Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

[Frijoles]

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>So now reducing security funding is a crazy idea? After all it was Mr.Obama who insisted that AlQaeda is on their heels and OBL is dead and GM is alive, and all is sweetness in the world? lol
What Einstein came up with the idea of keeping the Libya situation quiet during an election year, and lowering our profile there, and don't use the word 'terrorist' so as to bolster the administration's utopian mideast line?
Perhaps these silly hearings will answer that one.
Regarding other Einsteins, who was the Einstein that decided to have Watergate hearings? How long did those go on - months? or years?. Damned expensive. Difference is, nobody got killed.
Whatever happened to Vince Foster?
Silly stuff is greening our embassies during a time when we have a 16 trillion deficit, and Solyndra, and sending money to companies in Finland, buying oil from Hugo Chavez, and lifetime pensions for congress and the president.
Can you definitively say that congressman will be paid extra, above their annual salary, for coming to DC for hearings during a time when congress is not in session?

yes, reducing security to the state dept is a lousy idea in any era post Bush II.

I fail to see how we kept the Libya situation quiet. That is right wing propaganda.

Google Daryl Issa on the eve of his appointment to see what his intent is. He flat out admits he is using his bully pulpit to pester Obama. That is a waste of tax payer money by all definitions.

[Liam R]

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>I believe his full position has been stated, he's prolife and would not promote legislative measures to enforce his views. He would put forth nominees to the Supreme Court that represent his views, as every president in the past has done. No big surprises or conspiracies here. Probably the news outlet you caught this on didn't present the whole story - no big surprise here either.

It was a news blurb. I heard the rest of the story later on, as you stated it above.

[Liam R]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Motnhs ago i showed some numbers re. jobs all environmentally conscious plans will generate.
Read interesting new research. We always thought that petroleum was basicly ancient heat compressed fossil mini-creatures.
Now it turns out that methane when compressed can also make carb-hydrate connections.
And that seems to be the more feasible process.
Petroleum may be abiogenic, not fossil-based
www.fravahr.org

But it STILL generates WAY too much carbon dioxide for anyone to continue using it.

[Liam R]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
Motnhs ago i showed some numbers re. jobs all environmentally conscious plans will generate.
Read interesting new research. We always thought that petroleum was basicly ancient heat compressed fossil mini-creatures.
Now it turns out that methane when compressed can also make carb-hydrate connections.
And that seems to be the more feasible process.
Petroleum may be abiogenic, not fossil-based
www.fravahr.org

Oh, and it looks like most petroleum IS still fossil based, but the idea that some of it might not be opens some VERY interesting possibilities for the future. We might not need to worry about peak oil, after all.

Geologists and geochemists believe that nearly all (more than 99%) of the hydrocarbons in commercially produced crude oil and natural gas are formed by the decomposition of the remains of living organisms, which were buried under layers of sediments in the Earth’s crust, a region approximately 7-15 km below the Earth’s surface.

But hydrocarbons of purely chemical deep crustal or mantle origin (abiogenic) could occur in some geologic settings, such as rifts or subduction zones said Galli, a senior author on the study.

Artificial oil in the future?

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margi...
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.asp...
Look at 2008.
Next!

If you look at consumption it was on the decline from 2006 to 2009.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

Also, he is not providing subsidies to make this happen. He is setting up exchanges for the private sector to fund (for profit) the transformations.
Dont you hate it when your theories hold no water?

What theory are you referring to?

[Voluntarist]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and it looks like most petroleum IS still fossil based, but the idea that some of it might not be opens some VERY interesting possibilities for the future. We might not need to worry about peak oil, after all.
<quoted text>
Artificial oil in the future?

Peek oil was a scam to drive speculators bat shit

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
What theory are you referring to?

http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp...

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
If you look at consumption it was on the decline from 2006 to 2009.

Look at June 2008 where gas was at a high, yet profit was not.

[Voluntarist]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at June 2008 where gas was at a high, yet profit was not.

irrelevant, there are times where prices were lower and profits were lower, accounting tricks in every trade.

