I couldnt.
I've heard him respond to questions and I believe that he truly believes his moral character is superior because he is religious. He believes he is better because he is christian. Im fine with people being religious but I believe he crosses the line Im not comfortable with.

Others?

I think a lot of people that are Christians (or Jewish) are better - on average - than those that are not but it is no hard and fast True/False And/Or rule that must be obeyed. Just on average.

I think a lot of what he says has merit with regards to Good -v- Evil if applied in the non religious context. I don't think Satan and God are gearing up for a steel cage match and this election is the ring of death.

I do think that Hollywood / Popular culture has created more problems than it has solved.

I do think that having more kids born to non married parents than married parents is not the trend we should want to see in this country.

All that said, I cannot see me voting for Santorum, certainly in the primaries, nor can I see me voting for Obama in the General. Unfortunately I see Romney as the least miserable choice between Mitt, Santorum, Obama, or Paul.

In a time of a completely destroyed economy, massive unemployment, an administration that hints more and more about increased action against Iran and tax law that is complete nonsense, Santorum chooses to focus on birth control, teaching creationism in schools and the government getting further and further involved with our personal lives.

I've said this before... Santorum is a front runner because he appeals to the religious fringe. Religious people in the US are passionate about their religious beliefs, not as much as those psychopathic Islam followers in the Middle East the riot and kill over a burnt book, but still passionate. That religious passion is the only reason Santorum is relevant today, but it's also the reason he would be completely destroyed in a general election.

More people are declared Independents now than either Dems or Repubs. Elections are won in the middle. Romney used to appeal somewhat to moderates but his lack of a spine has him pandering to the fringe and boasting "hey look! I can be conservative too".

In a time of a completely destroyed economy, massive unemployment, an administration that hints more and more about increased action against Iran and tax law that is complete nonsense, Santorum chooses to focus on birth control, teaching creationism in schools and the government getting further and further involved with our personal lives.

I've said this before... Santorum is a front runner because he appeals to the religious fringe. Religious people in the US are passionate about their religious beliefs, not as much as those psychopathic Islam followers in the Middle East the riot and kill over a burnt book, but still passionate. That religious passion is the only reason Santorum is relevant today, but it's also the reason he would be completely destroyed in a general election.

:love:

More people are declared Independents now than either Dems or Repubs. Elections are won in the middle. Romney used to appeal somewhat to moderates but his lack of a spine has him pandering to the fringe and boasting "hey look! I can be conservative too".

And thus is the problem. Romney's lack of Spine or Obama's awful lack of focus.

So while Santorum works the extreme right, Romeny works all sides, Obama panders to the Left and puts "election" in front of doing what's best for the country. So while we are talking about contraceptives at religious organizations being paid for by insurance companies
for free, we are instead ignoring the 1.5 TRILLION per year Pachyderm in the room. That we are going into further and further in debt by 1.5 TRILLION per year should be the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of this country. There will be NOBODY to bail us out in a short few years.

To quote my favorite Glassmaker: We. Are. Screwed.

I feel that Obama has been ineffective on the domestic front. It concerns me that two of the most effective members of his Cabinet would leave if there was a second term (Clinton and Geithner). However there is nothing that would get me to vote for Santorum because the man's position on social issues.
An Obama v. Romney decision is a much tougher choice for me but I think the public has come to the conclusion that Romney is out of touch with the poor and middle class and that may be too tough of a hurdle to overcome.

As with the above poster, I don't agree w/his view on social issues (abortion, same sex marriage, women's issues). I also have no respect for some of the insults he spews at our pres. There is a way to criticize the president w/o disrespecting the office or the president. He also should have shown some back bone (like McCain did 4 years ago) when someone at one of his rallies said Obama was a Muslim. Santorum didn't say a word.

He prob. needs to give more to charity as he has the lowest % among all the cand.

I did get a kick of his winning his seat by claiming the former holder was out of touch and had moved his fam. to Washington. Then when he got caught doing the same thing he said that the promises he made when he was running for the house didn't count for the senate.

The only God is the Almighty Dollar. The religious wackos who are costing the republicans elections should be lined up and summarily shot.

Santorum is as crooked as his nose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the democrat's ace-in-the-hole: The profound stupidity of the religious litmus test for republican candidates.
Now look what you got. A Mormon on one side, and a faith healer on the other. They'll lose, but at least they won't lose their principles - that only they are concerned with.
Some fiscal conservative should just stand on the highest pulpit and proclaim once and for all, "We just want to keep our wallets shut! We don't even go to church!"

or the Dems could stand up and say Open Your Wallets!

:rotf2:

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

HE BELIEVES HE'S SUPERIOR. Hmmm . . . isn't a big ego sort of a requirement for political office. Obama abundantly drips with superiority and he won in a landslide. I guess you just have to know how to flaunt it. Disqualified.

HE APPEALS TO A RELIGIOUS "FRINGE." Hmm . . . shouldn't the Pres appeal to as many as possible? Probly better not to appeal to religious folks, though, especially fringe types like Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians. That would mark him as quite unsuitable for POTUS. He couldn't possibly appeal to those folks and take care of every other problem that each of the rest of us has. He must somehow be everything to everybody, and yet not appear to be for anybody in particular.

HE'S TALING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES WHILE THE U.S. BURNS. He, along with a host of others, objects to Obama's infringement of the first ammendment guaranty of religious freedom, then is constantly grilled about it. Yup, talking about the Constitution is rather stupid nowadays. Hasn't he noticed what it's done for Ron Paul? Nobody wants to hear that stuff--especially not politicians--that's not how the government is run anymore. He's obviously not qualified for political office if he is concerned with that outmoded Constitution stuff. Disqualified.

HIS POSITION ON SOCIAL ISSUES. Hmmm . . . most of which are in accordance with the majority of Americans. Yeah, but, those positions ARE quite polically incorrect. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE. Yeah . . . good observation. His nose is llittle crooked. So he must be a little crooked. That's just too ordinary. We need outstanding qualities for POTUS. Just a little crooked won't do. He must have to be a big hoodwinker and liar like most of our recent and present Presidents. Disqualified.

HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES. Good God Amighty . . . oops . . .sorry about that God stuff . . . but, come on, doesn't he comprehend the first principle of politics --INSINCERITY!! Disqualified.

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:


You forgot: he is either insane or a good liar

Sex for procreation only :rotf2:

. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!



but some of the repubs. seem to take it to a whole new level. Is there anything worse than calling him un-America, a socialist, a Muslim, saying he isn't born here?.

President Reagan could call up Tip O'Neill, and though the ideological gap between them was a chasm, they could privately hash out a negotiation that had some gains for both sides, and get stuff done in a timely fashion.
People with intractable belief systems, who won't budge or negotiate - shouldn't be in government, because that's how business is done. Ironically, these are the same people who hold Reagan up as their model. Reagan was a negotiating pragmatist, above all things. He would have told them they were nuts if they were not willing to engage in the give-and-take of government.

Reasons not to vote for Santorum:

HE BELIEVES HE'S SUPERIOR. Hmmm . . . isn't a big ego sort of a requirement for political office. Obama abundantly drips with superiority and he won in a landslide. I guess you just have to know how to flaunt it. Disqualified.

HE APPEALS TO A RELIGIOUS "FRINGE." Hmm . . . shouldn't the Pres appeal to as many as possible? Probly better not to appeal to religious folks, though, especially fringe types like Catholics, Evangelicals, Christians. That would mark him as quite unsuitable for POTUS. He couldn't possibly appeal to those folks and take care of every other problem that each of the rest of us has. He must somehow be everything to everybody, and yet not appear to be for anybody in particular.

HE'S TALING ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES WHILE THE U.S. BURNS. He, along with a host of others, objects to Obama's infringement of the first ammendment guaranty of religious freedom, then is constantly grilled about it. Yup, talking about the Constitution is rather stupid nowadays. Hasn't he noticed what it's done for Ron Paul? Nobody wants to hear that stuff--especially not politicians--that's not how the government is run anymore. He's obviously not qualified for political office if he is concerned with that outmoded Constitution stuff. Disqualified.

HIS POSITION ON SOCIAL ISSUES. Hmmm . . . most of which are in accordance with the majority of Americans. Yeah, but, those positions ARE quite polically incorrect. Disqualified.

HE INSULTS OBAMA. Omigosh, a politician insulting another politician! On this count he is, along with the rest of the pols, disqualified!!

HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE. Yeah . . . good observation. His nose is llittle crooked. So he must be a little crooked. That's just too ordinary. We need outstanding qualities for POTUS. Just a little crooked won't do. He must have to be a big hoodwinker and liar like most of our recent and present Presidents. Disqualified.

HE IS PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT HE BELIEVES. Good God Amighty . . . oops . . .sorry about that God stuff . . . but, come on, doesn't he comprehend the first principle of politics --INSINCERITY!! Disqualified.

That not my list, but based on Santorums very candid and open marks - he's not mainstream at all.
I was raised catholic, catholic private schools my whole life - every single catholic I know has/had pre-maritial sex and uses birth control. every single one.
No media spin - i heard the live interview on 96.9 Micheal graham (a conservative) interview Santorum . Graham asked him if he was a Jesus guy and responded -
Dont you need a Jesus guy? Dont you need some with morals? and went on to say how his religion will make him a better president.

I believe in morals but dont beleive that always tie to religion. I'll bet my salary Sandusky went to chuch each week. I believe Santorum crosses the line with religiion and politics. If the majority of people disagree, so be it, he gets the vote. I dont agree with him and dont want him to dictate what I do in my bedroom.

You forgot: he is either insane or a good liar

Sex for procreation only :rotf2:

Gosh, you're right! I forgot about that very important point. Of course, this falls under the "HE IS AS CROOKED AS HIS NOSE" reason for disqualification, which might make me have to change my vote from disqualified to qualified. If he is a really good liar, rather than just an ordinary fibber, then he would actually be QUALIFIED.

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE. If sex was not so maddeningly desirable, would men want to be tied down to the responsibilities involved in raising children or taking care of spouses? Would women go through with childbirth? Of course, we can develope cloning to the point where the old-fashioned way of procreation can be discarded, and sex can just be pure fun.

but some of the repubs. seem to take it to a whole new level. Is there anything worse than calling him un-America, a socialist, a Muslim, saying he isn't born here?.

Yeah, you can call him a perjurer. When he swore to defend and protect the Constitution, he either lied or was secretly referring to some alien constitution.

G

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE. If sex was not so maddenly desirable, would men want to be tied down to the responsibilities involved in raising children or taking care of spouses?

of course, all that was before internet porn

I believe in morals but dont beleive that always tie to religion. I'll bet my salary Sandusky went to chuch each week. I believe Santorum crosses the line with religiion and politics. If the majority of people disagree, so be it, he gets the vote. I dont agree with him and dont want him to dictate what I do in my bedroom.

Most Presidents probably have had their personal code of morality. Those codes were, probably, not all the same. The presidency is not yet a dictatorship. It is not possible, at this time, for the President to dictate what you do in your bedroom. This is only an "issue" because Santorum is not politically wise enough to keep his moral code to himself. That he has "worn his heart on his sleeve" has given his oponents ammunition to fuel the media with a drumbeat. It has, apparently, worked with you. Focusing on his moral beliefs relieves one from talking about the policies that he, as President, would actually be dealing with. If you are that concerned with government in your bedroom, focus on the form of government you want, in which direction toward government control of our lives has government grown, and what needs to be done and who best to do it to reverse that direction. If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him. But, again, ALL presidents must rise above their personal code to govern, but that should not mean that they cannot have such a personal code. I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

Even tho I'm an independant......

Republican all the way!!!!!!!!!

Is Daffy Duck Republican? :) :)

If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him.

bingo

Yeah, you can call him a perjurer. When he swore to defend and protect the Constitution, he either lied or was secretly referring to some alien constitution.

We have a difference of opion, I think anyone who calls a pres. un American is scum as that to me is the worse.

I don't have or feel a strong desire to vote for Santorum. But if he winds up being the nominee, he'll have my vote, not because of his personal religious beliefs, rather in order to stem, slightly, the tide in the direction we are heading in the way we are governed.

X 2 :hihi:

As for the insanity, why do you suppose nature, or God, or whatever accident you believe created us, made sex so pleasurable. IN ORDER TO MAKE US PROCREATE.

The nut job, who couldn't even get re-elected to the senate in PA, claims he only has sex when he is trying to make a baby. He doesn't promote the rhythm method, which is the accepted form by his church. it is "immoral to have sex for reasons other than procreation." He is nuts. I do have to say, it is almost good if he becomes the candidate, then maybe some Reagan Republicans like Huntsman will have a chance in the future when the pendulum swings back. Santorum is so far off the charts radical on almost every front that he makes Newt look like a bleeding heart liberal. You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.

But if you want them to mandate ultrasounds via their lady parts, he might just be your candidate....

You want government to not impinge on peoples freedom, Santorum is not your candidate.
This is my #1 issue with Santorum. Having a lot of Libertarian-type views, there is no candidate worse than Santorum. If it were up to him, we'd all have those surveillance monitors in our homes like in 1984 so that Santorum can be sure all of our thoughts and actions are in line with his definition of socially acceptable.

This is my #1 issue with Santorum. Having a lot of Libertarian-type views, there is no candidate worse than Santorum. If it were up to him, we'd all have those surveillance monitors in our homes like in 1984 so that Santorum can be sure all of our thoughts and actions are in line with his definition of socially acceptable.

Wow!!! I realize the power of the President has grown well outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution, but I didn't realize it has gotten that bad. If it is up to the President whether we have surveillance monitors in our homes or not, the gig is up.

We have a difference of opion, I think anyone who calls a pres. un American is scum as that to me is the worse.

Our difference of opinion may lie at the heart of what each of us think it is to be an American. There may be millions of different opinions or shades of opinions on it, but, critically, there is now a major one in terms of how we are governed.

There are those that believe the Constitution is the blueprint. And there are those who believe the Constitution is an impediment to how we should be governed.

The Constitution was written as a structure for a free people to govern themselves with a limited power granted by those people to a central government which would be a cohesive force to bind us together and make us powerful against outside forces and against an internal tyranny.

Those who oppose the Constitutional system believe we are a product of historical progress and we have arrived at a historical place where we need not fear old tyrannies, and that the best mode of government is an all powerful benevolent administration which will do for us whatever is necessary for our well being.

Which type of government you believe in will inform what you think it is to be American. Those that believe in the Constitutional framework would consider those that trash it as being unAmerican.

bingo

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do? He has stated personal beliefs on morality to groups of like minded people not as political doctrine to be implemented, but as like minded reasons for the deterioration of society. Is there a record of his imposing religious beliefs rather than ethical practices through legislation? Is he not allowed to have personal beliefs outside the political arena? Are those who are opposed to so-called conservative litmus tests for politicians in favor of such tests to weed out religious folks who actually believe their faith? How many polliticians have we accepted, even praised who have been outside the norm in their personal behaviour? Barney Frank is praised for his politics, not his sexual preferences. Bill Clinton is a major hero, but not for his sexual preferences. How is it that we can accept that great number of politicians in our history who have led disreputatable personal lives, yet a Santorum is a threat? Is it that others have preferred not to openly speak of who they really were or are? Does that comfort you to not know? If they lie or hide who they are, what else do they hide? Can you trust that the pretty words in which they couch their policies and legislation are the truth, or just expedient to get your vote? Whatever threat he presents is not in how he leads his own life or in his opinions on social mores, but in what he will support (i.e. the Constiltution).

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do?

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

It's not a "so called religious litmus test."
It's a criteria without which a republican candidate can't get the backing of the Christian Conservative base, which means he can't get the the nomination. The Christian Conservatives are driving the bus. The Fiscal Conservatives are in the back shaking their heads, because they know they are going to lose over a constitutional amendment which is not going to be rolled back.

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

huh?

In proposing the amendment, Santorum addressed the Congress:

This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences—frankly, two rather innocuous sentences—that hopefully this Senate will embrace: "It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.


you do realize that people of faith generally believe that there is an intelligent design to our planet and universe rather than some amazing coincidence/accident that we as humans are slowly figuring out, being the only accident capable of or even attempting to figure it out as the most intelligent accidents in the universe unless you believe in space aliens or something crazy like that

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.


Yup, that's what a good educational curriculum is all about, looking at all the data, theories, ideas, etc.
not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.
Freedom of information so each can come to their own conclusions.

not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.


Which is what he was doing. He is the "burecrat" (sic), in this case. He wanted science classes to teach that certain things are "best explained by intelligent design as opposed to natural selection." That is different than a discussion that certain religions believe in creation and has no scientific basis or business in a science class; it belongs in a theology class or Sunday school. If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

Or a religious based private school.

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

1. Gravity is a 'theory' as well... theory is a good thing in science... theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.

2. Any time you introduce a religious doctrine (i.e. the bible) into a science class, it triggers that. If you want to teach it in a theology class (which a broad religious class would be part of a 'well rounded' education imho.)

