Did you vote today?

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try. With Obama's record on job creation, I don't believe I would criticize anyone else's performance. Even with his fuzzy math of saying he created jobs when the jobs were only there until the stimulus ran out he still hasn't gotten the unemployment rate to a level he said it would never crest. Sure Obama's stimulus has created jobs but what good does it do when the stimulus runs out and the jobs go away and all we are left with is the payment on the stimulus with no permanent jobs to show for it? I'm sure you see this as normal but the rest of us see it as a terrible reckless financial decision.

Please tell tell us what the Republican majority house has done to create jobs?

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are saying that since Bain didn't have a perfect record that Romney isn't fit to be president? I'll remind you again that Bain did it with their own money and has a far more successful record than our president that is craming the failed "green initiative" down our throats with our own money. The thing about Bain is that the company that hired them made that decision themselves. It was never forced on anyone. Obama didn't even ask us. He just quietly took our tax dollars and made a loan that some close to the situation warned him not to make.

Would you care to look at a few of G.W,Bbush's failed green engery projects?

[BARNEYII]

Transcript of President Bush’s Oct 12th speech at the Renewable Energy Conference in St. Louis.

And we need to continue what we are doing at the federal level, which is spend your money on research. I think it’s a legitimate use of taxpayers’ money, to spend on grants, to find new ways to power our economy, new ways to conserve, new ways to protect the environment through new technologies.

Since I have been President, we have spent about $10 billion on research. A lot of goes through Sam’s shop. He’s the Energy man.

And so one way to do this – one way to encourage people to buy hybrids, one way to stimulate demand so that the production will follow – is to provide tax credits. You can get up to, now,$3,400 tax credit when you buy your hybrid automobile. In other words, the government is using the tax code to stimulate deman

Secondly, we are spending money on new battery technologies. See, we envision a day in which light and powerful batteries will become available in the marketplace so that you can drive the first 40 miles on electricity, on batteries, and your car won’t have to look like a golf cart.(Laughter.)

And the battery technology is coming. In order to expedite it, Sam’s shop, the Department of Energy, is putting out grants. In other words, we are using your money to expedite the arrival of a new technology that will enable folks to drive the first 40 miles on electricity.

People are using ethanol. For those of you who are in the ethanol business, you are on the leading edge of change. It’s coming, and government can help. That’s why we enhanced and extended the 10-cent-per-gallon tax credit. We did that to stimulate production We have extended a 51-cent-per- gallon tax credit for ethanol blenders. We provided a 30-percent tax credit for the installation of alternative fuel stations, up to $30,000 a year.

The Department of Energy announced $250 million in funding to establish and operate two new bioenergy research center, all aimed at accelerating basic research into cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels

And we are spending $1.2 billion to encourage hydrogen fuel cells. It’s coming, it’s coming. THE PRESIDENT: Since 2003, my administration has made hydrogen and fuel-cell technology a priority –

PUT A STAR BESIDE THAT ONE, WHAT A DISASTER THAT WAS

I don’t know if you followed recently the exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, where there was a well that was drilled five miles in depth in thousands of feet of water.

In other words, these new technologies enable us to go to new places, and they enable us to be wise stewards of the environment. I understand there’s a big debate about whether or not you can explore for oil and gas and protect the environment. I believe you can.

I THINK WE HEARD A LITTLE ABOUT THAT.

We are spending $2 billion to promote technologies that will enable our coal-fired plants to protect the environment. As a matter of fact, we got what’s called a future-gen initiative. By the year 2012, we’ll build the first clean-coal power plant that will remove virtually all pollutants and greenhouse gases from burning coal

I can’t spent too much time because I have got to go get my limousine filled up by hydrogen –(laughter)– but I appreciate the fact that the solar panels are working so you can see me.(Laughter.) In other words, it’s coming, and I’m excited to be a part of it. And I hope you are excited, as well.

Thanks for letting me come by. God bless

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Please tell tell us what the Republican majority house has done to create jobs?

Romney, which this discussion is about, isn't in the House. The House is only 1/3 of the equation. They have sent plenty over to Harry Reid where he promptly put them in the shredder without bringing them up for a vote. We will never know if they might have passed. What a stand up guy.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Romney, which this discussion is about, isn't in the House. The House is only 1/3 of the equation. They have sent plenty over to Harry Reid where he promptly put them in the shredder without bringing them up for a vote. We will never know if they might have passed. What a stand up guy.

Those damn Democrats killing job bills with 8% unemployment, what the hell are they thinking?
While we are at it lets see what you think.

