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.

Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.

It does not take an Einstein level intelligence to know that the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.

Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]They don't call Afghanistan the graveyard of Empires for nothing. The British Empire tasted defeat there in the XIX century also.

Thanks,

Whiskas

Many of the challenges that thwarted earlier conquests are not as relevant in the current conflict as they have been in the past. There are new, different challenges and there are some age-old difficulties.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.[/QUOTE]Some of the age-old complexities include corruption, lack of infrastructure, both structural and economic. The confluence of rampant corruption and insufficient economic infrastructure manifests itself in the forms of crippling graft and enormous security exposure. Afghanistan is rife with corruption beginning with Karzai and his brothers and going throughout the government, security forces and contractors. Karzai is a tribal war lord and at least two of his six brothers (Mahmoud and Ahmed Wali) have been amassing huge wealth in this impoverished country during their brother's rule. Karzai was originally selected by tribal chieftains (Bonn 2001) and has been in power since. He was 'democratically' reelected in 2009 where he was unopposed in a runoff (opponent withdrew from the race)

The lack of commercial infrastructure is particularly evident in the transportation industry where there are not traditional means of distribution (I. E. Independent trucking, rail and other freight solutions) Much of the national distribution and shipping is handled by the Taliban. Therefore, Karzai depends on the Taliban in order to continue enriching himself and amassing power. So our ally is in bed with our enemy and our efforts to increase commerce for the benefit of the people are empowering our enemy. All of this is suboptimal, if victory is the desired outcome.

[quote=]the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.[/QUOTE]I agree and I disagree. If it was doomed from the start it is attributable to challenges not faced by those other empires you mention rather it is due to our leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion.

If it is doomed today, it is due to a lack of leadership, moral clarity and creativity (to find a solution that fits with the above-mentioned dilemma) within the executive branch.

If it is doomed tomorrow, the blame lies with the American people because they have not demanded better candidates for elective office and they have not held our elected officials to a high enough standard.

[quote=]Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.[/QUOTE]That adage about the govt coming to help always makes me laugh, although it is getting to the point where the little kernel of truth in it that makes it funny is becoming the totality of it and therefore makes it less funny. Unfortunately, the American people elected an unqualified inexperienced 'thinker' to hold the most important office. In this case, we have much less knowledge and experience in the man leading the war than any of the other empires you mentioned.

We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.

Obama's speech from the Oval Office last night was roundly denounced by both Democrats and Republicans – well with the exception of Harry Reid but for a guy who couldn't win dog catcher in his home state what has he got to lose at this point.

Instead of talking about how he will fix the Gulf problem the first 18 minutes of his speech was a prelude to his new pitch for Cap & Tax. Even the Democrats acknowledged it was the wrong speech at the wrong time. Obama doesn't have a clue about leadership – just how to campaign and it's not getting him anywhere with the public as his popularity hits new lows and Bush is given better marks for handling a crisis than Obama. Wow!

Obama touted how he will force BP to fund an account which will be administered by a "third party" to pay for the spill damage. Even his own legal experts (now I'm not counting Gibbs or Holder here) admit there is no basis in law for him to force BP to do what he proposes. From a PR standpoint BP may setup a separate fund to cover payment of damages but how and who administers it will not be up to Obama nor will BP need his approval to do so.

During his speech Obama was touting his new group of advisers – the head of which expertise is in super conductors – which the last time I checked didn't have a whole lot to do with oil production. Seems every time he gets a recommendation from folks in the field (like the Petroleum Engineers who studied the problem for him) he disregards or changes it – FYI the petroleum engineers who authored the report have officially protested how their recommendations were changed to suit Obama's agenda and have officially distanced themselves from the now basterdized report whose conclusion now is to shut down production in the Gulf.

Obama was talking about how he was making sure "whose as to kick" with all his meeting, well I got some oil patch friends down here who would be happy to accommodate him, they would start with Tony over at BP and finish with his.

Just trying to be helpful.

My 2 cents.

