Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • sleeper
    rydawg5;1708299 wrote:Short term "net gain" or Long term "net gain"? The 2 could be vastly different.
    Not sure what you mean but okay. The net benefit to society, both long term and short term, is FAR greater than any short term/long term risk. The fact that this is even a debate makes me sad inside.

    The reality is, even if you were 100% focused on doing what's best for the environment, the pipeline still is far superior to the alternative. The oil is still going to be shipped to the gulf but the alternative carries a far greater risk. This debate again, is ridiculous AT BEST.
  • sleeper
    FatHobbit;1708300 wrote:My point was more in line with the tree hugging hippy part of bgfalcons post. Certain people get upset when some random animal is killed, but they ignore the damage windmills do to wildlife because it's green energy.

    Not only are bats important in insect control they are also the principal pollinators of many plants. (They are more important than most people realize)

    http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/environmental_education/BLM-Idaho_nature/wildlife/bats/the_benefits_of_bats.html
    Just call them morons; or hypocrites. Tree Huggers is too nice of a term and ignores reality.
  • gut
    sleeper;1708304 wrote:Just call them morons; or hypocrites. Tree Huggers is too nice of a term and ignores reality.
    This is one of those things where, if the shoe were on the other foot, libs would look down their nose and shake their head over how stupid and petty Repubs are.

    This is a no-brainer, not necessarily because it has some great benefit but because there's really not a negative (NOT doing it is comparatively worse for several reasons).
  • rydawg5
    sleeper;1708303 wrote:Not sure what you mean but okay. The net benefit to society, both long term and short term, is FAR greater than any short term/long term risk. The fact that this is even a debate makes me sad inside.
    .
    Pretty simple. If I am your neighbor and I throw kick ass parties every weekend - That is good short term for the community. Everyone is getting drunk, becoming friends, banging hot chicks, and are happy.

    However, as time goes on, these "dope ass parties" have a long term effect that that is not so swell. Tommy down the street turn into an alcoholic, people's wives are hooking up with strangers, people are getting divorced and dying alcohol related deaths. The price of divorce means broken homes, lower property values, kids are growing up without their daddies and dropping out of school.

    Next thing you know neighbors with a shady past are coming in due to the cheaper property, and you are stuck in a huge house note with a devalued home. Then your home gets broken into, you want to GTFO but you can't sell your home because it's not worth what you paid.

    That was what I meant in a completely ridiculous way. There can be short term positives that aren't so positive in the longer term.

    You kinda need to think this shit through before making big decisions.
  • sleeper
    rydawg5;1708329 wrote:Pretty simple. If I am your neighbor and I throw kick ass parties every weekend - That is good short term for the community. Everyone is getting drunk, becoming friends, banging hot chicks, and are happy.

    However, as time goes on, these "dope ass parties" have a long term effect that that is not so swell. Tommy down the street turn into an alcoholic, people's wives are hooking up with strangers, people are getting divorced and dying alcohol related deaths. The price of divorce means broken homes, lower property values, kids are growing up without their daddies and dropping out of school.

    Next thing you know neighbors with a shady past are coming in due to the cheaper property, and you are stuck in a huge house note with a devalued home. Then your home gets broken into, you want to GTFO but you can't sell your home because it's not worth what you paid.

    That was what I meant in a completely ridiculous way. There can be short term positives that aren't so positive in the longer term.

    You kinda need to think this shit through before making big decisions.
    Yeah because the part of your post I didn't understand was the difference between short term and long term impacts. The negatives of each are so tiny that its not even worth discussing especially once you account for short term negatives that go away long term(ie. people losing their homes in the short term has no impact on the long term).
  • HitsRus
    sleeper;1708267 wrote:Please tell me what having another oil pipeline, likely built with the most advanced technology and highest safety features has anything to do with water, food, and air quality? Liberals are taking an extremely low risk project to the environment and blowing them up to be high risk high likelihood for political gain. It's embarrassing that people are so dumb.
    This, as opposed to transporting oil via tanker or rail, both of which invite a higher risk to the environment. Moreover, if the pipeline is not built, the oil from Canada will be shipped via tanker to east Asian markets rather than to OUR refineries in the Gulf of Mexico
  • rydawg5
    sleeper;1708332 wrote:Yeah because the part of your post I didn't understand was the difference between short term and long term impacts. The negatives of each are so tiny that its not even worth discussing especially once you account for short term negatives that go away long term(ie. people losing their homes in the short term has no impact on the long term).
    Appreciate the serious reply. I was fishing for an LOL.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • QuakerOats
  • QuakerOats
    Obama "Very Interested" In Raising Taxes Through Executive Action

    White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is "very interested" in the idea of raising taxes through unilateral executive action.
    "The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans," Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
    "Now I don't want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of," Earnest continued. "But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally," Earnest finished.
    Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close “loopholes” currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.
    Obama's preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and driver’s licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.
    Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/03/02/obama-very-interested-in-raising-taxes-through-executive-action-n1964629#!