Name five bills that Reid tabled, and tell me why you think they would have create jobs.

In the last Congressional election, was their battle cry not jobs, jobs, jobs??????????

Seems to me all the Republicans are saying this is Obama's fault, I do not hear then say much about Reid, why is that?

[BARNEYII]

WELL, WELL, WELL, LOOK AT THIS.

CBS News) MIAMI - In this lousy economic recovery, we've been looking for signs of a rebound and we got one Tuesday.

A new report shows home prices rose from March to April in 19 of the 20 largest cities. Only Detroit fell. The research, from Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller Home Price Index, also shows that prices were up one 1.3 percent nationally.


The housing market has been the biggest drag on the economy, but consider what's been happening lately. House sales are up, mortgage rates are the lowest ever, and builders are starting to build again. Are we rising, at last, from the worst real estate collapse since the Great Depression?

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
This goes back to my point that some of the 7 went bankrupt after Bain left which is out of Bain's control. Your post on that article doesn't mention whether or not Romney was actually still at Bain when those companies filed for bankruptcy though it is written with the implication that that is the case. Since we don't know the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcies, we have no business commenting on them one way or the other. Here is the record: Romney- several hundres of jobs lost Obama- millions of jobs lost and counting. Romney- Overall profitability of companies managed is in the black Obama- Everything he touches turns red with the exception of maybe the auto industry which Obama never actually made any decisions for the companies but rather said "It's not my money, how much do you need?". All in all, Obama is still in tee ball while Romney is an all star in the Majors where business records are concerned. You don't have to like it but that is the way it is.

Bain loaded these companies with debt, in part so they could pay Bain millions (sometimes tens of millions) of dollars in fees. They then wrote off the debt on their taxes. In some cases (at least 4 times according the NYT story) Bain amassed huge short term profits before the companies, weighed down with the debt Bain forced on them, sunk under the weight of that debt.

Some of the companies Bain bought did better than that. Of course, some of those that did were out-sourcing and off-shoring pioneers. And others did better in great part by laying off huge numbers of workers and/or slashing the wages and benefits of many others. This is the track record that is “at the heart of [Romney’s] case for the Presidency”?

[guest]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you care to look at a few of G.W,Bbush's failed green engery projects?

You'd like that wouldn't you. Anything to look at someone else's policies instead of the failed policies of Obama.

[BARNEYII]

Mitt Romney made a career out of dismantling companies when at the firm Baine Capital, and while Governor of Massachusetts he consistently took policy positions that undercut American jobs, including vetoing a bill that would have stopped the outsourcing of state jobs overseas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch... outsourcing of state jobs overseas

[BARNEYII]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>You'd like that wouldn't you. Anything to look at someone else's policies instead of the failed policies of Obama.

"Anything to look at someone else's policies"

WTF, is that suppose to mean?

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Bain loaded these companies with debt, in part so they could pay Bain millions (sometimes tens of millions) of dollars in fees. They then wrote off the debt on their taxes. In some cases (at least 4 times according the NYT story) Bain amassed huge short term profits before the companies, weighed down with the debt Bain forced on them, sunk under the weight of that debt.
Some of the companies Bain bought did better than that. Of course, some of those that did were out-sourcing and off-shoring pioneers. And others did better in great part by laying off huge numbers of workers and/or slashing the wages and benefits of many others. This is the track record that is “at the heart of [Romney’s] case for the Presidency”?

A company with a business model as you described above wouldn't grow to be one of the leaders in their industry as Bain has. You make it sound as if a company being profitable is a bad thing. If a company has 500 employees doing the jobs that can be done by 300 employees then downsizing is a smart move by the company. Companies don't go into business to break even or lose money just so others can be employed. That would be bad business. Bain's record as a whole is very good but cherry-picking fits your argument so you continue to cite left wing sources that leave gaps in their story that should be questioned in order to understand the whole story. To form an opinion on the information in an article without knowing factors not represented in the article is wreckless. To spout it out as if it were fact is just plain devious.