Doppelganger

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.[/QUOTE]Now we are speaking! Problem is, how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price? And if so for how long? I think Uncle Sam worst nightmare is not the Taliban but the budget and loss of popularity. A diplomatic or practical solution must be reached or american forces could find themselves in a quagmire like the one faced by the Spanish Empire in Flanders. Remember:

"There's three things needed to win a war: Money, money and more money."

-Napoleon

I doubt that victory was ever on the minds of the people who made the decision to start the war in Afghanistan (Bush and friends) Nor do I think it is the intention of the current administration (Obama and friends) Why? Because a prolonged, expensive war is very profitable for the "friends" mentioned above.

Even if victory were possible, it probably would require such an extreme that it would not be palpatable to anyone (economically, morally, etc. Yet, faced with this, our leaders don't just cut OUR losses and leave. No, they continue to funnel money into it with no clear end in sight.

Notice I said OUR leaders, not Obama nor Bush. I don't see that much difference between the two.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]I doubt that victory was ever on the minds of the people who made the decision to start the war in Afghanistan (Bush and friends) Nor do I think it is the intention of the current administration (Obama and friends) Why? Because a prolonged, expensive war is very profitable for the "friends" mentioned above.[/QUOTE]The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.

[quote=]Even if victory were possible, it probably would require such an extreme that it would not be palpatable to anyone (economically, morally, etc. [/QUOTE]Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people.

[quote=]Notice I said OUR leaders, not Obama nor Bush. I don't see that much difference between the two.[/QUOTE]You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.

[quote=whiskas]how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price?[/QUOTE]By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.[/QUOTE]Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people. [/QUOTE]I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?

[QUOTE=Wild Walley]You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.[/QUOTE]This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.

As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.

[QUOTE="Wild Walleye"]By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.[/QUOTE]Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?

[QUOTE=Schmoj]Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?[/QUOTE]See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

Add to this that our legislative branch has, for sometime now (think late '60s) been expanding its powers into war management, annexing powers historically (and constitutionally) imbued into the Executive Branch. Through these powers, the legislature has done a great deal to reduce the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, prolonging our engagements and endangering our soldiers. Why have they done this? Personal greed, for the power more so than for fungible gain.

[quote=]I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?[/QUOTE]Why does the simplicity of the facts confuse you? I guess it is more interested when viewed through the prism of a conspiracy theory like the presidents are paying off their buddies by prosecuting and intentionally tanking two wars simultaneously.

[quote=]This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.[/QUOTE]If you find my 'talking points' on Fox, it will be because they got them here rather than the other way around. I don't watch tv news or much tv for that matter.

[quote=]As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.[/QUOTE]That's like saying that a tranny and a masculine-looking chica are the same thing.

[quote=]Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?[/QUOTE]See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

The facts are that if we want to preserve our way of life, we have to be willing to stand up against threats, both foreign and domestic. We have to select leaders and legislators who combine integrity with true commitment to the Constitution and preserving our sovereignty and security. With that type of leadership, the defense of the American people and our way of life would be much less complicated.

It isn't too hard to figure out who are our greatest foreign threats are. They are armed hostiles seeking to kill friendlies. When you take up arms against the US, you should be dispatched. However, we complicate this process and handcuff the guys at the pointy end of the spear who are dealing with foreign threats. Other than a few drone attacks, we do not eliminate those known, foreign elements with the requisite prejudice. Either we take the fight to them or they will bring it to us. However, we can't beat the foreign threats unless the domestic ones can be kept at bay.

Domestically, we have a completely different game table and set of rules. Domestic threats dwarf those posed by violent, foreign extremists because they don't seek to destroy the US through massive collateral damage, rather they seek to destroy America from the inside out via systemic sabotage of our democratic and economic infrastructure with the ultimate goal of crippling our nation. Our greatest domestic threats have placed themselves above the law. Ironically, many of them make the bills that another of their ilk signs into laws. They are aided and abetted by a willingly complicit media.