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.
Remember, you're talking to mostly non-scientists here. The layperson usually regards a "theory" as something that is supposed but not yet proven. Scientists on the other hand would more likely use it for something that's successfully gone through the process.

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.
This is a good point.

-spence

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

Obviously the other two beat me to it, but creation isn't a theory. The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved. It is based on mathematics and observable phenomena. Its validity is repeatedly strengthened with continuing observation. I am curious how creationism should be taught in science classes? Would I have to say some people who have very limited scientific knowledge think the Earth is 6000 years old even though that is impossible? Would I have to mention the Hopi's believed Earth was held up by turtles? What about the religious belief that if one doesn't live their life properly, they may be reincarnated as a snail? I encountered a group of school students at the grand canyon who were sharing that some of the fossils in the sedimentary rock there were actually Cheerios placed there by the government. I don't know who to credit with the quote, but someone said it well, "Rick Santorum is one of the finest minds of the 13th century?

The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved.

When it is proved it will be a fact, until then it is still a theory.
Until then, imho, there are other theories that should be studied as part of a good educational curriculum. It is not my purpose to argue one theory over the other here, but to say a truly educated person should want to know and study all of the theories in a field. Until it is proven, a theory is speculation.

They just skipped over it in my son's Catholic School. The didn't cover any any of Darwin's findings, they didn't cover anything about the evolution of man, or any work relating to hominid man.
They covered the creationism in religion, and made it a point to say this was the Church's position.
I told my son not to argue because each kid is invited back each year at the school's discretion and unless he wanted to learn about survival of the fittest at West Warwick Junior High, just to let it slide on by. If carbon dating has not made then re-think their position, a 12-year old certainly is not going to change it.
There was still plenty of other science stuff to study.

Science is only fact when it does not contradict what the good book says, and if can be accepted without opening the wallet.

When it is proved it will be a fact, until then it is still a theory.
Until then, imho, there are other theories that should be studied as part of a good educational curriculum.

Again, it is a misinterpretation of what theory means. A theory has to be testable. The theories of the origin of life include primordial soup, deep sea vents, panspermia, etc. Creationism is religious doctrine, not theory. You would be right to say some people have other ideas about the origin of life, but in the case of creationism, it isn't a theory. Any science course on origins of life will discuss multiple theories (theology based private education apparently excluded :). Scientific theories are different than discussing religious doctrine. When one asks for teaching of religion in a public school science class, it is nothing other than religious indoctrination.

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

Isn't this EXACTLY one of the problems "created" when the Federal Government ignores the Constitution and rules over us as an over-reaching central power that passes laws to rule us when there is no constitutional power granted to it by us to do so. The Constitution, as written and intended leaves education to the States, and gives no power to the Federal Government to dictate how we are educated. If we accept that the Consitution is no longer relevant, and that the Federal Government actually has, and must have, the power to do as it wishes because that is the most efficient, progressive, scientific way to assure our good, then we are left to the whim of a few who may even change that whim with changing administrations.

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

the fact that you are the only creature of the millions on this earth capable of pondering these questions and perhaps the only creature in all that we see out there beyond that has "evolved" beyond
eating and crapping ....should tell you that it is certainly a valid scientific discussion

the climate change discussion should tell you that science and scientists are not only quite fallible but highly imperfect human beings subject to the same whims, biases and dishonesty motivated by agenda as anyone else :chased:

Isn't this EXACTLY one of the problems "created" when the Federal Government ignores the Constitution and rules over us as an over-reaching central power that passes laws to rule us when there is no constitutional power granted to it by us to do so.

yup......

The Constitution, as written and intended leaves education to the States, and gives no power to the Federal Government to dictate how we are educated. .

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.
Precisely. There's also no Constitutional requirement for the feds to provide educational funding to the states. The feds hold educational funding out as a carrot to force states to adhere to federal guidelines.

It's just like the BS Section 8 housing requirement in Mass. Towns aren't required to have a certain percentage of low-income housing. It's just that if towns decide to ignore the state guidelines, the towns lose some of their state funding.

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

I do understand that, Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no business imposing mandates on the States per education. It doesn't even have the option to entice the States with the promise of money if it will follow those illegal mandates. As JohnnyD has pointed out, the federales are not constitutionally empowered to tax the people of a State for purposes of imposing educational mandates. The Federal power to tax is for the purpose of doing legitimate Federal Government business, not to interfere with the States doing their business. As JohnnyD points out, this is a scam. And the States, starving for money and in order to recoup some that legitimately belonged to them in the first place, join the unconstitutional scam, and can excuse itself to its people by saying it's just complying with Federal mandates. State politicians can act just as unconstitutionally as their federal henchmen. "Leaving it to the States" would mean that people would have to approve by vote, or by voicing and initiatve. And in this day and age, the people of most States might well agree with your position on the teaching of creationism. Perhaps, in some States, they might also wish to have creationism taught as well as evolution or whatever scientific theories may come to exist.

And you do understand that all this makes your initial statement that Santorum's ammendment attempt "is imposing his religious beliefs through government force" a straw man argument since you are now saying that the government can't force educational mandates on States?

And do you understand that when I speak of the Federal Government, that includes ALL Presidents including Bush2/Nixon, and all Republicans as well as Democrats who are part of that Federal Government? As I have been saying in these threads, BOTH parties are guilty of shifting power from the States to the central government, trashing the Constitution, and advancing the administrative State at the expense of the constitutionally representative republic. Please view the YouTube video I posted in the other Santorum thread to understand what I'm talking about.

The only reason I lean toward Republican candidates at this time is becuase, of the two major parties, it is only in the Republican that there are some movements and congressmen who have the same concerns as I do of returning toward constitutional governance. I truly regret that such sentiments seem to have left the Democrat party.

it is only in the Republican that there are some movements and congressmen who have the same concerns as I do of returning toward constitutional governance. .

yes, those would be the radical, right wing extremists that we hear so much about...

some of you should reacquaint yourselves with the various definitions of "religion" and then revisit the establishment clause...the founders we pretty smart :uhuh:

They just skipped over it in my son's Catholic School. The didn't cover any any of Darwin's findings, they didn't cover anything about the evolution of man, or any work relating to hominid man.
They covered the creationism in religion, and made it a point to say this was the Church's position.
.
.

WOW..."they should be lined up and summarily shot"..right?:uhuh:

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

...the founders were pretty smart :uhuh:

For sure, Thomas Jefferson for one. The first President to attend Harvard, known for having the largest library of the times, knowing the works of "The Thinkers", Aristotle , Cicero, Alegron Sidney, against Monarchy , John Locke, the father of Liberalism, and including Deuteronemy, the book of laws.
They were the right men at the right time.
In mho, no one close to hold a candle to any of them now, or on the horizon.

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

Absolutely!

And you do understand that all this makes your initial statement that Santorum's ammendment attempt "is imposing his religious beliefs through government force" a straw man argument since you are now saying that the government can't force educational mandates on States?


My state takes federal money. He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law. Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law. Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education. Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

My state takes federal money.

Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? I thought it was the peoople's money. Doesn't the Federal Gvt. take the money from the people? Doesn't it take it from the people of your State in the first place, before your State "takes" it back? Isn't Big Brother bribing and coercing your State and its people with their own money?

He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law.

It's a little more complicated than that. Congressmen are, constitutionally, supposed to be representing the will of their constitutents, not imposing beliefs against that will. Nor do they have, on their own, that power. It requires two thirds of Congress to allow consideration of an amendment, and must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Much, much tougher, aparently, than forcing us to by health insurance, even though there is no constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to mandate that we must buy anything. Nor is there a provision that the Federal Gvt can "impose" ANY education law. And if Santorum was mispercieving the will of his constituents, he could be unelected.

Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law.

Again, this is the reason why the Constitution does not grant such power to the Federal Gvt. It does not grant the Federal Gvt power to create education law. But, of course, voila, it does, and you seem to be okay with that, except not if it presents theories of creationism.

Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education.

Theocracy!?!? OK, I'm with you, if Santorum was proposing an ammendment to create a theocratic state, he is clearly not fit for office. Of course, as was mentioned, he doesn't have the power to do that. And, you can thank the 17t ammendment for giving Senators the ability to be lone activists. But you're OK with federal involvement in education, just not . . .

Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

Education has already been the start of Federal Gvt encroachment on State and individual rights--just as all the other things you mention have been. They have all been part of the progressive creation of, what you seem OK with, the administrative, regulatory, centralized, all-powerful State. And earmarks are the method that Congress can deal with this State. They are the method by which representatives can show their consitutuents that they are actually doing something. The States have now become lobbyists to the Federal Gvt. I was surprised to learn that lobbying the Federal Gvt has only become as massively entrenched and widespread as it is since the 1960's. It took time for the central gvt. to become so powerful, and it has become so powerful that it has become the mecca for handouts, subsidies, and regulations that favor powerful lobbies. I take it you prefer that to whatever you think the government of 1810 is. I prefer the protection of individual liberty that the original Constitution with its separation of powers, limited government, and emphasis on self-government, confers--at any date and time.

WOW..."they should be lined up and summarily shot"..right?:uhuh:

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?
He concluded that approx 6,000 years ago, dinosaurs and people did not both walk the earth at the same time because the evidence points to it as an impossibility - probably from watching that unholy Discovery Channel.
I found that while holding my hands above my head, closing my eyes, and swaying back and forth while saying, "Praise him!" That I couldn't hear or see a goddamn thing.

My state takes federal money. .

Yes, after it takes it from us it gives it back to the states as it sees fit.

Gasoline for instance has a Federal tax of 18 and 1/2 cents/gal which it
takes from each of us. Then they spend 15% of it on public transportation
and return the rest to the States, again, as they see fit as each State
fights to get it's share back for their own roads.

Who knows best as to where the money is needed, some Fed Bureacracy
or the State Transportation Agency ?
Doesn't make sense, the state should tax gasoline for it's own needs and
skip the extra costs of a Fed system that takes and returns.

All about returning favors and power.

Yes, after it takes it from us it gives it back to the states as it sees fit.

Gasoline for instance has a Federal tax of 18 and 1/2 cents/gal which it
takes from each of us. Then they spend 15% of it on public transportation
and return the rest to the States, again, as they see fit as each State
fights to get it's share back for their own roads.

Who knows best as to where the money is needed, some Fed Bureacracy
or the State Transportation Agency ?
Doesn't make sense, the state should tax gasoline for it's own needs and
skip the extra costs of a Fed system that takes and returns.

All about returning favors and power.

Ok, so we should have an interstate highway system with giant gaps and delapidated bridges because some states don't have the wealth or where with all to take care of their roads?

The gas tax is outdated anyway. They don't adjust it for inflation so the trust is running out of funds. Envision a pay as you go system where you're taxed on miles driven...it's comming sooner than later.

-spence

wow, this sure got out of whack!

Debtuch - I heard santorum answer a few off the cuff questions and his response was deeply troubling to me. IMHO, it showed his character.
Like I beat my liberal friends over and over on 4 years ago - i cant see how anyone could have voted for Obama after hearing the Rev Wright rants. O never said those things, but its a character flaw that he didnt get up and walk out. For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

In a time of a completely destroyed economy, massive unemployment, an administration that hints more and more about increased action against Iran and tax law that is complete nonsense, Santorum chooses to focus on birth control, teaching creationism in schools and the government getting further and further involved with our personal lives.

I've said this before... Santorum is a front runner because he appeals to the religious fringe. Religious people in the US are passionate about their religious beliefs, not as much as those psychopathic Islam followers in the Middle East the riot and kill over a burnt book, but still passionate. That religious passion is the only reason Santorum is relevant today, but it's also the reason he would be completely destroyed in a general election.

More people are declared Independents now than either Dems or Repubs. Elections are won in the middle. Romney used to appeal somewhat to moderates but his lack of a spine has him pandering to the fringe and boasting "hey look! I can be conservative too".

You missed the point a bit. Santorum isn't choosing to focus on birth control, he wants to talk about the economy. However, the MEDIA are focused on his opinions on birth control, because they are trying to paint him as a fanatic. The last thing the media wants is for folks to hear what Santorum has to say about fixing the economy, because anyone with half a brain knows that conservative economic principles are the only thing that can save us from following Europe's lead down the economic toilet.

I probably wouldn't vote for Santorum in the primary, but if he wins the primary, I'll sure as hell vote for him in the general.

As John R hinted at, a whole lot of problems in our society can be traced back to the breakdown of the nuclear family. Obama knows this, but refuses to talk about it, because like other liberals, Obama doesn't want to tell anyone that anything is their fault. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear.

wow, this sure got out of whack!

For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

RIJIMMY, every study ever done, clearly shows that people of faith consider themselves to be happier than atheists. We are much more likely to describe our lives as full and rich, than athiests. Our kids are more likely to succeed than kids of athiests. We give WAY more time and money to charity than atheists. We get divorced far less often than athiests, we commit way less crime than athiests.

Am I saying that all athiests are bad? Nope. Am I saying that all religious people are good? Nope. I'm saying that, on average, having faith adds a whole lot of positive things to one's life that are difficult (though not impossible) to acquire otherwise. That's what Santorum is saying. And it's basically irrefutable. Liberals HATE that fact, but it's fact nonetheless.

YThe last thing the media wants is for folks to hear what Santorum has to say about fixing the economy, because anyone with half a brain knows that conservative economic principles are the only thing that can save us from following Europe's lead down the economic toilet.



Is Santorum considered a fiscal conservative now? He was Mr Earmark in the senate... I haven't heard any pundits from the right refer to him as a fiscal conservative...

Is Santorum considered a fiscal conservative now? He was Mr Earmark in the senate... I haven't heard any pundits from the right refer to him as a fiscal conservative...

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.

In any event, compared to Obama... Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il are fiscal conservatives. Santorum believes in free market capitalism, small federal govt, and low taxes, allowing for individual freedom and prosperity. Obama is obviously a European style socialist who despises individual prosperity, unless the prosperous person votes Democrat that is.

Santorum isn't a libertarian or anything. But unlike Obama, he knows that you can't spend your way out of bankruptcy, and unlike Obama, he knows you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Unlike Obama, Santorum knows that in this environment, we have no business spending $1.5 trillion more than we take in. Finally, unlike Obama, Santorum concedes that social security and Medicare need fixing in order to be saved. Whenever a conservative statwes that irrefutable fact, Obama says that person hates old people and sick people, and that kind of manipulation works on folks who have zero intellectual curiorisity.

Where am I wrong?

RIJIMMY, every study ever done, clearly shows that people of faith consider themselves to be happier than atheists. We are much more likely to describe our lives as full and rich, than athiests. Our kids are more likely to succeed than kids of athiests. We give WAY more time and money to charity than atheists. We get divorced far less often than athiests, we commit way less crime than athiests.

Am I saying that all athiests are bad? Nope. Am I saying that all religious people are good? Nope. I'm saying that, on average, having faith adds a whole lot of positive things to one's life that are difficult (though not impossible) to acquire otherwise. That's what Santorum is saying. And it's basically irrefutable. Liberals HATE that fact, but it's fact nonetheless.

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.

Where am I wrong?

Because what he says on the stump will be different when he gets into office, based on his track record in the senate. IM Very HO even given my poor comprehension.

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

Ypo sem to have posted this on the wrong thread...

"Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!"

Wrong. You've never heard me say men should be killed for not believeing what I believe, or for having beards not to required length. I don't murder innocent people, I don't enslave women.

"I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much."

So you are assuming that the more knowledgable a person is, the less need he has for religion. That's a big assumption on your part.

"I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist"

Than you're not nearly as knowledgable as you think you are. As I said, there are exceptions. There are horrible people who call themselves religious. But if someone is, say, a true devout Catholic, that almost necessarily means they are a good person.

" I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics."

You are entitled to your illusions. Most liberals feel that a mass murderer has a greater right to live than an unborn baby. Thus I feel intellectually and morally superior to every single hard-core liberal.

"Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood."

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.

You can paint us all as a bunch of insane pedophiles, as liberals like to do. We are human beings, menaing we are imperfect, and we screw up royally sometimes. But in the end, our religion motivates us to do some great things. At non-religious hospitals, for instance, they will refuse to treat you (for non-emergencies) if you cannot pay. At CAtholic hospitals, if you can't pay, you get treated for free, even if you aren't Catholic.

wow, this sure got out of whack!

Debtuch - I heard santorum answer a few off the cuff questions and his response was deeply troubling to me. IMHO, it showed his character.
Like I beat my liberal friends over and over on 4 years ago - i cant see how anyone could have voted for Obama after hearing the Rev Wright rants. O never said those things, but its a character flaw that he didnt get up and walk out. For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

im not going to tell you or explain how people could have voted for O after hearing Rev Wright. I said I cant see how they could. not for me to explain
I've stated above what Santorum said, I cant vote for someone that believes they are morally superior because of their religion.

I wont argue w/Jim, he is entitled to his opinion. my whole family were devout catholics, most are divorced, many cheated on their spouses. They are imperfect. we all are. But are they happier and more successful, not in my experience. Jim - check me on the sacrament of communion - you'll see Im right.

