|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 9, 2012 12:07:02 GMT -8
. . . . and what he needs to learn. Is the guy smart? I think he's overrated, but I'll concede that he is by no means a dullard (that description would more appropriately fit our current VEEP). What is worse is that he seems to have a rather narrow perspective when he should be open to a myriad of ideas. Read on . . . www.weeklystandard.com/articles/slow-learner_646841.htmlAzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 9, 2012 12:39:35 GMT -8
OMG. My eyes are now open! Thank you, Fred, and thank you, William!
LOL
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 9, 2012 14:59:20 GMT -8
OMG. My eyes are now open! Thank you, Fred, and thank you, William! LOL Will it last? Better go get your eyes checked so you can see the warts.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 9, 2012 17:03:39 GMT -8
OMG. My eyes are now open! Thank you, Fred, and thank you, William! LOL It was my pleasure (says the author of this thread as he executes a courtly bow). We see the difference between B.H. Obama and W.J. Clinton. The latter was not above tacking as the wind changed. The former seems incapable of making adjustments even though (to continue the nautical frame of reference) the sail is luffing. This is really not a laughing matter. Whereas Obama is clearly not 100% responsible to our lousy economy, he bears a not insignificant amount of responsibility. Case in point; his administration has been extremely hostile to oil drilling during a time in which we should be exploiting all our energy resources. BHO may well become the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Well, maybe not. For his mismanagement of the U.S. economy, the results of which was economic disaster for close to a decade after his took office. Franklin Roosevelt should long ago have been dubbed the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Since the bulk of academia is partisan in favor of the Left, he has not received that title. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jun 10, 2012 8:18:35 GMT -8
Did you mean, "bow" or "bow"? That's a word that is nebulis on the internet.
Prez. Baci is another combo platter of Woodrow and Franklin Delano Roostervelt. I mean c'mon you had the Franchise Tax kick in, around 1929, the Social Security/Medicare tax on gross wages proposed in 1932 and put into effect, the State of California's Sales tax dropped on our poor arses in 1933 followed up quickly by the Use tax in 1935...
You see what really caused the "Great Depression"? That and all the regulations hammed upon us.
This sounds like now.
On, top of that the last time a horse won the first two legs of the Triple Crown but failed to run in the Belmont, like I'll Have Another, was 1936!
If Prez. Bocci gets re-elected, then another War is coming. How's that for a Per Dick Shun?
OMG!!!
... HAM
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 15, 2012 17:27:04 GMT -8
OMG. My eyes are now open! Thank you, Fred, and thank you, William! LOL It was my pleasure (says the author of this thread as he executes a courtly bow). We see the difference between B.H. Obama and W.J. Clinton. The latter was not above tacking as the wind changed. The former seems incapable of making adjustments even though (to continue the nautical frame of reference) the sail is luffing. This is really not a laughing matter. Whereas Obama is clearly not 100% responsible to our lousy economy, he bears a not insignificant amount of responsibility. Case in point; his administration has been extremely hostile to oil drilling during a time in which we should be exploiting all our energy resources. BHO may well become the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Well, maybe not. For his mismanagement of the U.S. economy, the results of which was economic disaster for close to a decade after his took office. Franklin Roosevelt should long ago have been dubbed the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Since the bulk of academia is partisan in favor of the Left, he has not received that title. AzWm I agree on most. However, Obama cannot take that title since Jimmy Carter already has a stranglehold on it. Obama, IMO is as vanilla as his overall rating. Somewhere in the middle of all POTUS's. Depending on if he gets a second term, he has a chance to move up or down...obviously. But, he won't if he remains vanilla. I also disagree with exploiting all our resources. That means approval of Keystone. I'm not sure if that's what you included. This isn't me trash-talking like my usual self. ;D
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2012 5:45:59 GMT -8
It was my pleasure (says the author of this thread as he executes a courtly bow). We see the difference between B.H. Obama and W.J. Clinton. The latter was not above tacking as the wind changed. The former seems incapable of making adjustments even though (to continue the nautical frame of reference) the sail is luffing. This is really not a laughing matter. Whereas Obama is clearly not 100% responsible to our lousy economy, he bears a not insignificant amount of responsibility. Case in point; his administration has been extremely hostile to oil drilling during a time in which we should be exploiting all our energy resources. BHO may well become the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Well, maybe not. For his mismanagement of the U.S. economy, the results of which was economic disaster for close to a decade after his took office. Franklin Roosevelt should long ago have been dubbed the Herbert Hoover of the Left. Since the bulk of academia is partisan in favor of the Left, he has not received that title. AzWm I agree on most. However, Obama cannot take that title since Jimmy Carter already has a stranglehold on it. Obama, IMO is as vanilla as his overall rating. Somewhere in the middle of all POTUS's. Depending on if he gets a second term, he has a chance to move up or down...obviously. But, he won't if he remains vanilla. I also disagree with exploiting all our resources. That means approval of Keystone. I'm not sure if that's what you included. This isn't me trash-talking like my usual self. ;D How would Keystone be exploiting "our resources"? It gives us a way to better access and "exploit" the resources of Canada. I do not believe that developing our almost limitless energy is exploitation. It is becoming closer to self sufficient. The Keystone question is enviornmental.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 18, 2012 11:42:43 GMT -8