    Every day it gets more unbelievable.
  • QuakerOats
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/govt-union-obamas-weak-immigration-policy-is-inviting-an-attack-worse-than-911/



    We have elected the enemy.
  • QuakerOats
    Excellent speech by Netanyahu. The difference between real leadership and feigned leadership is quite stark, and generally results in dramatic consequences.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1709850 wrote:Excellent speech by Netanyahu. The difference between real leadership and feigned leadership is quite stark, and generally results in dramatic consequences.
    Of course you would like it.
    But, the speech was empty as it provided nothing that was already well know.
    And, he has been saying Iran is a year away from a bomb since he retook office. He has been wrong every single time.

    He also didn't offer a solution, only this deal is bad. Ok, so back away and then what? Iran will still be unrestricted on their stockpiles of 5%.
    He also said Iran should have no enrichment which is honestly just impossible and the one thing they will never give up.
    His speech was lame, scare tactics and pure political BS.

    Instead he should have brought a new plan saying this deal is wrong for this reason and instead we should offer this or that in return.
    By the way, I did not like the idea of a foreign leader coming into our country criticizing our policies in front our Congress.
    Would have loved the D's to try that during the Bush years and see you all flip out calling them un-American.

    Leadership, please. Political theater more like it.
  • Cleveland Buck
  • QuakerOats
    He did explain why the deal is bad, as have many others.

    Having one of your most staunch allies deliver a message should be welcomed, instead obama and the dem's ONCE AGAIN tried to divert attention from THE MESSAGE and turn it into political gamesmanship, over the invite ----- how fucking trivial and un-presidential. What an embarrassment.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1709888 wrote:He did explain why the deal is bad, as have many others.

    Having one of your most staunch allies deliver a message should be welcomed, instead obama and the dem's ONCE AGAIN tried to divert attention from THE MESSAGE and turn it into political gamesmanship, over the invite ----- how fucking trivial and un-presidential. What an embarrassment.
    The deal is not bad when you look at the alternative, no deal, or the current status quo.

    And, the speech was not needed and flies in the face of a long standing policy of where leaders do not give speeches before an election.
    It was a total waste of time.
    Face it, Bibi has been wrong on Iran every single freaking time. Why the hell should be listen to him now?
  • superman
    Bibi has been wrong on Iran every time.
    Obama has been wrong on the ME every time.
    Someone has to be right this time. Right?
  • jmog
    ptown_trojans_1;1709867 wrote:Of course you would like it.
    But, the speech was empty as it provided nothing that was already well know.
    And, he has been saying Iran is a year away from a bomb since he retook office. He has been wrong every single time.

    He also didn't offer a solution, only this deal is bad. Ok, so back away and then what? Iran will still be unrestricted on their stockpiles of 5%.
    He also said Iran should have no enrichment which is honestly just impossible and the one thing they will never give up.
    His speech was lame, scare tactics and pure political BS.

    Instead he should have brought a new plan saying this deal is wrong for this reason and instead we should offer this or that in return.
    By the way, I did not like the idea of a foreign leader coming into our country criticizing our policies in front our Congress.
    Would have loved the D's to try that during the Bush years and see you all flip out calling them un-American.

    Leadership, please. Political theater more like it.
    You mean like when they had Mexican President Felipe Calderon come give a speech blasting our immigration laws?

    Yeah, Liberals would never do something like that...

    Sorry Ptown, but you lose that argument. Both sides have done it (while it being wrong for both of them). Any democrat that complained, I will say it again ANY DEMOCRAT that complained a single bit about Bibi coming to talk or what he talked about, if that democrat stood and applauded or was in support of Calderon coming to speak to Congress, that democrat should step down for being a hypocrite.

    Same for any R that complained back when Calderon came to speak, if they were all for Bibi coming to talk then they should step down.

    Although, I would venture to say that possibly the Rs had a slightly higher moral ground since Israel is a close ally while Mexico is not.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1709894 wrote: Face it, Bibi has been wrong on Iran every single freaking time. Why the hell should be listen to him now?
    Is it not true that 75% of the centrifuges in Iran's possession have come about during the obama regime?

    And if the deal is to cut them back (now), that leaves them enough to make 'the bomb', and not nuclear power generation.

    Interesting read:

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-iran-nuke-deal-will-allow-enough-centrifuges-make-bomb-not-enough-energy



    [And the first comment seems spot on: "I am not sure which is more dangerous: Iran with a nuclear weapon, or the obama administration"]
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    QuakerOats;1709850 wrote:Excellent speech by Netanyahu. The difference between real leadership and feigned leadership is quite stark, and generally results in dramatic consequences.
    Excellent because it had no substance? Had he approached the lectern and simply farted, you'd probably say the same thing. This guy has cried wolf on Iran for years. He did the same thing with Saddam and we all know how that went. Our relationship with Iran hasn't worked for 30 years. Engaging them is a better tactic for long-term security.
  • HitsRus
    This guy has cried wolf on Iran for years. He did the same thing with Saddam and we all know how that went. Our relationship with Iran hasn't worked for 30 years. Engaging them is a better tactic for long-term security.
    Capitulation is not engagement and is not a better tactic for our long term security. You criticize Netanyahu for crying wolf for years....what has Iran done that makes you want to trust them to honor this deal, even as one sided as it is?
  • Wolves of Babylon
    It won't stop until the war mongers get their Iran war
  • HitsRus
    ^^^LOL ...the war is over and we lost. Iran has already succeeded in driving a wedge between the allies that kept it in check, and it will continue it's path of state sponsored support of terrorism unabated and without restraint. It no longer has to worry about the United States which thinks it has negotiated a deal and expects Iran to actually honor it. In a few years, they will have a nuclear weapon, and we will sputter "But, but but...they weren't suppose to have a weapon for at least 10 years!"