Oh - and one more. You frequently ( and I agree with you) state the fact that states/cities with the lowest incomes and most poverty are always democratic. Change that to religious and look at the global population. The countries with the most devout religious followers are also the poorest, most backwards countries on the globe.

:devil2:, literally

For Jim -

First written by an archbishop

Is The Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood? (http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a044.html)

reviewed for catholic doctrine

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist)


http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0996.asp
I told ya so!

I saw the bishop last week before school. He was talking to the kids as they were lining up - he shows up every few months. Bishops are the only people left who can really pull off wearing a cape - that's gotta be some kind of miracle.

Ok, so we should have an interstate highway system with giant gaps and delapidated bridges because some states don't have the wealth or where with all to take care of their roads,

-spence

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.
Seems like they do it like this already.

The Fed could tax less and have increased oversight into State funded projects...you'd still have controlling.

If the States increased their taxes to compensate...you'd still be costly.

Perhaps with a little better oversight and no bridges to nowhere pork you could make the system a bit more efficient.

-spence

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? :rolleyes: Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.

In any event, compared to Obama... Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il are fiscal conservatives. Santorum believes in free market capitalism, small federal govt, and low taxes, allowing for individual freedom and prosperity. Obama is obviously a European style socialist who despises individual prosperity, unless the prosperous person votes Democrat that is.

Santorum isn't a libertarian or anything. But unlike Obama, he knows that you can't spend your way out of bankruptcy, and unlike Obama, he knows you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Unlike Obama, Santorum knows that in this environment, we have no business spending $1.5 trillion more than we take in. Finally, unlike Obama, Santorum concedes that social security and Medicare need fixing in order to be saved. Whenever a conservative statwes that irrefutable fact, Obama says that person hates old people and sick people, and that kind of manipulation works on folks who have zero intellectual curiorisity.

Where am I wrong?

1. Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage.

2. Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. Yes, they are closer to Santorum, than Obama, but it is they are insane, not conservative.
3. Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue and a juvenile analysis of his positions.

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? :rolleyes: Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

Yes, I understand the context of what you where saying. I was pointing out that the entire context is wrong to begin with. The context of the Federal Government unconstitutionally usurping State and individual rights and powers is the problem, not just that all the politicians, including Santorum, operate in that context. In that context what ANY congressperson or president does is beyond the power that is consented by the governed. In that context, they are all acting as dictatorial bureaucrats. And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, but not to the actual existing laws and regulations that comprise that entire context and make possible what you see as some danagerous Santorum ploy.

And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, .

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

If you think what he attempted is scarier than the vehicle that allows him to attempt it, perhaps you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Founders intentionally precluded the central government from legislating or interfering not only in religious matters, but the great bulk of matters that pertain to our personal lives and the function of our local and State governments. It was a pre-eminent concern that the central power was limited to specific functions that would solidify the union but not infringe on State and individual rights. They had just freed themselves from a tyrannical government, and there was a great fear of unchecked central power, so they carefully, purposefully, crafted a form of government that would prevent such tyranny. What has evolved is the government they feared. The only reason Santorum could propose what offends you, is what the Federal Government has become. There are no ground rules, no constitution defining what it cannot do. It has abandoned the Constitution it pretends to follow, or that we think it does. There are no limits to its power except the fear that it may offend too many of us. It has the power to tell you what you can grow in your garden, how much, and whether you can sell it, and how you do so. It believes it can tell you what to buy. Santorum's attempt to introduce a counter balance to such power by instilling in our youth the possibility that there is another power and purpose in this life than that of the Federal Government is puny compared to what that government has become. That you can feel that Santorum's gambit is fundamentally scary, but that what the government has become and which allows him to attempt it, is not fundamentally scary, is puzzling.

1. Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage.

2. Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. Yes, they are closer to Santorum, than Obama, but it is they are insane, not conservative.
3. Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue and a juvenile analysis of his positions.

"Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage."

A few months ago, Paul Ryan said that we needed to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, in order to save those vital programs. Obama responded by saying that Ryan wanted to take benefits away from old people and sick people. Although to be fair, Obama has also hinted that those programs need to be cut in order to be saved...

"Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. "

Ever hear of hyperbole Zimmy? OK. I'll keep it objective. Obama is adding more to our debt than any president in the history of our country, and to make it worse, he's wasting that money. Instead of helping entrepeneurs grow businesses and actually create wealth, he gave the majority of it to unions, saving public sector jobs that can only be saved again next year by raising taxes, ie, by destroying wealth.

"Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue "

Obama has repeatedly said that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. That is what is completely untrue. I have also posted several times that even if we eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the extra tax revenue would take more than 500 years to pay down our debt. What that means is, we cannot tax our way out of this, but taxing is all he talks about. not only does he not want to talk about spending cuts, he is increasing spending.

You go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, OK?

"Although to be fair, Obama has also hinted that those programs need to be cut in order to be saved...

"Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. "

Ever hear of hyperbole Zimmy?

"Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue "

Obama has repeatedly said that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share.

You go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, OK?

I don't need to... you said it yourself

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.

you've mentioned that b4

allot of it is merely how "Catchy" it sounds

Romney/ Rubio is very Catchy sounding

Romney seems to be outta money ??

you've mentioned that b4

allot of it is merely how "Catchy" it sounds

Romney/ Rubio is very Catchy sounding

Romney seems to be outta money ??

I've been saying it since I first heard Rubio give speech when he was running for US Senate. He's impressive, and because of his Hispanic roots (and Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the US population), I believe Rubio is the most important Republican in the nation. If Republicans can't get a foothold into the Hispanic vote, we are doomed.

Is Romney having money trouble? I still believe it'll be Romney. Whether or not Obama gets re-elected will largely depend on what happens to the economy between now and November.

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

Christie is a darling of the GOP, due to his willingness to stand up to public labor unions. However, he is very liberal on some social issues, not sure if that turns off the power brokers of the party. And NJ doesn't carry as many electoral votes as FL. I agree Christie is likely on the short list.

I think Christie will be the VP pick, he has been out pushing for Romney

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.
He takes no prisoners, says what he means and
means what he says but has a knack for negotiation.

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.
He takes no prisoners, says what he means and
means what he says but has a knack for negotiation.

I like when he went ballistic over that woman who called in and challenged him on cutting education when he sends his kids to private school...real leadership there :yak5:

And now Santorum thinks Obama is a "snob" because he wants our kids to go to college.

-spence

Romney/Rubio? Would the conservs. vote for 2 Mormans?

I was suprised to hear he didn't know when his family left Cuba.

Romney/Rubio? Would the conservs. vote for 2 Mormans?

I was suprised to hear he didn't know when his family left Cuba.

Rubio calls himself a Catholic, i've heard folks doubt that, never heard he was a Mormon. I'd vote for a voo-doo practicioner if they believed in fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and that all life is sacred..

I'm guessing Rubio embellished his family history for dramatic effect. It didn't hurt Hilary when she lied about snipers shooting at her, so why should it hurt Rubio if he got a date wrong?

Rubio calls himself a Catholic, i've heard folks doubt that, never heard he was a Mormon. I'd vote for a voo-doo practicioner if they believed in fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and that all life is sacred..

I'm guessing Rubio embellished his family history for dramatic effect. It didn't hurt Hilary when she lied about snipers shooting at her, so why should it hurt Rubio if he got a date wrong?

But when Obama stated he was Christian a huge % of the teabaggers doubted him. To this day the Repub. leaderships says garbage like "if he says he's a Christian I have no reason to not believe him"

But when Obama stated he was Christian a huge % of the teabaggers doubted him.
His middle name is Hussein.

-spence

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.
Or you're gullible enough to go strictly by what he says as opposed to his voting history.

His middle name is Hussein.

-spence

hold on now, may be a little more than that....
Given that Rev wrights comments from O's church pulpit where of a radical madman spewing anti-american, anti-white filth and sounding VERY un-christian-like may have had a tiny impact on the public's perception of O's religion, dont ya think?

But when Obama stated he was Christian a huge % of the teabaggers doubted him. To this day the Repub. leaderships says garbage like "if he says he's a Christian I have no reason to not believe him"

Paul, there is a huge difference, unless I am missing something...

Rubio claims to be Catholic. I have no direct knowledge of anything Rubio has done to refute his claim.

Obama claims to be Christian. I do, however, have tons of evidence to refute his claim, and here it is. For 20 years, Obama listened to Rev Wright preach NOT Christianity, but something called Black Liberation Theology. Where Christianity is based on love and charity, BLT is based on hate, lies, and racism (for example, suggesting that the US Govt invented AIDS to eradicate blacks). Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years, Obama called Wright his spiritual advisor, Wright married the Obamas and baptized both of Obama's girls. That's a very close, intimate relationship. Obama stuck by Wright until it was politically necessary to throw him under the bus. All facts.

Obama can claim to be Christian. I can claim to look like Brad Pitt, but alas, my claiming such does not make it so.

If there is compelling evidence that Rubio isn't Catholic, I'm willing to listen...

Spence, of course, suggests that conservatives doubt Obama's Christianity because his middle name is Hussein. As usual, Spence ignores the facts that make Obama look awful, and instead he demonizes the opposition by calling us bigots. I don't care what Obama's middle name is. If Obama's spiritual advisor, for his entire adult life, was a guy who peddles in hate, don't tell me you're a Christian unless you completely renounce everything you heard for the last 20 years, and Obama hasn't done that.

Or you're gullible enough to go strictly by what he says as opposed to his voting history.

(1) voters voted for Obama because he said he'd be a centrist, despite his voting history. Correct? I guess they were all as gullable as you claim I am with Santorum...

(2) What did Santorum do that was so fiscally liberal? It's my understanding that his record was pretty conservative, though I could be wrong. You are the one who brought up his voting history, where are the details?

hold on now, may be a little more than that....
Given that Rev wrights comments from O's church pulpit where of a radical madman spewing anti-american, anti-white filth and sounding VERY un-christian-like may have had a tiny impact on the public's perception of O's religion, dont ya think?


No, RIJIMMY, to Spence there isn't more than that. If Obama claims to be Christian, then in Spenceworld, conservatives cannot possibly have a valid reason to refute Obama's claim. If we question Obama at all, it must be because we are racists and bigots and hatemongers. For Spence, there can never, ever, be any other plausible explanation. Never. According to Spence, any dissent from Obama is necessarily rooted in ignorance, hate, or both.

I like when he went ballistic over that woman who called in and challenged him on cutting education when he sends his kids to private school...real leadership there :yak5:


-spence

Christie prolly said, "This is America Mam, we still have Freedom of Choice
and I choose to send my children to parochial school for their education."

Tell me what that has to do with Leadership when OBAMA, Leader of our country,
chooses to send his children to private school rather than a public school in Washington ??
The Commander in Chief sets the example, right??

WSJ - It turns out that Mr. Rubio was a Mormon from age 8 to 12 when his mother joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a move to Las Vegas. The Rubio family returned to the Roman Catholic Church when he was 12, and Mr. Rubio was baptized a Catholic at 13.

Maybe he is a sleeper Morman agent?

Christie prolly said, "This is America Mam, we still have Freedom of Choice
and I choose to send my children to parochial school for their education."

Tell me what that has to do with Leadership when OBAMA, Leader of our country,
chooses to send his children to private school rather than a public school in Washington ??
The Commander in Chief sets the example, right??

I don't have an issue with private schools...in the interview though Christie sure came off as a douche. Google it...

-spence

(1) voters voted for Obama because he said he'd be a centrist, despite his voting history. Correct? I guess they were all as gullable as you claim I am with Santorum...

(2) What did Santorum do that was so fiscally liberal? It's my understanding that his record was pretty conservative, though I could be wrong. You are the one who brought up his voting history, where are the details?
(1) I never said anything about Obama. I thought we were talking about Santorum. Instead of defending Santorum with "yeah well Obama sucks because" kind of replies, how about sticking to the subject at hand by defending your guy on his merits.

(2) Let's look at Santorum's voting record:support of Medicare prescription drug program, supported that whole "Bridge to Nowhere" Bill that was chock full of massive pork, his repeated Yea votes for raising the debt ceiling, continued support of providing funds to Amtrak... should I go on?

I read a "Taxpayers for Common Sense" article yesterday that showed during Santorum's time in the House and Senate that he had at least $1billion of pet project he stuffed into bills. Looking for reference article now.

Now, that's not to say that he hasn't also voted in a way that would be in line with the views of a fiscal conservative, but remove your veil and stop trying to frame him up as a textbook example of what a fiscal conservative should be.

(1) I never said anything about Obama. I thought we were talking about Santorum. Instead of defending Santorum with "yeah well Obama sucks because" kind of replies, how about sticking to the subject at hand by defending your guy on his merits.

(2) Let's look at Santorum's voting record:support of Medicare prescription drug program, supported that whole "Bridge to Nowhere" Bill that was chock full of massive pork, his repeated Yea votes for raising the debt ceiling, continued support of providing funds to Amtrak... should I go on?

I read a "Taxpayers for Common Sense" article yesterday that showed during Santorum's time in the House and Senate that he had at least $1billion of pet project he stuffed into bills. Looking for reference article now.

Now, that's not to say that he hasn't also voted in a way that would be in line with the views of a fiscal conservative, but remove your veil and stop trying to frame him up as a textbook example of what a fiscal conservative should be.

Johnny, I'm no huge Santorum fan. But if someone says Santorum is a whack job because he's a strict Catholic, I don't see anything wrong with pouinting out that our current President has supported a church that is a lot weirder, a lot more divisive, and a lot more hateful, than anyone can ever claim about Catholicism.

I don't see Santorum through any veil whatsoever. That's why I simply asked you to provide examples of his spending record that were not in line with conservative principles. All I did was ask a question, do you get that prickly every time someone asks you a question?

WSJ - It turns out that Mr. Rubio was a Mormon from age 8 to 12 when his mother joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a move to Las Vegas. The Rubio family returned to the Roman Catholic Church when he was 12, and Mr. Rubio was baptized a Catholic at 13.

Maybe he is a sleeper Morman agent?

I'm not inclined to hold him "responsible" for the religion bestowed upon him by his parents. In any event, I'll take a Mormon over a disciple of Rev Wright any day of the week.

I don't care what Marco Rubio did when he was 8 through 12, and I dare say most folks don't care either. Ted Kennedy killed someone as an adult and used his family name to dodge guilt, and after that, he was elected to the Senate for 100 consecutive years (using hyperbole here). If that's OK, I'll give Rubio a pass for what church his parents took him to when he was 8 years old.

But evidentially a huge % of the teabaggers thought Obama was a Muslim with no proof b/c his father was a Muslim.

We know Rubio was a Mormon. I don't believe the teabaggers would vote for a slate w/potentially 2 Mormons.

Hi Jim in CT,
I would be a bit careful if I were you in stating that Rubio has a good shot at bringing along the Hispanic vote. His stand on immigration has not gone down well among the non-Cuban segment of the population. I could be wrong but I think the larger Hispanic community feels a great deal of sympathy for immigration reform and his move to a more conservative Republican position is seen by many in that community (especially in the West) as a sell out.

Hi Jim in CT,
I would be a bit careful if I were you in stating that Rubio has a good shot at bringing along the Hispanic vote. His stand on immigration has not gone down well among the non-Cuban segment of the population. I could be wrong but I think the larger Hispanic community feels a great deal of sympathy for immigration reform and his move to a more conservative Republican position is seen by many in that community (especially in the West) as a sell out.
Really, it puts Rubio to the right of Rick Perry! :hihi:

-spence

Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years, Obama called Wright his spiritual advisor, Wright married the Obamas and baptized both of Obama's girls.

must be Muslim.

(1) voters voted for Obama because he said he'd be a centrist, despite his voting history. Correct? I guess they were all as gullable as you claim I am with Santorum...


Is that a joke? Tax cuts for the majority of Americans. Moderate on the environment. Only thing he has done gun related is relax some regulations. On yeah, a Romney based health care program for the country... Helping the revolution in Libya... We'll find out how centerist when he gets to go up against the nut Santorum and see where the independents go.

But evidentially a huge % of the teabaggers thought Obama was a Muslim with no proof b/c his father was a Muslim.

We know Rubio was a Mormon. I don't believe the teabaggers would vote for a slate w/potentially 2 Mormons.

Paul, I am an active Tea Partier. Tea bagger is insulting and offensive as you know. That's fine if you want to play that way, just don't expect any better from me.

I am friends with many Tea Partiers, and not a single one of us ever thought Obama was a Muslim. Th ereason you think many Tea Partiers think that, is because the media portrays us that way, because they want to sucker you into thinking we're all a bunch of kooks. Looks like that obvious ploy worked on you. Anyway, I wish he were a Muslim, that would be a lot easier to take that being a black liberation theologian.

No one will hold Rubio responsible for what he did when he was 8.