The trail of destruction left by these threats is far too great to list here but a few 'highlights' are worth noting. There have been many significant, unauthorized exposure (leaks) of sensitive intelligence and homeland defense materials come out of members of congress and yet, when was the last time one of them was prosecuted for it? The cost of every aspect of your personal and professional life is artificially increasing via federal fiat. Businesses will not be able to function effectively due to overreaching regulation. The gulf oil spill is a perfect example of what I mean. Govt policies force oil companies to spend billions to go deep. One of them breaks and they are on the hook for more than $20B and the personal and environmental impact is enormous. If you let private enterprises invest $20B drilling onshore and near-shore, we'd go a long way towards reducing our dependence upon foreign oil (without spending any taxpayer money) with much less environmental risk. While everyone knows that high unemployment is killing our economy, the congress continues to pass legislation that increases the cost for companies to take on new employees while simultaneously extending benefits that act as incentives to keep those out of work from looking for work. Even worse is legislation that creates unknown, future liabilities which are difficult for companies to quantify and therefore force them to "stand still" lest they may unwittingly incur massive liabilities. An imperialist leader defies a plurality of the populace and forces trillions of dollars of unwanted government services on the people restricting their freedoms and pushing the country towards insolvency, threatening our currency, our economy and our national security.

All this without a whimper from the media.

These threats to our security and sovereignty are real. The battle ground is the public consciousness and the weapons are voting levers. For the first time in about 150 years, America is waking up to the threat. Let's hope the call to arms results in the selection of honest, intelligent patriotic leaders to replace as many of our domestic threats as possible, resigning them to the ash heap of history. This would be a ringing endorsement of American exceptionalism, a considerable step in correcting our national course and a fundamental improvement for our ability to prosecute a global offensive against the aforementioned foreign threats. After the chips fall, the media will try to tell us that it was a case of sleeping at the wheel as opposed to the insidious truth, something the public has already figured out.

If he hasn't figured it out by now WW, HE NEVER WILL! Love your forthwith post brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I do love you disecting these irritants on this thread. Keep up the good work!

[QUOTE=Toymann]If he hasn't figured it out by now WW, HE NEVER WILL! Love your forthwith post brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I do love you disecting these irritants on this thread. Keep up the good work![/QUOTE]Geez Toymann, do you have a man crush on WW?

WW, I didn't really read all of your post. I don't really care enough to spend the time to read it in depth or respond, but I will say from what I did read, I think we would agree over a few beers, while we disagree in this particular venue.

I will say this, tranny or masculine woman, either way we are being raped and robbed. Well, actually you. I haven't lived in the US going on 6 years.

Anyway, hope you are enjoying the World Cup and the hotties of Buenos Aires.

Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations/hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.

The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility). Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture. These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome.

My favorite quote of the week, from Jimmy Kimmel:

"Rep. Joe Barton of Texas took it upon himself to apologize to BP CEO Tony Hayward for a political "shakedown." He later apologized for his apology and explained that he hadn't seen the news in two months, and didn't know that BP recently destroyed the ocean."

I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.

[QUOTE=Esten]Obama's speech was good. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.[/QUOTE]Checking in with all the American people who have made 38+ loops in the last 18 months? America hates Obama. It is palpable. No one wants to hear him whine ("I can't suck it up with a straw") or preen ("so I can know whose ass to kick") His incompetence is extraordinary. Homer Simpson could do a better job.

[quote=]The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility)[/QUOTE]Just like GM and Chrysler. Extra-constitutional. If Obama wants a fund, write a government check and seek recourse against BP through the appropriate avenues. There was no way BP could say "no" to the $20B or the $100mm "voluntary" donation.

The reason why those oil workers aren't getting paid is that Obama, who knows absolutely nothing about drilling for oil and has ignored all of the advice his oil experts have given him, is playing to his agenda. Their idle status has nothing to do with BP or this spill, other than it gave Obama an excuse to attack our carbon fuel industry. Remember, he wants gas to be $7-8/ gallon so that alternatives will be more viable. By the way, the guy "focused like a laser on jobs" is sending those US oil rig jobs to Brazil. Even though Obama idled them, since his extortion plot is getting them paid, he will count them towards his impressive tally of jobs that he "saved or created." In fact, since they are getting paid by a new source but haven't actually left the old employer, he counts them twice as the positions were both "saved" and "created."

