Barack Obama, our next President

[Eman]

sonicfilter wrote:

as we all know....
On issues, public is more aligned with Obama than GOP
President Obama starts his second term with a clear upper hand over GOP leaders on issues from guns to immigration that are likely to dominate the year, a USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds. On the legislation rated most urgent — cutting the budget deficit — even a majority of Republican voters endorse Obama's approach of seeking tax hikes as well as spending cuts.
The survey underscores the quandary for the GOP as it debates the party's message in the wake of disappointing losses last November for the White House and in the Senate.
Now just 22% of Americans, nearly a record low, consider themselves Republicans.
And those automatic spending cuts, known as the sequester, that are poised to take effect next week?
If no deal is reached to avert them, half of Americans say congressional Republicans will be more to blame. Less than a third would blame Obama first.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...

Government sucks

" To be sure, Obama faces his own challenges.His approval ratings for handling seven specific issues are no better than lukewarm, ranging from a low of 34% on the deficit to a high of 46% on the situation in Afghanistan. On the central issue of managing the economy, 40% approve and 56% disapprove. Americans also continue to be deeply unhappy with the country's direction. By 2-to-1, 64%-31%, they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States."

[leosnana]

TSM wrote:

Why Obama goes on comedian talk shows as Stewart, Colbert and Letterman, whether than being the Butt End of a Joke why not be the Joke!!

Read what you wrote...slowly. Does that mushup make sense in Textardia? Better contruct some sort of grammar for the new language.

[Eman]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
Build a potentially environmental disaster pipeline on your own property or build it on someone else's property. Gee
We're you just having a fit because of a refining capabilities?
But hey, lets transport this toxic goo over our major river system to refine it in Texas & allow the pollution to drift across our country.
For what?
I have an idea, let the Canadians build the refineries & transport something not as toxic or dangerous.

This attitude is why gas prices are so high...then go ahead and bitch about oil profits.

[RUSH10ME]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Read what you wrote...slowly. Does that mushup make sense in Textardia? Better contruct some sort of grammar for the new language.

How are my tax dollars taking care of that little bundle of revenue of yours and Ttreyshaun's??

[RealDave]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't. Most americans pay their bills.

People working part time in a place that can't afford to offer real health insurance are going to be able to pay a $20,000 hospital bill.

[Eman]

Realtime wrote:

<quoted text>You did indeed say rate__my bad.

A true moderate would have stopped there.

[TSM]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Read what you wrote...slowly. Does that mushup make sense in Textardia? Better contruct some sort of grammar for the new language.

I have to admit I did it for You!! Thanks for keeping in Touch!!

[RealDave]

marlowe44 wrote:

<quoted text>
There are already hundreds of pipelines criss crossing the country, operating safely, this new one will be fine, calm down.

You do realize that this stuff from Canada isn't really oil, right?

There has been over 60 pipeline failures in this country over the past ten years. Pipelines are likely the safest method of transporting oil & gas products. But they are not without problems.

Why risk it it so Canada can export? Canadians didn't.

[Eman]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
People working part time in a place that can't afford to offer real health insurance are going to be able to pay a $20,000 hospital bill.

If they are responsible people, yes. Hospitals are very generous with payment plans. Also, your scenario is the exception, not the rule.

[marlowe44]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that this stuff from Canada isn't really oil, right?
There has been over 60 pipeline failures in this country over the past ten years. Pipelines are likely the safest method of transporting oil & gas products. But they are not without problems.
Why risk it it so Canada can export? Canadians didn't.

Hmmm, not really oil? What is it?

I'd say jobs would be one good reason to build it.

Jobs, that's what Obama says[now] he's concerned with, right?

[marlowe44]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that this stuff from Canada isn't really oil, right?
There has been over 60 pipeline failures in this country over the past ten years. Pipelines are likely the safest method of transporting oil & gas products. But they are not without problems.
Why risk it it so Canada can export? Canadians didn't.

Thousands die by automobiles, we don't ban them. I'm not in favor of pipeline leaks, but they are containable and whether you'll admit it or not, modern society runs on oil.

[RUSH10ME]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that this stuff from Canada isn't really oil, right?
There has been over 60 pipeline failures in this country over the past ten years. Pipelines are likely the safest method of transporting oil & gas products. But they are not without problems.
Why risk it it so Canada can export? Canadians didn't.

A professional whiner like you would best spend your time crying about all the money wasted on inner city programs that fail perpetualy .

[Jimmy]

For Real wrote:

<quoted text> OBAMA WILL BE YOUR PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS, DEAL WITH IT LOSER.