"a huge % of the teabaggers thought Obama was a Muslim with no proof b/c his father was a Muslim. "

Funny. Since you are calling Rubio a Mormon due to the fact that his parents were Mormon, seems like you are guilty of the same exact insanity that you accuse tea partiers of. Kind of ironic when I put it that way, isn't it?

Tea partiers don't care if those guys are Mormon. We care that those guys, unlike Obama, understand that you can't perpetually spend trillions more than you have, without paying the piper some day. Tea partiers care that those guys understand that wealth is created in the private sector by entrepeneurs, not in public labor unions.

Hi Jim in CT,
I would be a bit careful if I were you in stating that Rubio has a good shot at bringing along the Hispanic vote. His stand on immigration has not gone down well among the non-Cuban segment of the population. I could be wrong but I think the larger Hispanic community feels a great deal of sympathy for immigration reform and his move to a more conservative Republican position is seen by many in that community (especially in the West) as a sell out.

If all he brings is the Cuban vote, that alone is a huge coup. But you nailed it, Mexicans (like most other liberals) don't really want to listen to folks who have the nerve to suggestthat we enforce our duly constituted laws. Liberals are more than willing to ignore those laws when it serves to increase their voting base.

Is that a joke? Tax cuts for the majority of Americans. Moderate on the environment. Only thing he has done gun related is relax some regulations. On yeah, a Romney based health care program for the country... Helping the revolution in Libya... We'll find out how centerist when he gets to go up against the nut Santorum and see where the independents go.

Obamacare. The stimulus, which gave billions and billions to public labor unions, while not keeping unemployment below 8% as he said. Forcing the catholic Church to hand out free contraceptives. Adding more to our debt than any president in the history of our nation. Not the actions of a centrist...Taking over the auto industry, telling them what kind of cars to make (the kind that nobody wants, but who cares about that).

I'm not saying Obama cannot win, I'm saying he's no more of a centrist than Santorum would be.

must be Muslim.

Zimmy, I wish he were a Muslim, that would be a lot less insane than subscribing to Black Liberation Theology. Inexplicable. Well, it's inexplicable to people who think rationally about such things. Imagine calling a man your spiritual advisor, who claims thatthe US Govt invented the AIDS virus to eradicate blacks from the planet. But for a guy (Obama) who also supported infanticide, and palled around with Bill Ayers, nothing is out of reach I guess.

I don't have an issue with private schools...in the interview though Christie sure came off as a douche. Google it...

-spence
Sounds like you did till I mentioned the Pres.

If your talking about the CNN interview, I saw it live and what you saw
is what you get.
If you don't like direct answers and telling it like it is,
I can understand why you would make a personal attack.

Hey, I tell it like it is.

Sounds like you did till I mentioned the Pres.

If your talking about the CNN interview, I saw it live and what you saw
is what you get.
If you don't like direct answers and telling it like it is,
I can understand why you would make a personal attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I tell it like it is.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I musta missed something, when did that start. :huh: :D

I wish, but knowing him as being Governor he's not the type of man that wants
to be second in command.


You mean hearing him say it on the interview?

Obamacare. The stimulus, which gave billions and billions to public labor unions, while not keeping unemployment below 8% as he said. Forcing the catholic Church to hand out free contraceptives. Adding more to our debt than any president in the history of our nation. Not the actions of a centrist...Taking over the auto industry, telling them what kind of cars to make (the kind that nobody wants, but who cares about that).

I'm not saying Obama cannot win, I'm saying he's no more of a centrist than Santorum would be.

Obamacare: so you won't vote for Romney then...

The stimulus: no way to really know, but many independent economists have said unemployment would have been several points higher and some say the stimulus was too small. Unemployment doubled under Bush , went up about 2% more in the beginning of Obama's presidency, has dropped back down and is trending down.

Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point. 8% more than Reagan, at this point. Definitely a sign of a radical.

Taking over the auto industry: again... you must be joking. GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year. Chrysler had the first profitable year since 2005. The loans to the auto companies prevented economic devastation.

Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist. So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate. Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah. $80 billion loan to the auto industry, most of which was paid back, almost exactly the same amount of subsidies for fossil fuel industry from 2002-2008. Quite radical.

The stimulus: no way to really know, but many independent economists have said unemployment would have been several points higher and some say the stimulus was too small. Unemployment doubled under Bush , went up about 2% more in the beginning of Obama's presidency, has dropped back down and is trending down.

Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point. 8% more than Reagan, at this point. Definitely a sign of a radical.

Taking over the auto industry: again... you must be joking. GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year. Chrysler had the first profitable year since 2005. The loans to the auto companies prevented economic devastation.

Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist. So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate. Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah. $80 billion loan to the auto industry, most of which was paid back, almost exactly the same amount of subsidies for fossil fuel industry from 2002-2008. Quite radical.
You forgot about Obama's radical obsession with killing terrorists. In some circles they call it appeasement :hihi:

Dow closed above 13,000 yesterday for the first time in 4 years. The auto industry, a cornerstone of the American fabric is doing well and consumer confidence is rising.

The market sees an Obama victory in November and is responding positively.

-spence

No, RIJIMMY, to Spence there isn't more than that. If Obama claims to be Christian, then in Spenceworld, conservatives cannot possibly have a valid reason to refute Obama's claim. If we question Obama at all, it must be because we are racists and bigots and hatemongers. For Spence, there can never, ever, be any other plausible explanation. Never. According to Spence, any dissent from Obama is necessarily rooted in ignorance, hate, or both.
Interesting, so Obama is baptized a Christian and has taken Jesus as his savior...yet it's up to Obama to prove he really is a Christian?

That's not how I thought the religion worked.

-spence

Spence, of course, suggests that conservatives doubt Obama's Christianity because his middle name is Hussein. As usual, Spence ignores the facts that make Obama look awful, and instead he demonizes the opposition by calling us bigots. I don't care what Obama's middle name is. If Obama's spiritual advisor, for his entire adult life, was a guy who peddles in hate, don't tell me you're a Christian unless you completely renounce everything you heard for the last 20 years, and Obama hasn't done that.
Actually you're wrong again. Obama did very publicly denounce the fringe things that Rev. Wright has said...

I've read much of what Wright has preached and as I've written in previous threads much of the criticism is either lacking context or doesn't get the tenor of some black churches that which can admittedly sound angry at times. I'll tell you this, Rev. Wright can keep your attention. Yes, there are comments like the AIDS claim which is widely believed in black communities.

Obama has denounced this.

He did stand behind Wright as a spiritual adviser as Obama has said he never personally heard the worst inflammatory remarks. I do find it interesting that after 20 years of sermons all his critics could come up with were a handful of gotchya's.

To argue that Wright's church wasn't Christian is absurd and ignorant. It's a fixture of south Chicago and works to help the poor and sick in the name of Jesus Christ.

Really, this is just all part of the effort to frame Obama as an "other"...he's a Muslim, no he wasn't even born here, no he's not even a REAL Christian!

-spence

Obamacare: so you won't vote for Romney then...

The stimulus: no way to really know, but many independent economists have said unemployment would have been several points higher and some say the stimulus was too small. Unemployment doubled under Bush , went up about 2% more in the beginning of Obama's presidency, has dropped back down and is trending down.

Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point. 8% more than Reagan, at this point. Definitely a sign of a radical.

Taking over the auto industry: again... you must be joking. GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year. Chrysler had the first profitable year since 2005. The loans to the auto companies prevented economic devastation.

Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist. So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate. Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah. $80 billion loan to the auto industry, most of which was paid back, almost exactly the same amount of subsidies for fossil fuel industry from 2002-2008. Quite radical.

Zimmy, you tried to portray Obama as centrist by ignoring everything liberal he's ever done. A person isn't defined only by the moderate things they do, they are defined by everything they do. A child knows this, but you tried that cheap ploy anyway. I'm sorry if I embarassed you by pointing that out, but when you deal with me, you would do well to remember that I am somewhat knowledgable of actual events, I am pretty thoughtful, and fairly rational. You aren't going to convince me that Obama isn't liberal by ignoring everything liberal he's ever done.

"Obamacare: so you won't vote for Romney then... "

Please show me where Romney suggested that he would impose Obamacare on the entire nation, and I will withdraw my support.

See Zimmy, you, like Spence, have already made up your mind, and you then try to bend all the facts to fit your agenda. I look at facts as they actually are, and then make my decision. That's how critical thinking works.

"The stimulus: no way to really know"

No way to know? Let's talk about what we do know. It cost $750 billion. Obama claims that it saved 3 million jobs. Even if we believe that, that works out to $250,000 per job. Ridiculous. We also know that most of the jobs saved were public sector union jobs (big suprise, since public sector labor unions give all their $$ to Democrats). Those jobs can only be saved again next year, and every year after that, by raising taxes on folks. Those jobs do not create wealth, the destroy wealth by requiring taxes to fund them. What else do we know? OBAMA HIMSELF admitted on TV that the country is worse off now than it was 3 years ago. We also know that we didn't have that money laying around, we borrowed it. So we have to pay interest on that, meaning our kids and grandkids will be paying for it.

"Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point"

EXCUSE ME? Are you taking your cues from Spence, and literally making it up as you go along?

US Federal Debt by Year - Charts Tables History (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/)

In 2008, when Bush left, debt was $10.0 trillion. At the end of 2011, it was $14.8 trillion. Assuming these numbers are correct, that's a 48% increase. When I got my degree in math at UCONN, they taught me that 48% is a whole lot more than 2%. Furthermore, some of the Bush debt was awesome debt...for instance, Bush's AIDS funding is credited by Stanford University (not a conservative think tank) with saving the lives of more than a million Africans. I'll HAPPILY pay higher taxes for something that noble. Wht has Obama done that can compare? What do we have to show for a 48% increase in debt?

In 3 years, Obama has increased the debt by 48%. Zimmy, if you have different numbers saying he increased debt by 2%, please enlighten me.

"GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year"

When you get subsidized $$ from the govt, and permission from the president to screw your bondholders, it's a bit easier to be profitable.
Zimmy, I thought the Occupy agitators were opposed to a system that rewards political insiders at the expense of everyone else. Liberals went berserk when Bush bailed out the banks (which I was also opposed to), but those same liberals think it's great that Obama bailed out the auto industry? Why the double-standard? Answer...the auto industry is unionized, and unions support Democrats, so it's OK to bail them out. In other words, organizations that are sypmathetic to liberals can get huge bailouts, and nobody else.

"Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist."

Correct. No one who supports infanticide can be called a centrist.

"So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate"

Wrong. America isn't the same thing as Massachusetts. Apples and oranges. What's good for a particular state isn't necessarily what's good for our country.

"Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah"

That has been proven by me as 100% false. Not even close to the truth. Not even close. You go ahead and show me how he only increased debt by 2%, and I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice (probbaly some charity trying to free Abu Mumia Jamal from prison), and I'll do it publicly here. Good luck.

You have been completely, and I mean completely, annihilated.

2% increase in debt. And here in CT, my side loses to your side every single year. I'm glad my financial security is just about all set in after-tax accounts, so that when the sh*t hits the fan thanks to people like you who don't know the difference between 2% and 48%, my family will be secure. Don't come crying to me when the checks start bouncing Zimmy.

2% increase in debt! Did you hear that everybody? No need to be worried about the debt, stop claiming that Obama is flushing the economy down the toilet and following Europe off the cliff! Zimmy says that Obama has only increased debt by 2%, so there's no need for concern! The Tea Party agenda has no merit, none at all. Nothing to see here, no need for concern.

Thanks Zimmy, because I was under the opinion that we had accumulated debt to the point of it being a national security issue.

Zimmy, since you were making jibberish up, why did yuo stop at the 2% lie? Why didn't you claim that Obama personaly paid back all of our debt out of his own checkbook? Then he'd really be somethiing...

Paul, I am an active Tea Partier. Tea bagger is insulting and offensive as you know. That's fine if you want to play that way, just don't expect any better from me.



Your one of the most offensive persons in this forum. I've pointed it out before.

Call any woman dogs lately?

Call any woman dogs lately?
Muslims don't like dogs, I can't see Jim throwing Obama that bone.

-spence

Your one of the most offensive persons in this forum. I've pointed it out before.

Call any woman dogs lately?

I called Maddow a half-beast (I wouldn't call her a dog, that would be an insult to dogs, my favorite animal) after, and only after, she repeatedly referred to Tea Partiers as tea-bagging racists on the air. There is literally zero evidence to back that up (we got Martin Luther King's niece to speak at our largest gathering), but Maddow knows it's a lot easier to call me a racist than it is to show her audience (all 12 of them) that I'm wrong..

I'm the most civil person you will ever meet, at first. I offer that civility until you spit it back in my face, which you have also repeatedly done. Paul, I coach my kids t-ball team, and no one is more dedicated to making sure they have fun. Until he died 2 weeks ago, my golden retriever and I visited hospice patients every Sunday evening for 10 years. I love people, and care deeeply about them, and I bet I give more time and money to charity than most here. However, i will not sit by like a toilet with teh seat up, and let the real hate mongers crap all over me. I always play fair at first. But throw a few cheap elbows at me, and you won't like the outcome.

Spence, I have never, ever, implied Obama is a Muslim. I have said, multiple times, I wish he were. I learned a lot more about Islam when I was in Iraq than you will ever know, and let me tell you, it can be beautiful. I wish Obama were Muslim, because that would be a lot easier for me to accept than his lifelong devotion to Black Liberation Theology, which is based on hate and racism.

Spence, you can keep trying to paint me as an irrational extremist. I'm the most rational person I know, I'm a mathematician at heart, which means the foundation of my thought process is gathering irrefutable fact, and then figuring out the most likely explanation for those facts. That's how I solve every single problem I confront, every single one. Objectively and open-mindedly, with a little bit of Catholic compassion thrown in for good measure.

sorry about your dog passing.

You have been completely, and I mean completely, annihilated.

2% increase in debt! Zimmy says that Obama has only increased debt by 2%, so there's no need for concern!



you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.

By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2% :biglaugh:. You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off.

sorry about your dog passing.

A most sincere thanks. His name was Scout, he was great hiking partner, a great fishing partner, and man was he incredible with hospice patients (he was a certified pert therapy dog). I've been a dog-lover since I was a kid, no one has ever seen a dog like him.

you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.

By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2% :biglaugh:. You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off.


OK, so what was your point? That his debt increase was 2% more than Bush's debt increase?

If that's what your point was, it has very little validity. First, we don't repay "percentages", we repay absolute dollars. Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war. Bush, as I said, also saved 1.2 million lives in Africa (for which, in a fair world, he would have received the Nobel Peace Prize, instead he gets called a racist), and THAT'S worth going into debt for. Giving teachers insane pensions is not worth breaking the bank for, in my humble opinion.

By the end of 2012, the debt will be around $15 trillion. That's a 50% increase over what he inherited. And what do we have to show for it? Bush built an anti-terror infrastructure from scratch, saved 1.2 million Africans from AIDS (for which he gets almost zero credit), and liberated millions of Muslims worldwide, from other, monstrous, Muslims.

Obama has kept killing terrorists, I give him big-time kudos for that. But he doesn't understand high-school level economics. Obama, like most liberals, believes that poverty is caused by other people's wealth. That can only be true if wealth is finite, like a pizza. That is demonstrably false, since GDP changes over time. You help poor people by giving them the tools they need to get wealthier, not by giving them someone else's money. Obama also doesn't seem to understand that there are limits to what you can reasonably borrow.

Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war.

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

I start the best threads.

I start the best threads.

Or the worst.

It will be better then you become a gun toting texas republican...

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation). That's another thing that Obama, and liberals, don't get. If you want to raise tax revenue (dollars collected), raising tax rates isn't always the answer. Tax dollars collected aren't maximized at tax rates of 100%, because people stop working before that.

"We were "Dragged" into 1 war "

Correct.

"We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation).
If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?


"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

You mean hearing him say it on the interview?

No, knowing him as Governor and the kind of guy he is.
Pretty obviious if he said it or not.

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?




I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

"If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

Of course it's not that simple. Cutting tax rates doesn't always increase revenue. But Obama keeps saying that if he raises tax rates by x%, we'll get X% more revenue. The goal (and it's challenging) should be to grow the economy, so that you can raise revenue by decreasing rates. I don't hear Obama suggesting that. All I ever hear from him, in terms of addressing debt, is hiking up rates on the wealthy. As you said, it's not that simple. I know it's not as simple as saying revenue changes with rates, but Obama doesn't seem to know that. Why is that?

"Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?"

Absolutely correct. One of those wars was to destroy Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The other was to remove someone who was repeatedly violating the terms of the UN resolution he signed. Very, very expensive (I bet it cost me more than it cost you). And one can make a compelling argument that it wasn't worth the cost or the blood.

"I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good."

Thank you...

"why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. Liberals, not conservatives, put pressure on banks to give mortgages to people who had zero hope of repaying them. Then those crappy mortgages were bundled and invested in ways that almost nobody understands (derivitives, credit default swaps). Lots of blame to go around on both sides for the investment side of it.