I agree on most. However, Obama cannot take that title since Jimmy Carter already has a stranglehold on it. Obama, IMO is as vanilla as his overall rating. Somewhere in the middle of all POTUS's. Depending on if he gets a second term, he has a chance to move up or down...obviously. But, he won't if he remains vanilla. I also disagree with exploiting all our resources. That means approval of Keystone. I'm not sure if that's what you included. This isn't me trash-talking like my usual self. ;D How would Keystone be exploiting "our resources"? It gives us a way to better access and "exploit" the resources of Canada. I do not believe that developing our almost limitless energy is exploitation. It is becoming closer to self sufficient. The Keystone question is enviornmental. It is purely environmental. And yes, it is technically from Canada, but the pipeline is coming straight thru America. I should've worded the question like: Would you favor something like keystone that poses a huge risk to our enviroment for those resources?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2012 11:54:38 GMT -8
How would Keystone be exploiting "our resources"? It gives us a way to better access and "exploit" the resources of Canada. I do not believe that developing our almost limitless energy is exploitation. It is becoming closer to self sufficient. The Keystone question is enviornmental. It is purely environmental. And yes, it is technically from Canada, but the pipeline is coming straight thru America. I should've worded the question like: Would you favor something like keystone that poses a huge risk to our enviroment for those resources? Almost anyone would support Keystone on a purely economic basis if it was deemed safe. The political considerations are mostly just nutty.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 18, 2012 11:57:14 GMT -8
If Canada was smart they would not be shipping tar sand oil through that pipeline. They would ship water. Water is way more valuable than oil. Canada has vast amounts of fresh water.
50 years from now when the world faces a fresh water crisis and Canada has polluted billions of gallons due to the tar sand oil they will scratch their head and say, "What were we thinking?".
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 18, 2012 12:27:42 GMT -8
It is purely environmental. And yes, it is technically from Canada, but the pipeline is coming straight thru America. I should've worded the question like: Would you favor something like keystone that poses a huge risk to our enviroment for those resources? Almost anyone would support Keystone on a purely economic basis if it was deemed safe. The political considerations are mostly just nutty. Correct. However, it's not safe. That's why there's debate.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 18, 2012 18:04:30 GMT -8
Almost anyone would support Keystone on a purely economic basis if it was deemed safe. The political considerations are mostly just nutty. Correct. However, it's not safe. That's why there's debate. Just what level of confidence do you need? A reroute is being offered. Just what would make it OK?
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 19, 2012 12:27:56 GMT -8
Correct. However, it's not safe. That's why there's debate. Just what level of confidence do you need? A reroute is being offered. Just what would make it OK? A mistake not leading to a large part of America being unihabitable for decades.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2012 15:24:14 GMT -8
Just what level of confidence do you need? A reroute is being offered. Just what would make it OK? A mistake not leading to a large part of America being unihabitable for decades. Like Anwar or the Gulf Coast? Come on, you sound like Algore or an Obamabot. We all want a clean well protected enviornment, but there is some level of risk in everything we do. Keystone and it's rewards far outweigh any risk.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 19, 2012 15:52:38 GMT -8
A mistake not leading to a large part of America being unihabitable for decades. Like Anwar or the Gulf Coast? Come on, you sound like Algore or an Obamabot. We all want a clean well protected enviornment, but there is some level of risk in everything we do. Keystone and it's rewards far outweigh any risk. What rewards and for who? I believe that most of the oil will be used for export and not domestic consumption.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 19, 2012 16:23:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2012 16:55:37 GMT -8
Discusses just about all the issues.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2012 16:56:57 GMT -8
Like Anwar or the Gulf Coast? Come on, you sound like Algore or an Obamabot. We all want a clean well protected enviornment, but there is some level of risk in everything we do. Keystone and it's rewards far outweigh any risk. What rewards and for who? I believe that most of the oil will be used for export and not domestic consumption. Even if true, it would still pass thru the US and be available for our market. The best part is the jobs here in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Jun 19, 2012 17:40:43 GMT -8
A mistake not leading to a large part of America being unihabitable for decades. Like Anwar or the Gulf Coast? Come on, you sound like Algore or an Obamabot. We all want a clean well protected enviornment, but there is some level of risk in everything we do. Keystone and it's rewards far outweigh any risk. See how it's an environmental issue. I see it the exact opposite looking at the same data. Too big of a risk in my eyes. And really? Obamabot? How many times have you seen me criticize him? Meh...end of the day and I'm getting sensitive.
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Jun 21, 2012 10:45:29 GMT -8
If Canada was smart they would not be shipping tar sand oil through that pipeline. They would ship water. Water is way more valuable than oil. Canada has vast amounts of fresh water. 50 years from now when the world faces a fresh water crisis and Canada has polluted billions of gallons due to the tar sand oil they will scratch their head and say, "What were we thinking?". Okay bright eye dee ah...go ahead, write up a business plan, issue a prospectus, take in enough investor money, buy the right of ways, construct the pipeline and start selling water. The libexxrals love to talk about and find fault, cuss and swear and blame the entreprenuer who is closed-mouth making a business succeed. These entreprenuers who create the actual, sustainable economy are in the majority, conservative and know, bigger government, smaller economy, smaller government, bigger economy and individual rights are owned by the individual. HAM
|
|