Correction dumbfk, he's your president. The country has never been more divided and before you pull out the race card, it's because his "policies" are destroying what makes America great for all.

We are dealing with it imbecile.

The country has never been so divided with your liar and so called "uniter". He sucks, big time, dumbfk.

[Eman]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Read what you wrote...slowly. Does that mushup make sense in Textardia? Better contruct some sort of grammar for the new language.

I don't know whats more annoying, oldraider with the judgeits or your fake teacher routune.

[Old Crazy Goober]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know whats more annoying, oldraider with the judgeits or your fake teacher routune.

leosnana knows she is inferior intellectually so she tries to compensate by acting like she is perfect at grammar, etc. to boost herself up. WGAS? It doesn't help her.

Heck, I'm still trying to find my judgeits! They ran off with my ammo!

[RUSH10ME]

Eman wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know whats more annoying, oldraider with the judgeits or your fake teacher routune.

The fake teacher ,hands down .

[leosnana]

TSM wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to admit I did it for You!! Thanks for keeping in Touch!!

Yeah, Pee Wee, I'm sure you "meant to do that!" OTOH, I haven't put you on my permanently ignore list...yet.

[sonicfilter]

Movement Conservatives Are Far Too Eager to Cheer On Their Politicians

Conor Friedersdorf pours scorn on Jim DeMint’s apologia for Ted Cruz:

What a load of premature hype. The leaders of movement conservatism are constantly doing this: They decide on a champion, be it George W. Bush or Rick Perry or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, and extol their manifold virtues in the most absurdly exaggerated ways imaginable.

Conor’s observation about bad movement conservative habits is correct. There is a tendency to build up new or obscure Republican politicians, invest them with all sorts of qualities that they may or may not possess, and turn them into minor cult figures. Then when the object of the cult comes under criticism for something he does or says, the common response is not to judge the criticism on the merits, but to rally around the cult figure and profess loyalty to him all the more for having endured the attacks. To put it mildly, this is not a healthy way to relate to political leaders. It encourages fawning admiration and blindness to politicians’ weaknesses, and that in turn undermines accountability and enables politicians to promote policies that even their own admirers may find undesirable. Movement conservatives are too eager to cheer on politicians from their own side and don’t do nearly enough to hold them accountable. The praise that is being heaped on Cruz in recent weeks is one of the more annoying examples of this.

In this case, DeMint’s defense of Cruz is worse than this because he pretends not to understand why Cruz is come under so much scrutiny so early in his first few months in office. The problem that most of his critics have with him isn’t that he has become a reliable no vote on many pieces of legislation or even that he opposes the nominations Kerry and Hagel. I think opposing Hagel’s nomination on the basis of hard-line ideological litmus tests is extremely foolish and mistaken, but Cruz is entitled to oppose any nominee he wants. It is the manifestly unscrupulous, dishonest manner in which he has chosen to oppose Hagel that grates on people.

If he had simply been asking “pointed questions,” he wouldn’t have been singled out for so much criticism because he would have been no different from his Republican colleagues. Instead, he chose to put forward false or misleading information about Hagel, accused him of believing things that he didn’t believe by distorting evidence, and generally conducted himself as an obnoxious demagogue angling for the spotlight. Cruz may have promised to be uncompromising, but I’m reasonably sure he didn’t promise to be dishonest. DeMint’s argument is that Cruz should receive political benefits from his grandstanding but not have to pay any price for it.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/lariso...

[lily boca raton fl]

leosnana wrote:

<quoted text>Read what you wrote...slowly. Does that mushup make sense in Textardia? Better contruct some sort of grammar for the new language.

ect. ect.

[RealDave]

marlowe44 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmm, not really oil? What is it?
I'd say jobs would be one good reason to build it.
Jobs, that's what Obama says[now] he's concerned with, right?

Bitumen.

Bitumen can't be pumped through pipelines unless it is diluted.

The hydrocarbons utilized to dilute this bitumen are proprietary and not known.

If there would be a leak in a river, these diluents would eventually evaporate & the bitumen would sink & likely flow along the bottoms of the river with sufficient current. In July of 2010, there was a spill in a river in Michigan. The EPA estimated it would take a 2 month cleanup like a similar oil spill, it took 2 1/2 years.

We also don't know how corrosive this diluted bitumen is. This corrosiveness is not only a concern for the pipelines but also the refineries.

So no, this is not the same as a shipment of number 2 fuel oil flowing through a pipeline.