Put it this way. The economy grew like crazy, starting in Clinton's second term. What did he do to make that happen? He balanced the budget, cut taxes, cut spending. He also (very bravely in my opinion) told millions of healthy, lazy Americans on welfare to get back to work. Do you know what they did? THEY WENT BACK TO WORK. The economy grew like crazy, unemployment was so low my dog could have gotten hired at a Fortune 500 company. Quite simply, it worked.

We need to learn from past mistakes. Not just conservative mistakes, but liberal mistakes too. The liberal states in New England are in horrible shape. Here in CT, our solution was to implement the largest tax hike in the history of our state last July (and they made the increases retroactive to January 1, so we had to be double the increase for the rest of that year!), and we increased spending. Meanwhile, we continue to give public labor unions a blank check. On the federal level, liberals refuse to accept the reality (sad reality, but still reality) that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. There literally is no choice. The math shows we will never have enough tax revenue to fund promised benefits. I wish we could solve all our problems by tweaking tax rates on zillionaires. That accomplishes nothing. But to hear Obama, you'd think that was the answer to our prayers.

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?
Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

Spence, I'm not ignoring the Internet bubble or energy prices. And similarly, the economic growth during Bush's first 7 years was largely fueled by real estate values increasing (and low interest rates). I admit those all played a part. I'm not ignoring anythiing. Unlike you, I don't ignore that which doesn't serve my agenda.

YOU ARE THE ONE ignoring the reality that the Clinton and Bush tax cuts (and the increased consumer demand that is the inevitable result) also helped fuel the economy. You must ignore that fact, because for you to admit that fact would be to admit that conservatives have some good ideas, and you cannot ever bring yourself to admit that. Earth to Spence...individuals spend their own money much more effeciently than the feds.

Spence, on the issue of taxes...can you name a large economy, based on high federal taxes, that is thriving? There is only one...Norway. And Norway does it by exploiting every drop of oil they have. Obama wants Norway's tax rates, without their oil. That's what we have here in Connecticut. It's not working out so well.

Unreasonable.

You're ignoring the single largest factor in the 1990's economic growth which was investment driven not by low taxes but by the Internet bubble and low oil prices.

Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one.

People can #^&#^&#^&#^&er all they want about which ideology contributed more to the infrastructure for the credit bubble, but the reality is that bigger trends shaped this mess.

-spence

"Coming off of this, a rise in foreign wealth looking for better returns the derivatives market. The money needed a home so the finance wonks built one."

Oh Spence? You are forgetting that the derivitives market was once sufficiently regulated to prevent what happened with subprime mortgages. The repeal of that regulation was signed by that right-wing nut Bill Clinton. If that regulation had been left in place, the subprime mortgage bust would not have been nearly so bad.

A republican congress wrote that bill, Clinton signed it. That's why I say plenty of blame for both sides. I doubt you'd ever say anything so fair. Or astute, for that matter.

You also seem to be ignoring the effect of the subprime mortgages themselves. You choose to ignore this, because you know it makes your side look stupid. If banks were allowed to enforce underwriting standards, none of this would have happened.

I start the best threads.

A couple times I have had to say, "now wait, they are attacking Jimmy now?" :rotf2:

Spence, I'm not ignoring the Internet bubble or energy prices. And similarly, the economic growth during Bush's first 7 years was largely fueled by real estate values increasing (and low interest rates). I admit those all played a part. I'm not ignoring anythiing. Unlike you, I don't ignore that which doesn't serve my agenda.
Why didn't you mention it then?

YOU ARE THE ONE ignoring the reality that the Clinton and Bush tax cuts (and the increased consumer demand that is the inevitable result) also helped fuel the economy. You must ignore that fact, because for you to admit that fact would be to admit that conservatives have some good ideas, and you cannot ever bring yourself to admit that. Earth to Spence...individuals spend their own money much more effeciently than the feds.
No, I'm just appreciating the other factors. The short-term effect tax rates have on the economy is really dependent on many factors, it's not a simple up or down...that's the ideology talking. Republicans are full of all sorts of nonsense on this issue.

Spence, on the issue of taxes...can you name a large economy, based on high federal taxes, that is thriving?
Australia, Brazil, Germany etc...

-spence

Obama wants Norway's tax rates, without their oil.

You sure say a lot of untrue stuff for someone who likes to ask where you are wrong all the time. Or was this quote hyperbole, too?

I'm the most civil person you will ever meet, at first. I offer that civility until you spit it back in my face, which you have also repeatedly done. Paul, I coach my kids t-ball team, and no one is more dedicated to making sure they have fun. Until he died 2 weeks ago, my golden retriever and I visited hospice patients every Sunday evening for 10 years. I love people, and care deeeply about them, and I bet I give more time and money to charity than most here. However, i will not sit by like a toilet with teh seat up, and let the real hate mongers crap all over me. I always play fair at first. But throw a few cheap elbows at me, and you won't like the outcome.



Yup, like most of the conservatives I know, when it comes to charity,
walk the walk, not just lip service.

You sure say a lot of untrue stuff for someone who likes to ask where you are wrong all the time. Or was this quote hyperbole, too?

Zimmy, do you deny that Obama's vison of America includes higher tax rates and less oil production? Are you going to deny that? If so, please remember to open the windows when you are painting inside.

Why didn't you mention it then?


No, I'm just appreciating the other factors. The short-term effect tax rates have on the economy is really dependent on many factors, it's not a simple up or down...that's the ideology talking. Republicans are full of all sorts of nonsense on this issue.


Australia, Brazil, Germany etc...

-spence

Brazil!! You're going to hold up Brazil as a place we should emulate? Brazil, where they are putting an oil well in everyone's back yard!!! Spence, if you want to be like Brazil and exploit our natural resources in a smart way, you have my support.

Spence likes Brazil's economic model, which is based entirely on oil production!

Yup, like most of the conservatives I know, when it comes to charity,
walk the walk, not just lip service.

When you have the time, google a study/book called "Who Really Cares", which is the definitive statistical study on who are the most charitable types of people.

Turns out, conservatives give more time to charity, more money to charity, and donate more blood, than liberals. Even though conservatives have, on average, less wealth than liberals do! Which makes sense, as conservatism i sstrong in the rural South, liberalism is strong among the sophisticated swells.

Liberals like to donate someone else's money to charity. not their own....

Here's a summary of the data. Sppence will tell us not to believe it, since it is presented by that right-wing media outlet, ABC.



Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1)

chicks are pretty hot in brazil

chicks are pretty hot in brazil

Wise man once told me prior to a trip to Rio De janeiro, "taking your wife to Rio is like bringing a grain of sand with you to the beach."

Oh Spence? You are forgetting that the derivitives market was once sufficiently regulated to prevent what happened with subprime mortgages. The repeal of that regulation was signed by that right-wing nut Bill Clinton. If that regulation had been left in place, the subprime mortgage bust would not have been nearly so bad.
I don't think derivative market regulations were designed to tolerate the MASSIVE amount of sub-prime risk that was injected into the system from 2002-2006. Regulatory changes helped grease the skids, but it was the allure of high returns that was the engine behind the meltdown.

A republican congress wrote that bill, Clinton signed it. That's why I say plenty of blame for both sides. I doubt you'd ever say anything so fair. Or astute, for that matter.
Go back and read all my old threads on the issue.

You also seem to be ignoring the effect of the subprime mortgages themselves. You choose to ignore this, because you know it makes your side look stupid. If banks were allowed to enforce underwriting standards, none of this would have happened.
As we've beaten to death, lending influenced by the CRA made up a fraction of the problem. Banks didn't want to enforce underwriting standards because they could take a profit for originating the loan then sell the risk. Given the demand for such securities there were few with any incentive to slow down the feeding frenzy.

:deadhorse:

-spence

Zimmy, do you deny that Obama's vison of America includes higher tax rates and less oil production? Are you going to deny that? If so, please remember to open the windows when you are painting inside.

Why do you always say something, then change it? You said he wants the tax rates of Norway. He has never once remotely pushed for tax rates of/like Norway. Your oil thing comment is just ridiculous. Oil production under Bush steadily dropped from 5.7 million bpd at his election to about 5.2 million bpd at the end of his term. Under Obama it has steadily grown back to where it was before Bush came into office and will be at 6 million bpd by the end of this year. I don't even want to argue whether it is a good or bad thing, but your claims don't hold up to reality.

Why do you always say something, then change it? You said he wants the tax rates of Norway. He has never once remotely pushed for tax rates of/like Norway. Your oil thing comment is just ridiculous. Oil production under Bush steadily dropped from 5.7 million bpd at his election to about 5.2 million bpd at the end of his term. Under Obama it has steadily grown back to where it was before Bush came into office and will be at 6 million bpd by the end of this year. I don't even want to argue whether it is a good or bad thing, but your claims don't hold up to reality.

Even if Obama has never said "I want higher taxes", if he does say "I want to increase the size and scope of the federal government", that's the same thing. You cannot add $5 trillion to the debt, in 4 years, and not expect taxes to increase. So unless he suggests that the Chinese are going to tear up all the I.O.U.'s we gave them, Obama knows, and is OK with the fact, that are taxes will skyrocket.

Zimmy, on the oil front...you are going to sit there and honestly claim that Bush wasn't more pro-oil than Obama is? Bush, who is from Texas? You're going to deny my claim that Obama isn't as pro-oil as Bush was?

It doesn't matter if we produce more oil now than we did before. Even if we do, it's certainly not because Obama supported the oil industry more than Bush did. Zimmy, more black babies are born out of wedlock today than 20 years ago. Is that because Obama encourages black men to knock up their women and take off?

Jesus God Almighty. I'm debating a guy who claims that Obama is a bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush. I have never, EVER, heard that one before.

Here's an interesting perspective, I'll bet the guy even owns a few pairs of skin boots...

Obama deserves credit for strong growth in energy industry - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Obama-deserves-credit-for-strong-growth-in-energy-2241647.php)

-spence

Here's an interesting perspective, I'll bet the guy even owns a few pairs of skin boots...

Obama deserves credit for strong growth in energy industry - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Obama-deserves-credit-for-strong-growth-in-energy-2241647.php)

-spence

Thanks Spence. The author of that piece is the director of somehting called the "Clean Energy Incubator", and he wrote a piece telling us how awesome Obama is.

Spence finds it an "interesting" perspective that a guy who is devoted to greem energy, praises Obama. Yes, Spence, you've really given us all something to think about.

This guy mentions "post partisan" approaach to energy. Yes, indeed. In trying to appeal to both sides, Obama rejected the Canadian pipeline (which conservatives wanted) and he gave $500 million to Solybdra, a privately held solar company. Yes, it's quite difficult to label Obama as either a conservative or liberal on this issue, he's REALLY straddling the fence, isn't he.

Funny, the author didn't bother to include any opinions from Gulf oil workers who lost their jobs when Obama shut down additional drilling in the Gulf. I cannot imagine why this was left out, Spence, can you offer any insight as to why?

When gas hits $5 a gallon this summer, and republicans show video of Obama claiming that high oil prices would actually be good for America (he has said that), let's see what happens!

You are precious Spence...simply precious...

Jesus God Almighty. I'm debating a guy who claims that Obama is a bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush. I have never, EVER, heard that one before.

No, I never said that. Your's is a statement of delusion. I countered your patently false and baseless claim that "he wants to cut oil production" with actual facts about oil production levels over the past 12 years. Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

No, I never said that. Your's is a statement of delusion. I countered your patently false and baseless claim that "he wants to cut oil production" with actual facts about oil production levels over the past 12 years. Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

Zimmy, a little while ago, you said this (an exact, direct quote)..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Instead of dissecting every hypertechnicality of my posts, how about telling us all what you meant by that. Can you support that statement, please?

Here is some data (1st column is year, 2nd column is debt as of that year, 3rd column is annual increase to the debt)

Government Spending Chart: United States 2000-2012 - Federal State Local Data (http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_2000_2012USb_13s1li111mcn_H0f#usgs1 01)

Year Debt Annual Debt Increase
2000 5,629
2001 5,770 141
2002 6,198 429
2003 6,760 562
2004 7,355 595
2005 7,905 551
2006 8,451 546
2007 8,951 499
2008 9,986 1,035
2009 11,876 1,890
2010 13,529 1,653
2011 14,764 1,235
2012 16,351 1,587

During Bush's first 3 years (2001-2003), he added $1.1 trillion to the debt. During Obama's first 3 years (2009-2011), he added $4.8 trillion to the debt.

During Bush's entire 8 years, he added about $4.4 trillion to the debt (less of an increase than Obama added in just 3 years). And Bush got dragged into a war on terror, forcing us to build a massive anti-terror infrastructure. And he saved the lives of 1.2 million Africans, which to me is worth just about any price.

Zimmy, once again, here is what you posted...

"..."Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point."

Zimmy, please do one of 2 things...

(1) show me how Obama increased the debt by 2% more than Bush

or

(2) admit you made it up.

Good day. And checkmate.

Good day. And checkmate.

Now wait? I ask you a direct question about one of your statements, you ignore it and write a diatribe that you want me to respond to?

Now wait? I ask you a direct question about one of your statements, you ignore it and write a diatribe that you want me to respond to?

When I ask you to clarify a mathematically false comment, it's a "diatribe"?

Zimmy, please tell me what question of yours I dodged. If I answer your question (and I will), is there any chance you'll answer mine? I've asked you, several times now, to support your statement, and you are also dodging.

I'm as flawed as anyone, but I am not in the habit of ignoring direct questions. Ask me a question, you'll get a direct answer. Please show me the same courtesy.

No, I never said that. Your's is a statement of delusion. I countered your patently false and baseless claim that "he wants to cut oil production" with actual facts about oil production levels over the past 12 years. Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

Spence, my statement, that Obama "wants to cut oil production", is not patently false, nor is it baseless. He has consistently hindered efforts to drill in the Gulf, and he won't make a decision on the Canadian pipeline until after the election (gee, I wonder why).

Oil production is less with Obama in the White House than it would be if a "drill baby drill" conservative was in the White House. Do you deny that? Really? If you deny that, then why do oil companies give so much $$ to Republicans?

I think I responded to your question. Maybe you have the integrity to respond to mine? How did Obama increase the debt by 2% more than Bush to this point?

We're all watching, and we're all waiting...

He has consistently hindered efforts to drill in the Gulf, and he won't make a decision on the Canadian pipeline until after the election (gee, I wonder why).
.
Really?

There is a difference between requiring more oversight, which is pretty apparant if corners are being cut that caused the DW Horizon accident, and constantly hindering efforts to drill.

Obama to expand drilling off Alaska, in Gulf - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-expand-drilling-off-alaska-gulf-165453778.html)

Obama Takes To Nevada And Colorado To Talk Energy, Expanding Drilling In The Gulf (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/obama-energy-expanding-drilling-gulf-of-mexico_n_1233366.html)

Obama eyes more drilling in Gulf of Mexico - Business - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/01/26/obama-gulf-drilling.html?cmp=rss)

Really?

There is a difference between requiring more oversight, which is pretty apparant if corners are being cut that caused the DW Horizon accident, and constantly hindering efforts to drill.

Obama to expand drilling off Alaska, in Gulf - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-expand-drilling-off-alaska-gulf-165453778.html)

Obama Takes To Nevada And Colorado To Talk Energy, Expanding Drilling In The Gulf (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/obama-energy-expanding-drilling-gulf-of-mexico_n_1233366.html)

Obama eyes more drilling in Gulf of Mexico - Business - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/01/26/obama-gulf-drilling.html?cmp=rss)

"Really?"

Yes, really.

RIROCKHOUND, forgive me, but I'm not going to say that Obama is oil-friendly, just because the Huffington Post says so. You cannot get more biased than the Huffington Post.

I could easily post stories from the Big Oil lobbyists talking about every drilling permit that Obama has denied, and how he has dragged his feet on the Canadian pipeline.

You need to consider both sides.

In any event, I never said Obama eliminated all production. I said he has prevented the oil companies from doing much of what they want to do, and that's true. If you want to learn if that's true, ask someone besides Ariana Huffington. If you're getting your news there, that explains quite a bit. Did you let your subscription to The Daily Worker expire?

Tragically, we cannot eliminate things like oil spills, no more than we can eliminate car accidents. Reasonable oversight is obviously necessary to prevent what is preventable. But with the pipeline, Obama has made it clear that no decision will be made until afetr November 2012. Why do YOU think he says that? Is it because the oversight takes precisely that long, or could the election have something to do with it.

I've heard many strange things on this forum. I never thought I'd hear the liberals deny that Obama is hindering oil production. If that's the case, liberals would have no valid concern for conservatives being in the pocket of big oil companies. would they? But I hear that all the time. Unlike you and Spence and Zimmy, I'm honest enough to admit that conservatives are going to produce more domestic oil than Obama would. I won't deny that reality just to make us seem different than what we are.

"Really?"

Yes, really.
I could easily post stories from the Big Oil lobbyists talking about every drilling permit that Obama has denied, and how he has dragged his feet on the Canadian pipeline..