[Amanda two]

Page 0ne

Page One

At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, "Get used to it" – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to "get a more fuel-efficient car."
The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington . And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they're spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.
Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States . The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it's so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order "to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don't have to sacrifice the America we believe in."
The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they've never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they're going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers' expense.
Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, "Is Obama unraveling? "I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.
At that time, I wrote that not having things go one's way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don't behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address

[Amanda two]

Page two

Page two

It appeared, at that time, as if he were "fraying around the emotional edges." That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya, America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.
But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of "The Tudors" television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan's budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama's actions.
Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, "I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I'm embarrassed that I endorsed him. It's so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?" ("Democrats' Disgust with Obama," The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)
Steve McCann wrote: Obama's speech "was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed" ("The Mendacity of Barack Obama," AmericanThinker.com , April 15, 2011).
McCann continued: "[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him...."
With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?
The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?
Hope you forward this to everyone in your address book as we are going to need every vote we can get to remove Obama. The liberals are just unable to absorb what he is doing to our country and will continue to vote for him. Just imagine what he will do to America if he gets another term !

[Reality Check]

BARNEYII wrote:

Transcript of President Bush’s Oct 12th speech at the Renewable Energy Conference in St. Louis.
And we need to continue what we are doing at the federal level, which is spend your money on research. I think it’s a legitimate use of taxpayers’ money, to spend on grants, to find new ways to power our economy, new ways to conserve, new ways to protect the environment through new technologies.

How has the hybrid technology failed? We have hybrid cars now that can go much farther than 40 miles on a single charge. People are buying hybrids. Not sure why you listed this as a failure.
Ethanol is a total bust that your guy pushed as much as Bush. You can't blame one if the other pushes it as well.
Not sure why hydrogen feul cells didn't take off since hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth. But is was a failure and Bush gets all the credit for that one.
Fracking is and will be a huge relief as far as energy independence goes if we ever get a leader who will push for energy independence and let the Middle East keep their oil. Again, a huge success for Bush so I'm not sure why you would mention it. Leaning on coal until other technologies become more affordable is a smart financial move for our country. Abandoning coal at this point would break our nation because the energy infrastructure is so huge and complex in America that we can't afford to quit cold turkey and usher in a new technology in the place of coal. It would be far more cost effective to discover ways to make coal, oil, and natural gas cleaner burning feuls than to cut and go in another direction.
Green energy is, at best, luke warm here in America. Your post just strengthens the argument that, at this point and time, we need to stop forcing green energy down the throats of Americans. BTW has Obama even had one success in the green energy feild? All I can think of is failures.

[Churmudgeon]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
How has the hybrid technology failed? We have hybrid cars now that can go much farther than 40 miles on a single charge. People are buying hybrids. Not sure why you listed this as a failure.
Ethanol is a total bust that your guy pushed as much as Bush. You can't blame one if the other pushes it as well.
Not sure why hydrogen feul cells didn't take off since hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth. But is was a failure and Bush gets all the credit for that one.
Fracking is and will be a huge relief as far as energy independence goes if we ever get a leader who will push for energy independence and let the Middle East keep their oil. Again, a huge success for Bush so I'm not sure why you would mention it. Leaning on coal until other technologies become more affordable is a smart financial move for our country. Abandoning coal at this point would break our nation because the energy infrastructure is so huge and complex in America that we can't afford to quit cold turkey and usher in a new technology in the place of coal. It would be far more cost effective to discover ways to make coal, oil, and natural gas cleaner burning feuls than to cut and go in another direction.
Green energy is, at best, luke warm here in America. Your post just strengthens the argument that, at this point and time, we need to stop forcing green energy down the throats of Americans. BTW has Obama even had one success in the green energy feild? All I can think of is failures.

The reason Hydrogen didnt take off is Tax revenue. Do you realise how much tax revenue would be lost if everyone could own a hydrogen fuel cell. You could charge it with a hime windmill on windy days and solar cells on the sunny days. someone who is handy and innovative could power their vehicle & home for practically nothing. It would allow people to be self reliant. Bush the oil man would never endorse hydrogen. Eventually hydrogen will be the alternative that replaces oil. But the politics will have to be in place to generate tax revenue first. The Revenue loss if it where available would devastate the ecomomy. Jobs lost in the oil industry. Jobs lost in the electric industry. jobs lost in the goverment because of the loss of the per gallon fuel tax. jobs lost and severance tax lost in the natural gas industry. Like most thing its because of money. The technology is there and its a viable alternative. But do you see goverment putting money towards the developement or encouraging hydrogen? If I built my own hydrogen fuel cell & the goverment found out I would be arrested under the patriot act they would claim I might make a hydrogen bomb. So for now I have one of those generators that makes hydrogen and my vehicle uses it as its made. It improves fuel ecomony quite a bit. If I was allowed a fuel cell I would never buy gasoline again.