[MAAT]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and it looks like most petroleum IS still fossil based, but the idea that some of it might not be opens some VERY interesting possibilities for the future. We might not need to worry about peak oil, after all.
<quoted text>
Artificial oil in the future?

Methane, of which we have huge extiction events amounts, is better of as petroleum.
But indeed we need to get to less poluting energy sources.

Watched Biden-Ryan tonight.

Biden forgot to score on Wisconsin.
The only state where unemployment is up.
Why? Because the extreme conservative republican governor fired half the administration!

Got more clearity on the 47 % scrounchers. Ryan 30 % are takers. Who indeed payed more income-tax than Romney ever payed in federal taxes and are the life of any country, the job generators. Which are basicly old middleclass-people or soldiers exempt from paying tax, for the most part.

A good moderator. And Biden was just as obnoxious and astute (jumping on more malarkey from Ryan) as mister Romney was without cause in the debate with the president.
Romney should not become president. Within 24 hours he offended America's staunched ally, i.e. Great Britain, as was stupid beyond, by announcing to the world that he had just had a meeting with the British Intelligence Agency c.q. secutiry council.
I know Americans do not care, but he would be dangerous.
It shows a car sales man that enjoys his crawl up, but without the khow-how to deal with any foreign politics and security issues.

A few weeks ago he announced: We are going to conquer America.
Today Ryan informed us how: We are going to cut 120,000 marines.
It's meant in the sense of cutting funding, but combined it makes a strange picture.

Any plans in other areas: secret or not known ...we are going to go bi-partizan. So they are going to make everything stroppy again.

If you vote repub and you are young your healthcare will undergo the same missery as the housing debacle.

Biden stated that whatever his private catholic pro-life ideas were, he did not feel that it should be imposed on people that have different views on life and different faiths.

I thought Ryan was a dirty player when he came with the example of a man loosing half his family in a car-accident. And this family father telling of the goodness of mister Romney to pay for the college-education of this mans son.
Biden lost his wife and daughter in a car crash and had to take care of two sons also! It was cheap, under the belt and mean.

And all 'facts' mentioned by Ryan, but maybe one or two, turned out to be wrong.
AGAIN.

[MUQ]

Eric wrote:

<quoted text>
What references. He cites little or no references to support his lecture.

When he gave the lectures in 1925 there was no Internet and there were no web addresses. What he says is well known to Muslims and what he says about other religions is a common knowledge for people of those religions.

If you have some problem about any specific issue, feel free to ask.

Making such general comments is not correct.

[Frijoles]

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
When he gave the lectures in 1925 there was no Internet and there were no web addresses. What he says is well known to Muslims and what he says about other religions is a common knowledge for people of those religions.
If you have some problem about any specific issue, feel free to ask.
Making such general comments is not correct.

Back in the days before the internet (mid 1990s and before) one did footnotes and bibliography. Now we still do this with the internet, except we "link" to them.

Didnt you ever have to write a term paper in high school?

Maybe you should ponder what a well researched written work might do to your notion of "common knowledge".

[Frijoles]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
irrelevant, there are times where prices were lower and profits were lower,

As well as the reverse (prices the highest and profits lowest)- essentially debunking your assertion that the oil "elites" (your term) want the highest of oil prices in order to maximize profits.

[Frijoles]

SeasideSoon wrote:

<quoted text>So now reducing security funding is a crazy idea? After all it was Mr.Obama who insisted that AlQaeda is on their heels and OBL is dead and GM is alive, and all is sweetness in the world? lol

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/...

Rep. Chaffetz says he "absolutely" voted to cut funding for embassy security

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticizes the handling of Libyan consulate security despite voting to cut embassy funding.

Rep. Chaffetz says,“I think what we’re going to hear is that we didn’t meet the basic, minimum standards required for a facility such as the one we had in Benghazi. And the request for more security personnel went unheeded, unanswered, and consequently, you know, you have the death of four Americans. We [have to] make sure that that doesn’t happen again in Libya. But we also [have to] make sure it doesn’t happen in other places around the world…. We [have to] get at the truth, but thus far it’s been a slippery attempt to try to get the truth because the White House and the Obama administration’s been very slow in giving us the facts.”