So, they had carte blanche under GWB? Are their numbers regarding the % percentage of denied permits under the different administation. Or are we both speaking anectodally here?

Should continue to have that status... ? If so, I would disagree completely with that mindset...

But I hear that all the time. Unlike you and Spence and Zimmy, I'm honest enough to admit that conservatives are going to produce more domestic oil than Obama would. I won't deny that reality just to make us seem different than what we are.

But you're not honest enough to admit that Obama is not nearly as anti-Oil as the right likes to portray him.

So, they had carte blanche under GWB? Are their numbers regarding the % percentage of denied permits under the different administation. Or are we both speaking anectodally here?

Should continue to have that status... ? If so, I would disagree completely with that mindset...

"So, they had carte blanche under GWB?"

Stop putting radical, crazy jibberish words in my mouth, OK? I never said Obama eliminated all production. Likewise, I never said that any conservative would let them do whatever they wanted.

And I see that you have obviously chosen to refuse to address the subject of the Canadian pipeline entirely.

What I'm saying is this...as a rule, republicans would allow for more domestic oil production than Obama would allow. I have never heard anyone deny that, anywhere, until now. If you are right (and you are not), why do oil companies give $$ to republicans. They must really be stupid I guess.

Next, you guys will tell me that Obama is a better friend to the unborn than Bush was.

What planet do you people live on, anyway?

But you're not honest enough to admit that Obama is not nearly as anti-Oil as the right likes to portray him.

You won't hear me admit that, because it's not true. That's not any more true than saying that Obama is more pro-life that Rick Santorum.

Bill Clinton: Drilling delays 'ridiculous' - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51150.html)

Here is what Bill Clinton (the right wing nut job) said about Obama's drilling delays in the Gulf...

"Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others."

There is a reason that oil companies donate huge $$ to Republicans.

"And I see that you have obviously chosen to refuse to address the subject of the Canadian pipeline entirely.

Actually, I supported the decision. If he turns around and approves it after Nov 2012 I will be very disapointed.

We'd be refining oil that is produced from THE WORST possible way to obtain a fossil fuel (just short of or on par with strip-mining coal) for the Canadians to then ship anywhere they wanted. We'd have the right to buy it back on the open market. I don't oppose it for the pipeline portion of it, I think the networth to US is very low.

I'd rather see them focus on domestic efforts on more nukes and more domestic natural gas.

Actually, I supported the decision. If he turns around and approves it after Nov 2012 I will be very disapointed.

We'd be refining oil that is produced from THE WORST possible way to obtain a fossil fuel (just short of or on par with strip-mining coal) for the Canadians to then ship anywhere they wanted. We'd have the right to buy it back on the open market. I don't oppose it for the pipeline portion of it, I think the networth to US is very low.

I'd rather see them focus on domestic efforts on more nukes and more domestic natural gas.

"I think the networth to US is very low." The labor union that would have benefitted (steel workers??) sure made it sound like a big deal.

"I'd rather see them focus on domestic efforts on more nukes and more domestic natural gas"

Agreed.

If gas hits $5 this summer (I don't see how that fails to happen, I think $6 is easily possible if something happens with Israel/Iran), and the GOP shows video of Obama saying "higher gas prices would be good for America" (which he has said, and which is unbelievably stupid), that hurts him big time. We'll see.

Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?
Your 4.4 trillion for Bush is lower than I have seen.
Anyway... from readily available numbers
Bush- 4.8 tr
Obama 4.9tr

4.9/48= 1.02 or 102% or
4.8/4.9= 0.98 x 100 =98%

Not sure where your 4.4 came from, but there seems to be variability depending on the source.. When Bush took office it was 5.78 tr. When he left it was 10.626. That is +4.84. I clearly said "at this point. " Debt will continue to rise, but where it is at the end of Obama's second term depends on so many variables it wasn't part of my math. On top of that, some of Obamas debt is the result of war started by Bush, but I didn't try to tease that out either. Anyway, that is the math. Not made up at all.

Instead of dissecting every hypertechnicality of my posts, how about telling us all what you meant by that. Can you support that statement, please?



Hypertechnicality??? You say something that is baseless or factually incorrect and I counter it.

Jim in CT; forgive me, but I'm not going to say that Obama is oil-friendly, just because the Huffington Post says so.

There was never a question of how oil friendly he is. We are responding to your quotable statement that he wants to cut oil production. He hasn't said it, hasn't done it. What else is there to discuss about your statement that he wants to cut oil production?

Your 4.4 trillion for Bush is lower than I have seen.
Anyway... from readily available numbers
Bush- 4.8 tr
Obama 4.9tr

4.9/48= 1.02 or 102% or
4.8/4.9= 0.98 x 100 =98%

Not sure where your 4.4 came from, but there seems to be variability depending on the source.. When Bush took office it was 5.78 tr. When he left it was 10.626. That is +4.84. I clearly said "at this point. " Debt will continue to rise, but where it is at the end of Obama's second term depends on so many variables it wasn't part of my math. On top of that, some of Obamas debt is the result of war started by Bush, but I didn't try to tease that out either. Anyway, that is the math. Not made up at all.

"Not made up at all"

I posted a link to my numbers, you didn't. Let's assume your numbers are corrcet, OK? Maybe they're not made up. But you're sure comparing apples and oranges...

(1) Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for 3. NO ONE denies that the debt is still going up significantly for 2012. Tough to compare debt added in 8 years to debt added in 3. By the time Obama is done, no one is denying he'll add more to the debt than any president in history.

(2) A HUGE portion of Bush's debt was the (in my opinion necessary) response to 09/11. The USA built a HUGE anti-terror infrastructure. Obama hasn't been faced with a life-or-death situation that required a massive expenditure like that. His spending has been, largely, to fund liberal pet projects (giving big $$ to labor unions, green companies, etc).

As I have said, Bush also spent a fortune in Africa, saving 1.2 million lives (money well spent). But Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, and Bush gets called a racist.

There was never a question of how oil friendly he is. We are responding to your quotable statement that he wants to cut oil production. He hasn't said it, hasn't done it. What else is there to discuss about your statement that he wants to cut oil production?

He has cut oil production, in the sense that oil production is LESS than it would be if a republican was president. He has been more of a hindrance to oil production that John McCain would have been. Let me put ti that way.

He has cut oil production, in the sense that oil production is LESS than it would be if a republican was president. He has been more of a hindrance to oil production that John McCain would have been. Let me put ti that way.

Ok, lets leave out the checkmate and show me I'm wrong comments, then. Also, it would be helpful if you said oil production is less than if a republican was president, rather than he wants to cu production.

He has cut oil production, in the sense that oil production is LESS than it would be if a republican was president.
Why think when you can just hit the :easy:

And this from a guy who thinks he's rational???

-spence

Ok, lets leave out the checkmate and show me I'm wrong comments, then. Also, it would be helpful if you said oil production is less than if a republican was president, rather than he wants to cu production.

Zimmy, if you say that Obama only added 2% more debt than Bush, but you're comparing 3 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush (and ignoring that Bush had to build the anti-terror infrastructure) I'm going to call you on it.

I will try to clarify my terms. I will not stop using hyperbole. If I say Castro is more fiscally conservative than Obama, I'm pretty sure you know I'm using hyperbole and humor.

If gas hits $5 this summer (I don't see how that fails to happen, I think $6 is easily possible if something happens with Israel/Iran), and the GOP shows video of Obama saying "higher gas prices would be good for America" (which he has said, and which is unbelievably stupid), that hurts him big time. We'll see.
If Obama has said it you shouldn't have any problems finding a video...or at least a quote...sorry I should be more specific.

A real quote, don't just quote your own made up nonsense.

-spence

If Obama has said it you shouldn't have any problems finding a video...or at least a quote...sorry I should be more specific.

A real quote, don't just quote your own made up nonsense.

-spence

don't know if Obama has actually stated it but Chu certainly has'''

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html)

don't know if Obama has actually stated it but Chu certainly has'''

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html)
No, according to Jim President Obama said "higher gas prices would be good for America" (Jim's quotes).

He's a rational man who's mathematically obsessed with FACTS.

I'm sure he'll chime in soon.

-spence

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html#ixzz1nuAoUuth)

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html#ixzz1nuAoUuth)

Jesus Bryan, there you go with that "context" again :rolleyes:

-spence

many on the left have believed for a very long that high energy prices would be the best way to reduce consumption and force people into energy efficient vehicals and more efficient lifestyles, the left has longed for European level energy costs.....Obama has, on several occasions talked about higher energy prices, he lamented quick rises that the public would not respond well to but he does not have a problem, based on his statements, with high energy prices....I'll get the quotes if you'd like, but it's no revelation...he does have a problem in an election year if gas continues to soar...

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458] I'm not even Chu said it would be good, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



is it possible he thought this would be a bad thing?

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458]

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

wouldn't be a very good argument...Obama motors can't sell the Volt, a boatload of Obama investments in green energy have gone belly up and we're still dependent on foreign oil where it is a powder keg currently....Obama is currently arguing for higher taxes on oil and gas companies however, which should help the cost of oil and gas plummet...right?

many on the left have believed for a very long that high energy prices would be the best way to reduce consumption and force people into energy efficient vehicals and more efficient lifestyles, the left has longed for European level energy costs.....Obama has, on several occasions talked about higher energy prices, he lamented quick rises that the public would not respond well to but he does not have a problem, based on his statements, with high energy prices....I'll get the quotes if you'd like, but it's no revelation...he does have a problem in an election year if gas continues to soar...
Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

are you making a point or just stomping your feet? :)

nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag -spence

YES HE CAN!!!

Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"

I wonder how much Obama's car weighs and what kind of mileage it gets?

I looked it up...The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per US gallon.

kinda like everything else with this president isn't it?...does it reflect badly on his character Spence?

I'd post some pics of him eating but it's not pretty and he likes to keep the temps in the rooms that he is occupying Hawaii warm:)

Some Math, gas was 9% LOWER (adjusted for inflation) when Bush
left office than when he started.

When Obama took office gas was $1.83/ gal., and now we are headed
for $5 maybe $6. What a difference 3yrs makes.

YES HE CAN!!!

Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"

I wonder how much Obama's car weighs and what kind of mileage it gets?




Well, he drove a Chrysler 300 before he was elected and did his
campaining, not mispelled :), in an SUV.

When Obama took office gas was $1.83/ gal., and now we are headed
for $5 maybe $6. What a difference 3yrs makes.
So what's the difference?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what's the difference?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I said, some Math, be my guest if you choose. :)
I think you divide the lower # by the higher one. :hihi:

You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

which god do you believe in? do you believe in the God of the Bible? if so, what would you know of him without the Bible? There are many "man-made"religions that place their "faith" in many forms of "higher power" and not necessarily in a god...if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you study religion through the Bible or the Bible through religion..there's a difference...and do you apply that study to other "religions"...there is a difference there as well....if you believe in the God of the Bible, do you believe that he created you and all that you see? If you accept that remarkable ability ...do you not believe that wine and host could not be the body and blood of Jesus and representative of his sacrafice, is it insane?....I'm pretty sure that Jesus was quoted as saying "this is my body..... this is my blood....do this in memory of me"..I'm happy to provide the full quote should Spence request it.....do you believe in Jesus as Saviour?...what do you hope for when your time here is concluded and do you think any of it is tied to what the Bible teaches? I ask these questions because many of the things that you say seem contradictory when it comes to your belief....maybe you know too much:)

No, according to Jim President Obama said "higher gas prices would be good for America" (Jim's quotes).

He's a rational man who's mathematically obsessed with FACTS.

I'm sure he'll chime in soon.

-spence

I have to admit, the only reference I could find was energy secretary Chu who said this...

"“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=924457

Spence, I admit I cannot find a quote attributing that to Obama. Now, will you show us the same courtesy? On the Romney dog thing, yuo said putting the dog on the roof says something about Romney's character. But when asked about Obama's character in terms of Rev Wright, you said that you need to consider the good that Wright did, before yuo make any judgments about Obama's character for associating with him. And for the record, you supplied zero evidence of any good done by Wright (who is a snake that got fabulously wealthy by peddling in hate), you just said you "bet" he's done some good things, too.

Spence, when you said something about Romney's character, why were you willing to makwe judgments based on one bad decision in isolation? In Obama's case, you said we need to consider all the good in connection with the bad. Why don't yuo offer Romney the same courtesy?

Answer...you are a hypocrit.

Lastly, Spence...If Mr Chu said he wants our gas prices to be as high as Europe's, and Obama picks this guy as ENERGY SECRETARY of all things, it stands to reason that Obama is on board.


There's a lot of political hay to be made of that statement for the GOP, when gas prices hit $5 in a few months.

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

Wait, wait!!!!!

Spence, here's what you said...

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

OK, Spence. When I made a claim about somehting Obama said, yuo demanded that I prove it.

OK, buddy, what's good for the goose! Spence, please show us a video or post a link of a prominent Republican saying that.

I'm waiting Spence, and I'm all ears.

You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you?

Wait, wait!!!!!

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "



I'm pretty sure that's a Santorum quote:uhuh:

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html#ixzz1nuAoUuth)

"without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. "

Not true. We don't want gas prices to rise, that's not a healthy reason to transition to renewable energy. What we want is for renewable green energy to be cheaper than gas is today. Rockhound, if we set gas at $100 a gallon, then yes, it will be cheaper to buy crappy electric cars, and it will be cheaper to pay $50,000 to convert our houses to geo-thermal.

BUT WHO DOES THAT HELP? Anyone? Not that I see...

"The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades)."

That's true, we are decades away from realistically-priced green energy. The question is, what do we do in the meantime? Because in the meantime, the world will use lots of oil. The countries that provide that oil, some of which are not very nice places, will make tons of money. It seems to me that here in America, we could use tons of money. Why let others get rich off of us? Why not cash in our lottery ticket, too? This is an issue for which I cannot fathom the view on the left, it's literally incomprehensible to me.

"The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road..."

We are? Kicking the can down the road? Obama gave $500 million of our money (which he had to borrow from the Chinese) to Solyndra. Billions and billions of stimulus $$ went to green energy.

Rockhound, whoever invents the first electric car that actually works for American families, will instantly become the richest person who has ever lived. That's all the incentive that the private sector needs. They're working on it. It's just a hard problem to solve.

Like I said, some Math, be my guest if you choose. :)
I think you divide the lower # by the higher one. :hihi:

Remember where prices were about August 2008? Probably best if we ignore them...

Remember where gas prices were 6 yrs ago? 99 cents gal.

Remember where gas prices were 6 yrs ago? 99 cents gal.

I don't remember paying $0.99 since I had my first car (during the Clinton years).... certainly don't remember that price in 2006...

That's true, we are decades away from realistically-priced green energy.

Mostly because of a very strong fossil fuel lobby. You are a math guy right? Try adding in all of the costs associated w/ oil, coal, natural gas into the mix and see where it comes out. You might be suprised. It would have to be an honest assessment that includes the cost of military involvement in the middle east, taxes and special tax breaks, etc. It is pretty complicated, but the numbers are interesting.

Also, the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that, but it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering and gets excellent reviews for performance. Was that just "hyperbole", too?

Mostly because of a very strong fossil fuel lobby. You are a math guy right? Try adding in all of the costs associated w/ oil, coal, natural gas into the mix and see where it comes out. You might be suprised. It would have to be an honest assessment that includes the cost of military involvement in the middle east, taxes and special tax breaks, etc. It is pretty complicated, but the numbers are interesting.

Also, the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that, but it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering and gets excellent reviews for performance. Was that just "hyperbole", too?

"the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that"

From consumer demand. Even with a $7500 tax credit thanks to Komrade Obama, nobody wants them. (allow the hyperbole, as the truth is, almost nobody wants them).

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45632)


Zimmy, you corrcetly stated that when you talk about the cost of oil, lots of thing sneed to be factored in. Try reading the link I posted, which talks about what the Volt ultimately costs, when you factor in the government subsidies.

And who ends up paying $40,000 for Chevy Volts? Not poor folks, but wealthy folks. So despite liberal claims that conservatives are the ones who want to make the rich richer, here is a case where Obama is giving everyone who buys a Volt (wealthy people), a $7500 thank-you from the feds.

How many janitors and men's room attendants are plunking down$40,000 for a car? Zero. I'd think bleeding heart liberals would be opposed to giving handouts to people who have $40,000 to purchase a car?

Almost nobody wants these cars. They're insanely expensive, and they're not practical.

No hyperbole. Just fact. Not facts that you will like, or even admit given your rabid fanaticism, but facts nonetheless.

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45632)

"it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering"

Despite some as-yet unexplained fires after crash-tests?

http://www.slashgear.com/volt-misses-2011-sales-goals-05206315/

The Volt was a sales flop, despite the fact that the feds were offering a $7500 rebate.

What do you say, Zimmy?

I don't remember paying $0.99 since I had my first car (during the Clinton years).... certainly don't remember that price in 2006...