[quote=]Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture.[/QUOTE]Once again, nothing voluntary here. Obama has never made a case for anything other than voting for someone who is 'historic' (based only on the color of his skin which is an anathema to everything for which Dr. King stood) in spite of the fact that he had absolutely no experience. As Joe Biden stated (I paraphrase) he will be tested and we will be slow to respond but stick with us.

[quote=]These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome. [/QUOTE]Public relations has nothing to do with it. You're a measly $100B company going up against the US Govt in no-rules ultimate fighting. You have no choice but to comply. Obama has already shown us what he can do with GM and Chrysler.

[quote=]I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.[/QUOTE]Do you have any interest in how well Bobby Jindal's barges are working? The ones Obama's storm troopers halted? Or are you only interested in things dreamed up by denizens of the left?

Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?

[QUOTE=Esten]Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations / hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.[/QUOTE]Esten,

68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.

Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:

"[I]After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are [b]running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water[/b].[/i]"

Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.

We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.

We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.

Thanks,

Jackson

What Barton had to say about a "shakedown" was dead on, but if you really wish to see what is wrong in Washington / political hacks (Demacratic and Republican) Barton tucks his tail between his legs and renigs as soon as he finds out he will lose his place on the commission if he does not recant! No spine, no convictions, nada - just go with the flow.

It was a shakedown, pure and simple. But the oil is still flowing and Obama is still blowing smoke and the American people are not buying it anymore. November is not that far off and I hope those elected will stand for something other than getting re-elected. If that happens Esten you boy Obama will become an instant lame duck, the purse strings will be cut to fund his "healthcare" package and I hope it will be a long two years for him as he completes his ONLY term in office.

[QUOTE=Jackson] Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion. We have abundant supplies of oil in this country.[/QUOTE]Jackson's knowledge of drilling chicas may be legendary, but is more likely as exaggerated as his knowledge of untapped US energy resources.

Jackson considers MMA a credible source of data maybe because he sees nothing wrong about the Republican-appointed staff, many of whom were given protected "civil service" status during the Bush years, used to actually snort blow and fuck (literally) with oil industry representatives. That is fact! I admit Obama should have closed the place down the day after he took office.

No matter, as this blog has been turned into a closed circle jerk for J-man and his fellow Luddites to attack libruls and that darky in the White House.

Esten's cool and calm attempt to bring a little light into the dark murk of WW and other scribblers is futile.

As Barney Frank - my hero - once said: "It's like debating a dining room table."

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?[/QUOTE]At Newport trying to hone my skills.

If fiscal conservatism is both good policy (which we already know) and good politics (not to mention the enormous boost that the novice is giving every republican candidate)

Point of clarification, I am a republican not a Republican. The latter is a political affiliation while the former is an advocate of the republic, which I might point out is founded upon the Constitution (of course that includes the Bill of Rights) and related founding documents.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]At Newport trying to hone my skills[/QUOTE]With the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]With the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.[/QUOTE]I was at Catto's (my first ever visit there) years ago and Argentina was playing (I think against Paraguay in the Copa) The chicas wouldn't engage in discussions until halftime.

Just a quick FYI on who pays taxes in the US:

[url]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094[/url]

The table at the bottom tells you all you need to know. I believe this means that approximately 5.41% of US workers pay 68.9% of US taxes.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Just a quick FYI on who pays taxes in the US:

[url]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094[/url]

The table at the bottom tells you all you need to know. I believe this means that approximately 5.41% of US workers pay 68.9% of US taxes.[/QUOTE]Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes. But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best.

A far more detailed analysis can be found here: [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html[/url]

The data in the first table here shows that in 2007 the top 1% pays just over 40% of all income taxes, and the top 5% accounts for over 60% of all income taxes. The problem with the data on the table you linked, and the discussion as well, is that the authors divided the quintiles into five "roughly equal" portions, but there's no indication of how "rough" the inequality was. That might explain, for example, several divergences:

Your article shows that the top 1% pay 28.1% of all taxes. Everything else I've seen (including on the link above) shows a much larger percentage of over 40% for this same top 1%.