    It has nothing to do with being a war monger, it has everything to do with being realistic and objective, and of being a student of history.
    https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/more/Diplomacy-Only-Encourages-North-Koreas-Belligerence

    Been there, done this, seen this.
  • majorspark
    Wolves of Babylon;1710031 wrote:It won't stop until the war mongers get their Iran war
    This will not stop until Iran is a nuclear armed nation. Barring unlikely military intervention by these so called "warmongers" Iran will become a nuclear armed nation. Its 1994 North Korea about to repeat itself. This will result in the promise of a US nuclear response to any nuclear attack on the gulf states allied with the US in order to convince them to not seek nuclear arms of their own. Just like South Korea and Japan who are fully capable of developing their own.

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/04/korea.brink/
    The earlier crisis developed during the summer of 1994. Then, according to former Pentagon officials, the U.S. military drew up plans to send cruise missiles and F-117 stealth fighters to strike a small nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, in order to prevent North Korea from recovering the raw material to make nuclear bombs.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-19/news/mn-52118_1_north-korea-s-nuclear-weapons-program
    President Clinton on Tuesday approved a deal reached by U.S. negotiators in Geneva to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program, saying the agreement "will make the United States, the Korean peninsula and the world safer."
    Clearly delighted by what he considers a victory for his foreign policy, the President appeared before television cameras to hail the agreement as "the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula." He instructed Special Ambassador Robert L. Gallucci, the Administration's lead negotiator with North Korea, to sign the accord Friday in Geneva.
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;1709867 wrote:By the way, I did not like the idea of a foreign leader coming into our country criticizing our policies in front our Congress.
    LMAO

    Our own so-called POTUS travels to foreign countries, bows to their leaders, and publicly criticizes his own country in their lands.

    Six of one, half dozen of another....
  • ptown_trojans_1
    jmog;1709933 wrote:You mean like when they had Mexican President Felipe Calderon come give a speech blasting our immigration laws?

    Yeah, Liberals would never do something like that...

    Sorry Ptown, but you lose that argument. Both sides have done it (while it being wrong for both of them). Any democrat that complained, I will say it again ANY DEMOCRAT that complained a single bit about Bibi coming to talk or what he talked about, if that democrat stood and applauded or was in support of Calderon coming to speak to Congress, that democrat should step down for being a hypocrite.

    Same for any R that complained back when Calderon came to speak, if they were all for Bibi coming to talk then they should step down.

    Although, I would venture to say that possibly the Rs had a slightly higher moral ground since Israel is a close ally while Mexico is not.
    QuakerOats;1709936 wrote:Is it not true that 75% of the centrifuges in Iran's possession have come about during the obama regime?

    And if the deal is to cut them back (now), that leaves them enough to make 'the bomb', and not nuclear power generation.

    Interesting read:

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-iran-nuke-deal-will-allow-enough-centrifuges-make-bomb-not-enough-energy



    [And the first comment seems spot on: "I am not sure which is more dangerous: Iran with a nuclear weapon, or the obama administration"]
    I'll set aside the political argument on whether it was right that Bibi made the speech, because it is pointless on here and is really not that big an issue big picture wise.
    But, as to the this is not a good deal part of the speech, ok so you cite an article, good for you.
    And centrifuges have grown over the past few years.
    However, so far over the last year these talks have done a few things. They have halted Iranian enriching uranium up to 20% and they have taken the existing fuel that they had at 20% and is now being donwgraded/ blended back to 5% or used for other fuel purposes.
    Also, the talks thus far have capped Iranian 5% uranium so for the first time in a while, the Iranian 5% stockpile is not growing.
    So, without these talks, like Bibi wants, Iran would still have 20% enrichment and have more 5% uranium as well.

    That right there is why some form of a deal is better than no deal. I would rather have still limited checks on Iran, with IAEA verification, than nothing, which is what Israel wants.
    Israel tends to think that Iran will somehow eliminate every portion of its nuclear program. Short of an invasion that is simply not happening. The Supreme Leader has said enrichment is a fundamental right for Iran. They are not giving it up.

    Now, I will say the deal does need to be fair, and Iran does need to open up on their shady shit. IAEA safeguards needs to be full, and maybe even the Additional Protocol before we loosen any sanctions. Also, we need to have Iran pledge and agree they will not enrich above 5%, and that the Heavy Water reactor at Arak does not come online. If they do not agree on those terms, then we can tinker with the sanctions a little, but will not loosen them at all.

    I'm not as sold as others that Iran is driving toward a bomb, but I am definitely very skeptical that they want nuclear power just for power sakes. It is a very nuanced view, one that Bibi and Israel apparently cannot understand.