My bad RRH, lowest was $1.39 in 2006, had to be earlier than that
but it was while I was on this site which was since 2003. Gas war for about
a month went below $1.00.

Like I said, some Math, be my guest if you choose. :)
I think you divide the lower # by the higher one. :hihi:
It's funny, when gas went up under Bush he said he can't do anything about it. Yet now people want to blame Obama...even though he can't do much about it either.

-spence

Spence, I admit I cannot find a quote attributing that to Obama. Now, will you show us the same courtesy? On the Romney dog thing, yuo said putting the dog on the roof says something about Romney's character. But when asked about Obama's character in terms of Rev Wright, you said that you need to consider the good that Wright did, before yuo make any judgments about Obama's character for associating with him. And for the record, you supplied zero evidence of any good done by Wright (who is a snake that got fabulously wealthy by peddling in hate), you just said you "bet" he's done some good things, too.
Big difference between strapping a dog to a roof and making a provocative remark to get your parish to think. I've listened to a number of his sermons, he's pretty interesting.

Spence, when you said something about Romney's character, why were you willing to makwe judgments based on one bad decision in isolation? In Obama's case, you said we need to consider all the good in connection with the bad. Why don't yuo offer Romney the same courtesy?
He strapped a dog to his car.

Lastly, Spence...If Mr Chu said he wants our gas prices to be as high as Europe's, and Obama picks this guy as ENERGY SECRETARY of all things, it stands to reason that Obama is on board.
No it doesn't. Obama has been consistent in his statements that higher gas prices hurt Americans and in his entire first term hasn't raised the Federal Gas Tax a single penny.

The proof is in the pudding.

-spence

Wait, wait!!!!!

Spence, here's what you said...

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

OK, Spence. When I made a claim about somehting Obama said, yuo demanded that I prove it.

OK, buddy, what's good for the goose! Spence, please show us a video or post a link of a prominent Republican saying that.

I'm waiting Spence, and I'm all ears.

You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you?
My remark wasn't in quotes, I was making the point that the Republican position on energy at times sure isn't very pragmatic.

-spence

My remark wasn't in quotes, I was making the point that the Republican position on energy at times sure isn't very pragmatic.

-spence

So can you explain from where you get the notion that "THE" republican position on oil is that it's infinite, because it came from God?

Who told you that's the official Republican position?

JUST ONE TIME, can you dircetly answer a question?

Also, according to you, when Wright tells folks that the deds invented AIDS to kill blacks, you're saying he's "trying to get people to think"?? Think about what?

Spence, every rational person (and you are NOT in that group) knows that Wright is a smutty hate-peddler. Who doesn't even believe his own BS, because he bought a mansion in a neighborhood that's 99.9% white.

But all you can do is COMPLIMENT him by calling him "thought-provoking". I guess you think that peaceful white-supremacist grouos are merely thought-provoking too?

You are really, really pathetic.

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.
My understanding is that RIJIMMY is correct. It's beyond a simple symbolic gesture, you're supposed to believe you're taking in Christ.

It's also why I'm (as a baptized Episcopalian) not invited to take communion at a Catholic service. The do offer hot cider in the basement though.

-spence

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45632)


I say that your silly, biased article has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year, never mind what they will be for the model year. So you get "crappy" from some moron who says "crummy," but does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car? As far as the rest of the "crap", new technology always costs much more to produce initially. Over time, the actual cost associated with it drop as well as the total cost of the investments. I see the Hannity type simpletons use the same stupid math game to say each volt costs $250,000. Yeah, if they only sold them for one year and never again.

Spence, every rational person (and you are NOT in that group) .

Why do you feel the need to make those judgements or spew them in public?

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement.
I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one. One thing that is always referenced when considering new technologies is the price of oil. Things like "This technology is projected to be of comparable costs when oil is at $120/barrel" is a frequent mantra.

I've read that if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, oil is projected to spike to around $145-160/barrel and then settle $130-150/barrel. If that happens, mark my words, bills about clean energy will be back in Congress and a major call for more clean energy will happen.

I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but Iran "initiating" war would be an ideal case for Obama. Just as was stated during Bush's run for a second term, no president has lost a reelection while the US is at war. Also, after being reelected, oil prices would be through the roof and Obama's clean energy initiatives would actually be more affordable than oil.

Granted, there's a lot of speculation and hearsay in the above, but crazier things have happened. Stay Tuned.

So can you explain from where you get the notion that "THE" republican position on oil is that it's infinite, because it came from God?
That's the position I've inferred after listening to years of Republican pundits ridicule the Left for concern over sustainable energy.

Also, according to you, when Wright tells folks that the deds invented AIDS to kill blacks, you're saying he's "trying to get people to think"?? Think about what?
There is a pretty big population, especially within the black community, that subscribes to the conspiracy making it almost somewhat mainstream in those circles.

Considering that the US Government has done some pretty wicked things, The Tuskegee Syphilis Study for instance, or more recently reported...

Vets feel abandoned after secret drug experiments - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/health/human-test-subjects/index.html?hpt=us_t4)

So even though I don't believe the US Government invented AIDS, I can have some appreciation for, from Wright's perspective, why he might subscribe to such a theory.

If anything it's slightly less kooky than Jerry Falwell's contention AIDS was Gods answer to homosexuality...and Falwell was perhaps one of the most influential ministers in modern times.

Spence, every rational person (and you are NOT in that group) knows that Wright is a smutty hate-peddler. Who doesn't even believe his own BS, because he bought a mansion in a neighborhood that's 99.9% white.

But all you can do is COMPLIMENT him by calling him "thought-provoking". I guess you think that peaceful white-supremacist grouos are merely thought-provoking too?

You are really, really pathetic.
I read an interesting article about black churches, it went into the fact that they can sound really angry or even racist at times...but the message really is meant to be positive reinforcement for the black parishioners. From an outsiders perspective that might appear dated, but the race issue in this country really isn't that old when you think about it...

-spence

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one.
.

JD, leave your wallet home. :hihi:

It's funny, when gas went up under Bush he said he can't do anything about it. Yet now people want to blame Obama...even though he can't do much about it either.

-spence

OK Spence, I did the math for you.
Obama's first 3+years in office gas has gone up 200%.

Gas was down-9% when Bush left the office.

When prices rose after Bush was elected he was blamed because it was said he
and Cheney were oilmen and profiting from it.
If so why would they want to bring down the price of oil 9% from the time
elected to the end of their terms?

I say that your silly, biased article has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year, never mind what they will be for the model year. So you get "crappy" from some moron who says "crummy," but does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car? As far as the rest of the "crap", new technology always costs much more to produce initially. Over time, the actual cost associated with it drop as well as the total cost of the investments. I see the Hannity type simpletons use the same stupid math game to say each volt costs $250,000. Yeah, if they only sold them for one year and never again.

TODAY...

GM laying off 1300 due to low Volt sales

byJoel Gehrke

General Motors Co. announced the temporary suspension of Chevrolet Volt production and the layoffs of 1300 employees, as the company is cutting Volt manufacturing to meet lower-than-expected demand for the electric cars.

"Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand," GM spokesman Chris Lee said. The car company had hoped to sell 45,000 Chevy Volts in America this year, according to the Detrot News, but has only sold about 1,626 over the first two months of 2012.

"GM blamed the lack of sales in January on “exaggerated” media reports and the federal government's investigation into Volt batteries catching fire, which officially began in November and ended Jan. 21," the Ann Arbor (Mich.) News reported.

The laid-off employees will be rehired April 23rd, when GM resumes production of the Volt.



I think Solyndra did the same thing just before they went belly up:)

OK Spence, I did the math for you.
Obama's first 3+years in office gas has gone up 200%.

Gas was down-9% when Bush left the office.

When prices rose after Bush was elected he was blamed because it was said he
and Cheney were oilmen and profiting from it.
If so why would they want to bring down the price of oil 9% from the time
elected to the end of their terms?

The point Jeffy was making, was that, yes, Bush was blamed, but all his defenders were saying it was beyond his control. Now the same defenders (or at least their idealogs) are blaming Obama....

The point Jeffy was making, was that, yes, Bush was blamed, but all his defenders were saying it was beyond his control. Now the same defenders (or at least their idealogs) are blaming Obama....

the difference is that while the causes may not be under the control of the president, some solutions are, Bush was willing to take action and I believe Clinton actually tapped into the strategic reserves...which was controversial...this administration is perfectly content with high energy prices..they promised them if you recall

I say that your silly, biased article has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year, never mind what they will be for the model year. So you get "crappy" from some moron who says "crummy," but does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car? As far as the rest of the "crap", new technology always costs much more to produce initially. Over time, the actual cost associated with it drop as well as the total cost of the investments. I see the Hannity type simpletons use the same stupid math game to say each volt costs $250,000. Yeah, if they only sold them for one year and never again.


"has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year"

That's interesting. All of a sudden you sound like a data expert. If that's true, I can only imagine why you compared 3 years of Obama debt to 8 years of Bush debt. Now that's a real head-scratcher...

Let me ask you this, Zimmy. Is NBC biased against green energy? Because here's an article from MSNBC, an affiliate of NBC, which is very liberal...

News Headlines (http://www.cnbc.com/id/46608011)

Some key quotes...

"With sales lagging and inventories building, GM has decided to idle production of the Chevy Volt for five weeks. During that time, about 1,300 workers will temporarily be laid off."

"so far, Volt demand has fallen well short of original expectations. "

"when GM launched the Volt, it boldly targeted sales of 10,000 in 2011 and 60,000 in 2012. Last year, GM sold 7,671 "

OK. so even with a federal rebate of $7500, they still missed sales numbers by almost 25%, and now they need to lay production workers off. I'm sure Warren Buffet is dying to get a piece of this action.

Zimmy, when they make an electric car for $20,000 that performs the way a family needs it to perform, I'll be first in line. When massive federal subsidies can't convince people to buy this thing, that's called a flop. I'm not saying I like that. I'm just saying what it is.

"does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car?"

You keep talking about the performance of the car. This article, like the last one I posted, mentioned the as-yet unexplained battery fires, here's a quote...

"Then the controversy and investigation into Volt battery fires left a cloud hanging over the electric car. "

Zimmy, from where are you getting your info that this car has awesome performance? If i'm plunking down $40,000 for a car, I don't want to have to stop every 10 miles to plug it in for 12 hours, and on top of that, during those brief drives between re-charging, I have to remember to wrap my newborn in a fire blanket so he doesn't get burned to death? yeah, I'll go down and get mine tomorrow.

People don't want the car, Zimmy. If the car performed well, why don't people want it? Does everyone in America work for big oil, and that's why they won't buy it? For $40,000, you can get a big, comfy sedan, that actually has the high performance you're referring to.

I guess NBC gets its talking points from Shell Oil?

" For $40,000, you can get a big, comfy sedan, that actually has the high performance you're referring to.



I can get a really nice used car for less than 10 grand and have more than 30 grand left to spend on gas :uhuh:

and have more than 30 grand left to spend on gas :uhuh:

Which, by the time Obama is through, might just be enough for a full tank of gas.

The Volt has unexplained battery fires, but Zimmy is ready to give it 2 thumbs up for performance.

$40K for a car that may spontaneously combust around your family.

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one. One thing that is always referenced when considering new technologies is the price of oil. Things like "This technology is projected to be of comparable costs when oil is at $120/barrel" is a frequent mantra.

I've read that if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, oil is projected to spike to around $145-160/barrel and then settle $130-150/barrel. If that happens, mark my words, bills about clean energy will be back in Congress and a major call for more clean energy will happen.

I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but Iran "initiating" war would be an ideal case for Obama. Just as was stated during Bush's run for a second term, no president has lost a reelection while the US is at war. Also, after being reelected, oil prices would be through the roof and Obama's clean energy initiatives would actually be more affordable than oil.

Granted, there's a lot of speculation and hearsay in the above, but crazier things have happened. Stay Tuned.

You make some very compelling points. But I expect gas to hit at least $5 this summer, and that's right when folks will be thinking about the election. $5 gas will not play well for Democrats. If this wasn't an election year for Obama, $5 gas would indeed be good or his green energy agenda (even though it would be bad for all of us).

I never thought about a conflict increasing his chances...

Good luck in AC, don't chase any inside straights.

"


Zimmy, from where are you getting your info that this car has awesome performance?

"has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year"
That's interesting. All of a sudden you sound like a data expert.


Jim, please understand I am done responding to you for now. I previously ignored your posts for awhile because I felt any discussion was just a waste of time. I am done again. You can call checkmate if you want, but please understand it is not an issue of me thinking that you are too good at making your points and I can't keep up. I am just bored. Your comments like having to stop every 12 miles to plug it in demonstrate that in this case, and some others you really have no idea what you are talking about. It is a plug in hybrid that goes between 25 and 50 miles on electric only, then runs on gas. More hyperbole or clueless? Hyperbole gets old... Here is some links for you...

2012 Chevrolet Volt Reviews, Pictures and Prices | U.S. News Best Cars (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/)

2012 Chevrolet Volt Consumer Reviews (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/consumer-reviews.html)

oh also...

your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011. You really need me to do the math for you?

Jim, please understand I am done responding to you for now. I previously ignored your posts for awhile because I felt any discussion was just a waste of time. I am done again. You can call checkmate if you want, but please understand it is not an issue of me thinking that you are too good at making your points and I can't keep up. I am just bored. Your comments like having to stop every 12 miles to plug it in demonstrate that in this case, and some others you really have no idea what you are talking about. It is a plug in hybrid that goes between 25 and 50 miles on electric only, then runs on gas. More hyperbole or clueless? Hyperbole gets old... Here is some links for you...

2012 Chevrolet Volt Reviews, Pictures and Prices | U.S. News Best Cars (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/)

2012 Chevrolet Volt Consumer Reviews (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/consumer-reviews.html)

oh also...

your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011. You really need me to do the math for you?

you are pretty funny...here's the best attempt at a positive article that I can find...of course sales are so strong that they are scaling back production and laying of 1300:uhuh:

Chevy Volt Sales up in February

GM's Plug-In Bounces Back from 'Political Punching Bag' Status

March 1, 2012

Sales of General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Volt rallied back in February from early year lows, as the company sold more than 1,000 of its hybrid electric plug-in vehicle last month.

That marks the Chevy Volt's third-best selling month ever, and the numbers serve as the first sign that GM's foray into the electric vehicle market has weathered a storm of criticism and negative publicity late last year and early this year. GM sold just 623 Volts in January, and it sold 281 last February


it's third best month ever was 1000 vehicals? WOW...only need to more than triple that for the next ten months to meet expectations

Toyota Beats U.S. Sales Estimates as Rising Gas Prices Stoke Prius Demand

By Alan Ohnsman - Mar 1, 2012

Toyota Motor Corp. seeking record U.S. Prius sales in 2012, said increased supply of the hybrid helped the automaker beat analysts’ estimates for February sales and will buoy gains in March amid rising fuel prices.

Asia’s largest carmaker reported yesterday that sales of Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles rose 12 percent last month, more than the 8.2 percent average of seven estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Prius sales, including the v wagon, were up 52 percent to 20,589, the highest in almost four years. The total for all Toyota and Lexus hybrids climbed 60 percent.

.“They’re targeting 220,000 Prius sales,” said Alan Baum, principal of Baum & Associates, a provider of auto-industry analysis in West Bloomfield, Michigan. “Given the assumption we’ll have high gas prices into the summer, this looks like a reasonably good bet.”

I'd blame it on the Obama Reverse Midas Touch

maybe more Obama money is required:

New proposals....Two separate initiatives are being pursued in 2011 to transform the tax credit into an instant cash rebate. The objective of both initiatives is to make new qualifying plug-in electric cars more accessible to buyers by making the incentive more effective. The rebate will be available at the point of sale allowing consumers to avoid a wait of up to a year to apply the tax credit against income tax returns.[64][65] The first initiative is from Senator Debbie Stabenow who reintroduced the "Charging America Forward Act." This bill was originally introduced in August 2010 but was not voted by the full Senate.[64] The bill will turn the tax credit into a rebate worth up to $7500 for plug-in electric vehicles and also provide businesses with a tax credit for purchasing medium or heavy duty plug-in hybrid trucks.[66] The other initiative is from the Obama Administration that was included in the submitted FY 2012 Budget as a provision to transform the existing credit into a rebate that will be claimable by dealers and passed along to the consumers.[65][67]

Another change to the law governing the plug-in tax credit was introduced by Senator Carl Levin and Representative Sander Levin who are proposing to raise the existing cap on the number of plug-in vehicles eligible for the tax credit. The proposal raises that limit from the existing 200,000 PEVs per manufacturer to 500,000 units.



they should just offer Volt buyers $15,000 instant cash in the spot for buying a Volt and get the sales up to like...half of what their goals is and claim victory...still won't need to worry about hitting that sales cap so I guess there's no rush to run right out and buy one

you are pretty funny...here's the best attempt at a positive article that I can find...of course sales are so strong that they are scaling back production and laying of 1300:uhuh:


You might try my link :) It is based on 28 reviews and test drives. You can also see the other "crappy cars" it is compared to on this link from the same site.
Best Upscale Midsize Cars Rankings | U.S. News Best Cars (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Upscale-Midsize-Cars/)

By the way, a pile of pintos sold back in the day. we had two growing up. They weren't such great cars, but sold like crazy. Funny thing is they might explode if hit in the right spot. On a related note, the Volt battery was found to cause no more chance of fire than in any other combustible engine with a battery. Not sure the most accurate way to judge the quality of a car is based on first year sales or to disregard it because it had kinks during the first year..