Later in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien asks,“Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”

Chaffetz answers,“Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

O’Brien responds,“Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said,‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”

Rep. Chaffetz says,“When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you [have to] prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority. I believe what I heard is that it’s because they wanted the appearance of normalization. That’s what they wanted. And that fit with Obama narrative moving forward.”

[Frijoles]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
And all 'facts' mentioned by Ryan, but maybe one or two, turned out to be wrong.
AGAIN.

Doesnt Paul Ryan's facial expressions remind you of the character Pugsley Addams - the little boy in the Addams family?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pugsley.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugsley_Addams

[SeasideSoon]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and it looks like most petroleum IS still fossil based, but the idea that some of it might not be opens some VERY interesting possibilities for the future. We might not need to worry about peak oil, after all.
<quoted text>
Artificial oil in the future?

Probably. Didn't you think the original dinosaur oil idea was pretty whacky when it was first touted? I tried to imagine how many dead dinosaurs it would've taken to produce a gallon of gasoline. I suppose someone hss done it using junk math :)

[SeasideSoon]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, reducing security to the state dept is a lousy idea in any era post Bush II.
I fail to see how we kept the Libya situation quiet. That is right wing propaganda.
Google Daryl Issa on the eve of his appointment to see what his intent is. He flat out admits he is using his bully pulpit to pester Obama. That is a waste of tax payer money by all definitions.

Can you provide a link to Issa's statement that he wants to 'pester Obama'. I'd like to the the context and the entire quote. The only pestering I came across was a statement that the State Dept told the consulate staff to 'quit pestering us about security'.

I would like to pester the administration about the Benghazi thing because I am Really Really ticked off about it. I can't do it myself - so good for Darrell Issa. That's why we have representatives.

[SeasideSoon]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/...
Rep. Chaffetz says he "absolutely" voted to cut funding for embassy security
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticizes the handling of Libyan consulate security despite voting to cut embassy funding.
Rep. Chaffetz says,“I think what we’re going to hear is that we didn’t meet the basic, minimum standards required for a facility such as the one we had in Benghazi. And the request for more security personnel went unheeded, unanswered, and consequently, you know, you have the death of four Americans. We [have to] make sure that that doesn’t happen again in Libya. But we also [have to] make sure it doesn’t happen in other places around the world…. We [have to] get at the truth, but thus far it’s been a slippery attempt to try to get the truth because the White House and the Obama administration’s been very slow in giving us the facts.”
Later in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O’Brien asks,“Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”
Chaffetz answers,“Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have… 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”
O’Brien responds,“Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said,‘absolutely,’ that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you’re saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security? How am I wrong?”
Rep. Chaffetz says,“When you’re in Libya, after a revolution… you [have to] prioritize things. And what clearly didn’t happen is Libya was not a priority. I believe what I heard is that it’s because they wanted the appearance of normalization. That’s what they wanted. And that fit with Obama narrative moving forward.”

Isn't this the same as I was saying. Priorities. Funding cuts can be done to State, and many other departments as well. Priorities. Just because State decided that Chevy Volts were more vital than military security at our outposts, that isn't a reflection on Chaffetz. It's a condemnation of the loons in charge at State who are focused on style rather than substance.

[former res]

Voluntarist wrote:

<quoted text>
You only end up with monopolies when government is in control.
The free market will root out unsafe foods,in a competitive environment you will have the best, safest food.
The government doesn't provide you with safe food.

Then why did Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) enact the Food Safety act?

Ever read any Upton Sinclair?

"He [Teddy R] stated "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist." [7] The President was leery of aligning himself with Sinclair's politics and conclusions in The Jungle, so he sent Labor Commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities. Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to clean the factories prior to the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Their oral report to Roosevelt tentatively supported Sinclair, failing only to substantiate the claim of workers falling into rendering vats and being left to be sold as lard.[16] Neill testified before Congress that they had reported only "such things as showed the necessity for legislation" and that he did not think it was also necessary to "praise things where they were worthy of praise."[17].........

Roosevelt submitted the Neill-Reynolds report to Congress on June 4, 1906.[20] Public pressure led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle#Publi...