[Reality Check]

Churmudgeon wrote:

<quoted text> The reason Hydrogen didnt take off is Tax revenue. Do you realise how much tax revenue would be lost if everyone could own a hydrogen fuel cell. You could charge it with a hime windmill on windy days and solar cells on the sunny days. someone who is handy and innovative could power their vehicle & home for practically nothing. It would allow people to be self reliant. Bush the oil man would never endorse hydrogen. Eventually hydrogen will be the alternative that replaces oil. But the politics will have to be in place to generate tax revenue first. The Revenue loss if it where available would devastate the ecomomy. Jobs lost in the oil industry. Jobs lost in the electric industry. jobs lost in the goverment because of the loss of the per gallon fuel tax. jobs lost and severance tax lost in the natural gas industry. Like most thing its because of money. The technology is there and its a viable alternative. But do you see goverment putting money towards the developement or encouraging hydrogen? If I built my own hydrogen fuel cell & the goverment found out I would be arrested under the patriot act they would claim I might make a hydrogen bomb. So for now I have one of those generators that makes hydrogen and my vehicle uses it as its made. It improves fuel ecomony quite a bit. If I was allowed a fuel cell I would never buy gasoline again.

I completely agree with most of your post. The thing that is wrong is that Bush did support hydrogen feul cells as Barney mentioned in his previous post. To the tune of 1.2 billion. I think you are spot on in saying since the government hasn't figured out how to get as much revenue as they do with oil that Hydrogen, for now, has been placed on the back burner. Good post.

[BARNEYII]

Want to be chairman of Romney's "Energy Policy Advisory Group. Just give a pro-Romney super PAC nearly $1 million, and it will get you the job.

It would appear that president Obama's advisoory positions are not for sale he complained to Businessweek that he had not gotten enough attention from President Barack Obama during a White House meeting last year.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I completely agree with most of your post. The thing that is wrong is that Bush did support hydrogen feul cells as Barney mentioned in his previous post. To the tune of 1.2 billion. I think you are spot on in saying since the government hasn't figured out how to get as much revenue as they do with oil that Hydrogen, for now, has been placed on the back burner. Good post.

You see boys the problem here is building hydrogen refilling stations, as Bush did, when the mass manufacturing of hydrogen vehicles was a minimum of 12 years away.

[Churmudgeon]

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
You see boys the problem here is building hydrogen refilling stations, as Bush did, when the mass manufacturing of hydrogen vehicles was a minimum of 12 years away.

Did you know in iceland they generate hydrogen from volcanic vents. And they have refueling stations and hydrogen powered cars. The problem is the fuel cells. The first time its filled it has 100% every subsequent refill it holds considerably less & less. Some germans supposively have built a very efficient fuel cell? But maybe its just a myth like the guy who designed the 100MPG carburetor and the oil compamies killed him. However Smokey Unick designed & patented a gas engine that ran at a very high temperature and used a lot of creamics. It homoginized the fuel air mixture and got very good fuel ecomomy and great power. He sold his patent and it never was developed. Smokey built a prototype and It was driven & road tested my several automotive writers at the time.

[BARNEYII]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
How has the hybrid technology failed? We have hybrid cars now that can go much farther than 40 miles on a single charge. People are buying hybrids. Not sure why you listed this as a failure.
Ethanol is a total bust that your guy pushed as much as Bush. You can't blame one if the other pushes it as well.
Not sure why hydrogen feul cells didn't take off since hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth. But is was a failure and Bush gets all the credit for that one.
Fracking is and will be a huge relief as far as energy independence goes if we ever get a leader who will push for energy independence and let the Middle East keep their oil. Again, a huge success for Bush so I'm not sure why you would mention it. Leaning on coal until other technologies become more affordable is a smart financial move for our country. Abandoning coal at this point would break our nation because the energy infrastructure is so huge and complex in America that we can't afford to quit cold turkey and usher in a new technology in the place of coal. It would be far more cost effective to discover ways to make coal, oil, and natural gas cleaner burning feuls than to cut and go in another direction.
Green energy is, at best, luke warm here in America. Your post just strengthens the argument that, at this point and time, we need to stop forcing green energy down the throats of Americans. BTW has Obama even had one success in the green energy feild? All I can think of is failures.

Obviously that all went right over your head. My point was the money. Bush spent billions, Obama and Bush backed Solyndra and it failed, much with the help of the (Chinese trying to corner the market on solar panels) and its the biggest mistake of the century for Obama.
Your response is much what I anticipated, it is a okay for Bush to spend billions on green energy, but lets hang that SOB in the white house for even thinking about green energy.