The dollar cut-offs for income levels also is quite different. The link above shows that top 1% means AGI of $410,000 per year, and top 5% means AGI of $160,000 per year. The article you linked as the top 1% cutoff at $352,000. One possible source of discrepancy is that the discussion linked above uses AGI, while the article you linked doesn't indicate what it's measuring other than "income," so it may just be looking at W-2 income.

Here's the point: If the stuff linked above is accurate, then there's no way the "middle class" is paying over 50% of all taxes, at least not by the definition of that article. That's because the top 5% (over $160,000 AGI) is already paying over 60% of taxes. I've also seen the above numbers reported in a number of publications, including the WSJ and USA Today. That doesn't make them accurate. It may just mean that others have made the same mistake as I have, assuming it is a mistake.

Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.

Sorry Stan:

Sorry for the sloppiness caused by my haste. I made a couple mistakes in my quick post. First, I should have mentioned that you should skip the article, it is bullsh*t and it intentionally skews the statistics to support its point of view. Second, 5.84% of US income earners pay 49.5% of total tax revenue. Since there are 116.9mm workers, that means that 2.02% of the population pays 49.5% of the total federal tax receipts. That means that 97.8% of the US population pays 50.5% taxes. 26.66% of income earners (10.05% of the population) pay the 68.9% of fed tax receipts, attributed to the top quintile.

The article gleefully highlights that an arbitrarily formed subset of Americans (created by grouping people from four of the five quintiles (very questionable quintiles) together) to comprise its middle class pay 50.5% of federal tax revenue, while ignoring who pays the other 49.5% and that 68% of the tax income comes from the 5th quintile alone and 85.4% comes from the top two quintiles. Therefore the bottom three quintiles combined pay 14.6%.

Further, according to this article, the middle class includes 72.5% of all US income earners; 92.8% of all US tax payers and strikingly 78.5% of the population included in the 5th quintile.

This is sheer lunacy and absolute junk statistic cherry picking.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes.[/quote]

One might be led to believe that. However, when it comes to distorting the US income distribution and who pays taxes, that assumption is incorrect. The 'quintiles' refer to five separate, arbitrary income brackets.

"The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts (quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile, $50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above."

[quote=]But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best. [/QUOTE]You are absolutely correct (questionable practices) another set of frequently used quintiles is: ($0-$25k; $25k-$50k, $50k-$75k; $75k-$100k; and $100k and above) into which income earners are divided. Interesting that in the CBO numbers, the income ranges are not the same size, nor are they divided by equal populations. What methodology is given for how the quintiles were determined? I would bet that the former set selected because it can be better manipulated to support of the Agenda in Chief.

[quote=]A far more detailed analysis can be found here: [url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html[/url][/QUOTE]Yes, much better source.

[quote=]Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.[/QUOTE]Thanks for make excellent points in the wake of my woefully under articulated post.

We're on the same page. Their use of quintiles and "income," with no indication of what they mean by that, is what throws everything off. I think you're right about the prefatory paragraph. And, I think the authors were really trying to make the point that it's not the upper income brackets that pay most of the taxes. Instead, they claim that it's the "middle class," but they can only get there with ill-defined quintiles. I agree with your main point. I just think your point is much stronger point than the author of that article depicts.

I hope to be down there some day when you and Miami Bob are around. We'd have some good conversations, even if we don't agree on everything. As matters stand, I've been mostly in Brazil lately -- not a bad consolation prize, but I do miss Buenos Aires a bit.

Enjoy reading your posts.

[QUOTE=Jackson]68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.

Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:

"[I]After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are [b]running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water[/b].[/i]"

Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.

We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.

We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.[/QUOTE]Obama's not my 'boy', thanks.

As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.

Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: [i]oil is a finite resource[/i].

The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.

A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.

[QUOTE=Esten]As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.

Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: [I]oil is a finite resource[/i].[/QUOTE]That's actually most likely not true. I learned about this around three years ago by a Chevron petroleum engineer. For some reason, this news doesn't propogate. Oil company conspiracy (as some believe) or conspiracy of those who news like this would at least half destroy their whole green movement (the other half to be destroyed when enough people finally accept the fact that man-made global warming is horseshit)

BTW, as an aside, I used to work in the oilfield. Actually, I worked for the company, R & B Falcon, that built the Deepwater Horizon and its sister drillship the Deepwater Frontier in the late 90s. I visited both of those rigs shortly after they were built while they were in the shipyard getting additional work done. I have since worked in the oilfield in various capacities as a consultant - software, true, but much of my work has had to do with petroleum engineering situations.

I was talking with my engineer liason at Chevron one day, asking him what he thought we were going to do one day when we actually run out of oil. He chuckled and told me that was probably not going to happen. He told me (and my memory agrees) that we have been told ever since the early 70s by "green" organizations that we were only X years away from the point where we are producing less than the previous year because the world's reserves are dwindling.

Funny how that has never happened (much like global warming destroying everything - or was that global freezing - or was that the ozone layer falling apart? In fact, it's funny how oil reserves in many places seem to REPLENISH THEMSELVES! Hmmm. Could that be? Has El Queso gone off the deep end yet again (like he has, according to others, as relates to AIDs and global warming)

[url]http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/[/url]

I don't really know anything about that particular website (just did a quick search) but they have a bunch of links and information related to the theory of the abiotic generation of oil, which is pretty much against anything most of the world believes. Now, most people think that the dinosaurs and the plantlife that was around at that time actually are the basis of the creation of oil "reserves" and therefore is a finite resource. We all know there is only so much biotic mass, after all, in those times some 150 million to 65 million years ago.

Like humans tend to do, they get one paradigm that seems to explain a lot, ignore the inconsistancies because they're inconvenient and don't relate to the HERE and NOW, until someone points out that reality doesn't behave like whatever theory we are talking about would have us believe.

Like the fact that oil reservoirs magically seem to replenish themselves after they have been pumped dry. Like the fact that the "science" that supports global warming has never been duplicated and doesn't actually follow what they measure in the real world. Etc.

So, if oil was a renewable resource, what else do we have to talk about to keep us from using the only known substance that gives us our transportation, power and fabrication abilities at a low cost, while NO OTHER ENERGY SOURCE we have experimented with can yet do so at anywhere near the cost?

Well, of course, global warming. Which is a load of hooey.

It should not be the reason to completely destroy the world economy because it would be the only way to assuage the consciences of those who think we are no better than animals, and are an evil that is destroying the world. In other words, the market cannot support "green" industry (as has been shown time and again) and the only way to get it going is to spend billions of dollars that no one has.

[QUOTE=Esten]The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.[/QUOTE]"Horse hockey", as the famous character Colonel Potter used to exclaim.

If oil isn't such a finite resource, then it's the liberals with their hand-wringing "we have to save the world" and "give everyone the money of the rich so no one has to work" philosophy (because "it's just not fair") that is destroying things.

The GOP is portrayed as evil, malignant and in bed with Big Oil.

Ever heard of George Soros? He's in bed pretty heavily with the Obama administration and he just invested nearly a billion dollars in Petrobras, the Basilian government-run oil company. Petrobras, who just happened to receive a nice guarantee of 2 billion dollars from the US government (Barack Obama's administration, not GW's) about the same time the same administration tried to shut down all deepwater drilling (500 feet or more - what a crock - deepwater isn't "deep" until you get over a couple of thousand feet) in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to severly curtail US domestic drilling but for some reason happy to invest in Petrobras and have them continue to drill.

Yeah, those evil GOP guys. So in bed with Big Oil. Big Oil is just so evil.

[QUOTE=Esten]A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.[/QUOTE]If you want the US to be a leader in the future, try getting us into space. The Chinese are doing it, the Japanese are doing it, the Indians for christ's sake are doing it. We are sitting back and asking for rides now from Russia.