You might try my link :) It is based on 28 reviews and test drives. You can also see the other "crappy cars" it is compared to on this link from the same site.
Best Upscale Midsize Cars Rankings | U.S. News Best Cars (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/rankings/Upscale-Midsize-Cars/)

.

I never said it was a crappy car....but noone is buying it even with Obama throwing money at them to try to get them to buy it:uhuh:

there's a lesson there:)

I never said it was a crappy car....but noone is buying it even with Obama throwing money at them to try to get them to buy it:uhuh:

there's a lesson there:)

I didn't mean for it to imply you said that. It was said in the initial post about the Volt. My instinct is Chevy made an enormous blunder in the fact that it only seats four. It is the only reason I wouldn't buy one and I am sure it is a problem for almost anyone with kids. Honda Element is finished and it had the same problem.

I didn't mean for it to imply you said that. It was said in the initial post about the Volt. My instinct is Chevy made an enormous blunder in the fact that it only seats four. It is the only reason I wouldn't buy one and I am sure it is a problem for almost anyone with kids. Honda Element is finished and it had the same problem.

you could always tie one to the roof...wait...that didn't work out so well for....


this sums it up nicely.....

"At the same time, GM has boosted the appeal of its gasoline-engine compact cars. Its 2012 Chevrolet Cruze, for instance, gets up to 42 miles on a gallon of gasoline in some versions, yet costs about half the price of a Volt.

Jack Domaldson of Davis, Calif., said he and his wife considered buying a Volt but found it impractical and bought a Toyota Prius instead. Why did the Volt lack appeal? "Short range, expensive, no infrastructure support, and the element of uncertainty with performance," he said.

Word of the production halt comes only days after President Barack Obama praised the car in a recent campaign speech in Washington, D.C., saying he planned to buy one "in five years when I'm out of office." might be the funniest thing he's ever said

GM's move signals, "consumer demand is just not that strong for these vehicles," said Lacey Plache, chief economist for auto-research firm Edmunds.com. "The price premium on the Volt just doesn't make economic sense for the average consumer when there are so many fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars available, typically for thousands of dollars less."


GM appears to take the Obama approach to sales numbers as well, they pad the sales with fleet sales numbers apparently,

General Motors reported Chevy Volt sales of 1,529 for the month of December. The still unimpressive number is an improvement over previous months, but the gains were mostly driven by fleet sales. According to GM, 992 of the Volts sold were to retail customers while 537 went to fleet purchasers.

GM says the fleet sales were to corporate buyers and not to rental companies. The number of Volts sold to townships receiving federal grants remains unknown. The corporate sales claim makes sense as crony company, General Electric, starts to make good on its promise to buy thousands of Volts. Of course, GE benefits by selling charging stations for the vehicles.

Another interesting statistic on Volt sales can be derived from the inventory figures and number of Chevy dealerships with available Volts. GM now claims that 2,600 dealerships across the nation have Volts for sale. Given the 992 figure for Volts sold to retail customers, we come up with an average of approximately one third of a vehicle sold by each dealership per month. It is ludicrous for GM to continue to tout Volt sales figures as a success given the fact that about two thirds of dealerships offering Volts were unable to sell even one during the month.

and in Dec they touted a big month but I noticed often referred to "vehicals shipped", I imagine to boost their year end sales number over some imaginary acceptable mark (7000/7500)...in subsequent months they refer to vehicals sold....there are a number of stories that dealers were refusing January deliveries of the Volt because they didn't want them, For example, "according to Automotive News, GM set aside 104 Volt models for 14 dealerships across the greater New York City market. Of those vehicles, dealers took just 31. The problem isn't just out East, either. The report claims one California dealer turned down all six Volt models allocated to him despite the fact that his franchise sold 10 of the vehicles last year."

probably had too many leftover from those December deliveries, you'd think they'd need them after a "record month" in December???...I guess we'll get a "revision" at some point..............


sales will probably really improve after the US taxpayers stop subsidizing them to the tune of 7500 bucks...right??? :)better keep an eye on that GM stock price as well...BIG year for that:uhuh:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/gm-general-motors-president-barack-obama-stock-loss-taxpayers/1
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-04/gm-record-profit-no-balm-for-obama-nursing-loss-on-shares-cars.html

Jim, please understand I am done responding to you for now. I previously ignored your posts for awhile because I felt any discussion was just a waste of time. I am done again. You can call checkmate if you want, but please understand it is not an issue of me thinking that you are too good at making your points and I can't keep up. I am just bored. Your comments like having to stop every 12 miles to plug it in demonstrate that in this case, and some others you really have no idea what you are talking about. It is a plug in hybrid that goes between 25 and 50 miles on electric only, then runs on gas. More hyperbole or clueless? Hyperbole gets old... Here is some links for you...

2012 Chevrolet Volt Reviews, Pictures and Prices | U.S. News Best Cars (http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/)

2012 Chevrolet Volt Consumer Reviews (http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2012/consumer-reviews.html)

oh also...

your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011. You really need me to do the math for you?

"More hyperbole or clueless?"

Hyperbole/sarcasm.

"your article said 3200 volts sold. 7671 sold for the year as of Decmeber 31, 2011."

Zimmy, my article made it clear that the figure of 3200 wasn't for the full year. If, at the time,3200 Volts were sold, what should they have reported? Something else?

Scott and I both posted articles (that just came out yesterday) saying 7600 were sold, which was far short of initial expectations, despite govt rebates of 20% of the sticker price. As a result, there were massive layoffs.

Zimmy, when you fall 25% short of sales forecasts (despite a 20% rebate from the feds) and you need to lay off staff and stop production, do you know what we call that in business? Failure. I'm not glad the Volt was a flop, I take no pleasure from that. But it's still a flop.

They expected to sell SIxTY THOUSAND Volts in 2012, but they've sold less than 2,00 through February.

People don't like the car. When the price comes down and gas prices go up, that will change.

And I didn't see you respond, again, to the annoying little detail of the batteries catching fire.

...the Volt battery was found to cause no more chance of fire than in any other combustible engine with a battery.

In case anybody missed this buried way back a few posts on this page. :jump1:

In case anybody missed this buried way back a few posts on this page. :jump1:

right, like the Pinto....

In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[6] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

sort of....

of course the Pinto wasn't staggeringly overpriced......


also, GM has it's profits shielded from US tax laws for up to 20 years....

according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.

The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.


the still have unfunded pension liabilities of over 12 Billion dollars

According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, GM will need to add $12.3 billion into its pension fund by 2014. To make matters worse, if GM terminates their pensions, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation – funded by taxpayers - would then become responsible for as much as $14.5 billion in unfunded liabilities.

got a waiver from Obamacare mandates AND MORE

The Obama Administration continues to find ways to funnel taxpayer funds to General Motors and the UAW. A hidden bailout was recently uncovered buried within the Obamacare bill. This latest giveaway goes by the name of "Early Retiree Reinsurance Program" or ERRP for short. Washingtonexaminer.com reported last week that the program was discovered by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

ERRP's price tag to taxpayers is $5 billion. The goal of the program is to provide subsidies to unions, states (for public employees) and corporations for health care coverage for retirees aged between 55 and 64. To date, over $2 billion has been given away. And who's the biggest recipient? The UAW cashes in at number one receiving about $207 million of political payback. That was more than the states of New York, California and Texas, combined, received. Bailed out GM also gets a piece of the pie, having received more than $19 million from the program. GM currently benefits from having transferred health care liability to the UAW in a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) agreement from 2007. Funding for this same VEBA account came from taxpayers and GM bondholders who sacrificed in order to benefit the UAW in the GM bankruptcy process.

they have their product subsidized with taxpayer money to the tune of $7500....nope..... noooooooooo.....
wait for it...............

Obama Budget to Subsidize $10-K For Each Electric Car Sold
By Eric Scheiner
February 17, 2012

President Barack Obama wants to use more taxpayer funds to encourage the purchase of green vehicles.

The government currently offers up to a $7,500 tax credit for those that purchase natural gas or electric vehicles, but the president’s latest budget proposal wants to increase the amount to $10,000 and allow for consumers to receive the tax incentive at the dealership when they purchase a qualifying vehicle.





and the government will sell off their shares of GM stock sometime in the near future leaving the US taxpayers with a loss in the billions...likely more than 10 Billion

also:
The new “big success” automaker is spending millions hiring lobbyists to squeeze more millions out of state legislatures. As Justin Owen notes, GM has “turned to another, smaller government teat” by putting its hand out to the states. GM, Owen says, “has received another $1.7 billion in taxpayer-funded grants and tax abatements.”




but Obama will tell you that this is an American success story and he's happy to claim credit...:uhuh:

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “Virtually Every Claim By The President Regarding The Auto Industry Needs An Asterisk, Just Like The Fine Print In That Too-Good-To-Be-True Car Loan.” (Glenn Kessler, “President Obama’s Phony Accounting On The Auto Industry Bailout,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 6/7/11)

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Gave President Obama’s Claims On The Chrysler Bailout THREE Pinocchios. (Glenn Kessler, “President Obama’s Phony Accounting On The Auto Industry Bailout,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, 6/7/11)

FactCheck.org: The President Is “Sounding Very Much Like A Used Car Salesman” When He Describes The Success Of The Auto Bailouts. “Notice the president — sounding very much like a used-car salesman — used the phrases ‘during my watch’ and ‘under my watch’ when describing the TARP loans as being ‘completely repaid.’” (Eugene Kelly, “Chrysler Paid In Full?” FactCheck.org, 6/6/11)

FactCheck.org: “Read The Fine Print” The Obama Administration Is Not Getting Back $1.3 Billion It Gave To Chrysler.

You make some very compelling points. But I expect gas to hit at least $5 this summer, and that's right when folks will be thinking about the election. $5 gas will not play well for Democrats. If this wasn't an election year for Obama, $5 gas would indeed be good or his green energy agenda (even though it would be bad for all of us).

I never thought about a conflict increasing his chances...
I think Iran and Obama's push to eliminate the oil and gas welfare give him an "out." I hope no one is surprised of the timing of Obama coming out in the last week or so and saying that we need to stop this welfare to the oil companies.

He will be able to displace blame for high gas prices by leveraging the record-breaking profits by oil companies and a continual push-back by the Republicans on his clean energy initiatives.

I can hear it now: "While there is no short-term solution to high gas and oil prices (my note: which there really isn't), my clean energy initiatives would help prevent these kinds of spikes in the future. But the Republicans are continually preventing progress towards getting us away from foreign oil."

And you know what, he'll be arguably right. Our economy hinges on a region that is less civilized than the Flinstones. Conflict in the Middle East immediately results in higher oil prices which then translated into higher fuel costs... thus raising prices on groceries, consumer goods and anything else that requires shipment.


Good luck in AC, don't chase any inside straights.

JD, leave your wallet home. :hihi:
Appreciate the well wishes. Fortunately, I'm not much of a gambler. I was in Vegas for 9 days in early-February and I lost about $40 playing slots. Played mostly because I was out socializing with a client - cheaper than a meal out there.

This trip will be more of the same. Maybe a couple trips to the craps table, but that's about it.

I can hear it now: "While there is no short-term solution to high gas and oil prices (my note: which there really isn't), my clean energy initiatives would help prevent these kinds of spikes in the future. But the Republicans are continually preventing progress towards getting us away from foreign oil."



you nailed it....except his clean energy initiatives keep going bankrupt and that's not the repubs fault...maybe they're just underfunded?...yep....that will worK

I was curious as to which Obama clean energy initiatives the Republicans could be blamed for thwarting since it seems as he's gotten most of what he wanted and it just hasn't turned out so well...this was the best I could find...


Here’s some of the renewable energy tax provisions, that congress could have had a chance to vote up or down, if the GOP had not filibustered the entire bill, rather than let the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire.

Baucus Amendment 4727: To change the end date from 2010, by extending till December 2011:

1. Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – cash in lieu of tax credit for businesses not making a profit and unable to take the 30% tax credit

2. Tax credits for heavy hybrid and natural gas vehicles and a 30% investment tax credit for alternative fuel refueling stations.

3. Tax breaks for ethanol, 36 cents a gallon for blenders, and 8 cents a gallon for small producers. A 54 cents per gallon tariff on ethanol imports.

4. A $1-per-gallon production tax credit for biodiesel and biomass diesel and the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon extended through 2011.

5. A 50-cent-per-gallon tax credit for biomass and other alternative fuels.

6. Tax credits for energy-efficient appliances and homes.

8. Adding $2.5 billion in funding for Section 48C the advanced energy manufacturing 30% tax credit for companies manufacturing advanced clean energy products and materials.

9. Reinstating the Research and Development tax credit.

Source: Clean Technica (Republicans Kill Section 1603 Renewable Energy Cash Grants - CleanTechnica (http://s.tt/12u1i))



isn't this CORPORATE WELFARE??? cash handouts and special treatment through the tax code...hmmmmm?

my favorite is CASH for businesses not making a profit:rotf2: that's great!

guess it was just a matter of time:rotf2:



Gov‘t Backed ’Green’ Light Bulb Meant to be Affordable Costs $50
March 9, 2012

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award (the “L Prize”) for any manufacturer who could create a “green” but affordable LED light bulb, The Washington Post reports.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would encourage companies to find a way to make the expensive LED lights more “affordable for American families.” The administration was also careful to inject a “buy American” element into the prize deal – potions of the light had to be manufactured in the U.S.

The prize was awarded to Phillips, the bulb was developed and built, and it’s ready for market. It costs $50.

Wait. $50 dollars for a light bulb? affordable?

Unsurprisingly, several analysts say the Philips-manufactured bulb is way too expensive to appeal to a broad audience. Think about it: similar LEDs sell for half that price, as the Post points out.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” :rotf2: Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs, told the Post, “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

But wasn’t the entire purpose of the “L Prize” to encourage and incentivize manufactures to build an affordable LED light? How does this make any sense?

“A Philips spokesman declined to talk in detail about the bulb or its price because the product has yet to be formally launched,” the Post reports, “It is expected to hit stores within weeks and is available online. But the spokesman said the L Prize bulb costs more because, as the contest required, it is even more energy-efficient, running on 10 watts instead of 12.5 watts. It is also brighter, renders colors better and lasts longer.”

But still, doesn’t that undo the point of the “affordability” guidelines set by the “L Prize”?

Manufacturers were “strong#^&ly encouraged to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” The target retail price, including rebates from utilities, was to be $22 in the first year, $15 in the second year and $8 in the third year, the Post reports.

To put it plainly, Phillips comes nowhere near these numbers.

“This bulb is pretty amazing,” says VP of Merchandising Chris Weber, according to Market Watch. “It is really hard to believe that you can get the equivalent of 940 lumens of warm, ambient light from a bulb that only uses 10 watts.”

“Philips has done it and we can’t wait to get this bulb into the hands of our customers,” he adds.good luck

the administration will probably offer a $45 cash incentive courtesy of the taxpayers to help "market" this VOLT BULB

Sounds like it could be a breakthrough product innovation.

LED's are tricky to manufacture, they're almost like making semi-conductors. To get the performance they're after I'll bet an entirely new process had to be invented. A lot of materials science.

Suggesting a new 50 dollar bulb to their product portfolio would likely get met with resistance in the board room. With short-term shareholder value driving most companies they're very careful on how R&D budgets are allocated.

But an R&D investment to capture a prize is a great marketing opportunity....

Cost will come down as volume manufacturing improves and fast followers produce competing products.

The strategic benefit from new technology like this is huge considering the present energy demand on a weak infrastructure. A 10 million dollar incentive is a drop in the bucket, and virtually all the value created long-term will be in the private sector.

Congratulations Philips, I raise my glass to thee.

-spence

right, I hear they also have a $500 energy efficient toaster that is supposed to be in Home Depot next week...should sell like hotcakes....raise two glasses Spence :uhuh:

right, I hear they also have a $500 energy efficient toaster that is supposed to be in Home Depot next week...should sell like hotcakes....raise two glasses Spence :uhuh:
Toasters consume a lot of watts but are only used for small increments of time. Same goes for coffee makers and hair dryers It wouldn't make sense to invest a lot of R&D for a more efficient toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer.

Now if super efficient coils could be created for just in time delivery of hot water or commercial steam production...you might have something worthy of government incentive.

Over time, this technology might of course trickle down into consumer electronics. That 100 watt toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer will come, just don't get impatient.

-spence