What is short-sighted is everyone thinking that the only way to advance is to "take care of all of our troubles here before we try to expand", for example. You want plentiful energy? Try power satellites that can actually collect as much or more sunlight and transmit them down to Earth in concentrated beams that would actually make solar collectors function at the level of a coal-burning electrical plant.

Give me a break - all of the politicians, but PARTICULARLY the "liberals" and "progressives", aren't able to think about that because they are so wrapped up in their own lies (people like Al Gore, for example) that they can't do what's really going to make a difference.

Had Obama spent 800 billion dollars on providing grants and incentives to develop a cheap space access sytem (as an example) we would be on the way to being the leaders of the freaking SOLAR SYSTEM, much less the world. Instead, he spent it on a bunch of crap that kept states and government agencies functioning when they couldn't afford to because they are inefficient and over-blown and the fact that that is not creating JOBS, but rather saving BUREAUCRACY is lied about by the wonderful Obama team.

Maybe this is BS, but I would like to say it anyway.

We all like to live well, and everyone's standard of living well is quite diverse. From a personal perspective, I know that I need less of most basic consumer products as I get older. But still, I buy more than I really need in terms of food, clothes, gadgets, travel, etc. So why? One big reason is that we live in a consumer society, we are told that we need X products to be happier / successful via mass media. Remember, when you went to the supermarket for toilet paper and came back with 5 other products. The malls are packed to a frenzy most weekends not only in Europe and the US, but everywhere in the world. And now, if we stop buying, the world will come to an end.

Thanks for letting me rant. Don't take it too seriously, we are never going to run out of anything, even money.

[QUOTE=Esten]As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.[/QUOTE]Well then it is settled science. The world is running out of oil.

The fact that oil companies are running out of places to drill is because the US govt. Has put some of the world's largest reserves off limits to drilling. If we had access to our own onshore oil and gas reserves, we could eliminate our dependency on Arabian oil.

[quote=]The main point is irrefutable: 'oil is a finite resource.'[/QUOTE]So is water.

[quote=]The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.

A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.[/QUOTE]Your opinion is based on an ill-formed premise. We are not running out of oil and we should not misappropriate billions of taxpayer dollars for nonviable technologies or solutions. When a viable solution comes around, the money will follow. Our "renewable energy policy" is to artificially restrict the availability of America's natural resources and deliberately drive the price of carbon fuels up via taxes and restrictive policies in order to make the price of renewables appear to reasonable.

Why then is FIFA fixing matches to eliminate the US team from moving into the round of 16?

The tar baby is Washington politics. Unfortunately, the general provides the perfect foil for the administrations attempt to create a distraction, designed to draw America's attention away from both his agenda and the colossal failure of his administration. There is not a single, objectionable quote directly attributed to the general in the RS article. It just happened to be a good opportunity for the administration to throw out this decoy.

They needed to create a scenario, the outcome of which they can completely control, whereby the President can show that he is in control, has great power and attempt to exhibit some leadership qualities. At the same time, they want people worried about the war in Afghanistan and not focused on his domestic agenda (health care debacle, possible executive order granting amnesty to more than 18 million illegals, nationalizing private assets and socializing the nation) and his nominee to the Supreme Court.

They know that the country is currently focused on his many weaknesses (incompetence, devout Marxism, inexperience, and lack of any leadership qualities) failures (ignoring the Constitution, not listening to the American public, breaking the law (Sestak, etc) silencing the EPA report that says the climate will COOL through 2030, etc.) And ongoing catastrophes (allowing the oil spill disaster to be much worse than need be (for the benefit of his personal agenda an to detriment of the entire nation) and his ongoing dismantling of the Constitution).

The general did the right thing, separate from the tar baby.

It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?

[quote]More than 1,200 prison inmates, including 241 serving life sentences, defrauded the government of $9.1 million in tax credits reserved for first-time homebuyers, according to a Treasury Department report released Wednesday.[/QUOTE][url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0[/url]

[QUOTE=Damman]It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?

[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0[/url][/QUOTE]The Dirty MotherFucking SockSuckers.

Exon