House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists
Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
Sorry bad cropping.
** Private **
01/19/12 02:55 P
Here here!
** Private **
01/19/12 07:19 P
What corruption?
** Private **
01/19/12 07:00 P
The environmental issue have been resolved.
** Private **
01/19/12 03:44 P
That was in the news...
** Private **
01/19/12 07:43 P
So now you're bi-partisan?
** Private **
01/19/12 07:11 P
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eric Roberts
** Private **
01/19/12 07:55 P
"I am not interested in myths. "
** Private **
01/25/12 10:17 A
Love it, can I steal that?
** Private **
01/25/12 10:21 A
> "I am not interested in myths. "
** Private **
01/25/12 10:47 A
"Apparently not."
** Private **
01/31/12 10:04 A
Yes...a 13 year old Nazi collaborator...LOL
** Private **
02/08/12 12:32 P
Let's hear the other sides point of view:
** Private **
01/18/12 09:51 P
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 12:35 PM

Now watch the Republicans whine about not making as much money as they were slated to do. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71598.html Obama administration to reject Keystone XL By: Darren Goode January 18, 2012 11:51 AM EST The State Department Wednesday will reject the Keystone XL pipeline, multiple sources following the project tell POLITICO. The formal announcement is expected at 3 p.m. from Deputy Secretary of State William Burns. Although the permit would be rejected, TransCanada would still be allowed to continue to work on and pitch an alternative route through Nebraska. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail have endlessly attacked President Barack Obama for putting environmental interests and the green lobby ahead of a project that they say would create thousands of jobs. Republicans scored a rare win this Congress by including a 60-day deadline for Obama to make a decision on the pipeline as part of the year-end deal on extending the payroll tax holiday. But administration officials have been clear from the beginning that forcing a decision within 60 days would not yield enough time to make a final decision and that Republicans were doing so merely to create a new set of political talking points. This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 11:48 a.m. on January 18, 2012. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 12:37 PM

Aren't you in favor of this pipeline???? Is attacking "them" so engrained in your marrow that you can't help it, even when you agree with "them"? On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 01:17 PM

I'm entirely neutral. I was just pointing out the corruption involved on the Republican side. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 01:27 PM

oh, ok.....that's kinda like pointing out the blue sky and the green grass. On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 02:00 PM

no I'm pointing out some of the more egregious ones. Thing is that the corruption involving keystone is blatant. The speaker stands to make hundreds of thousands based solely on his position. Other republican house members also stand to make a lot. And I have not mentioned the political contributions by these companies. That may be millions more to house members. Get rid of the corruption and a lot of other problems will solve themselves. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 01:18 PM

"I was just pointing out the corruption involved on the Republican side." But why didn't you bring out the corruption of the Democrats, particularly President Obama selling out job creation for votes from the green movement.  It's okay to be balanced. "The speaker stands to make hundreds of thousands based solely on his position. " I haven't done the research to know if this is true or not.  Assuming it is, which is not difficult considering it is dealing with politicians, it looks Boehner learned a few things from Nancy Pelosi when she was speaker. He needs to up his game if he wants to do as well as she did though. J - We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. - Nancy Pelosi "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears." - Barrack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 01:27 PM

job creation, lol. Don't wear the words out before the general election ;) I am as cynical as the next person, but also willing to consider that perhaps the cost-benefit ratio had a part in the decision. I have not really researched the matter and won't have time to do so, but I have an open mind on the matter. Votes may have had something to do with it. Or not. I am not sure that the number of green votes outweighs the number you can persuade using campaign contributions from the oil industry. And Pelosi...well. Apparently she is the new Clinton in the "your guys did it too" game. Whatever. If she was/is corrupt, that is bad, and she should be prosecuted. If Boehner is corrupt, as it would seem from the little I have read about this, then that is bad and he should be prosecuted. shrug On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 02:16 PM

Boehner invested in Oil companies, like most Americans do. Either through 401ks or buying shares. This pipeline will not make the oil companies rich. They will always be rich, it's just another small project for them but a huge one for America. But tar and feather anyone with an R next to their name with baseless accusations and let all the real corruption with the dems get a pass. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > And Pelosi...well. Apparently she is the new Clinton in the "your guys did > it too" game. Whatever. If she was/is corrupt, that is bad, and she should > be prosecuted. If Boehner is corrupt, as it would seem from the little I > have read about this, then that is bad and he should be prosecuted. > > shrug

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 02:33 PM

I am amused that you cropped down to the paragraph that said Pelosi should be prosecuted if she has done something corrupt, before you accused me of giving the Democrats a pass. I am against corruption. Period. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 02:55 PM

Sorry bad cropping. take it from here: > If Boehner is corrupt, as it would seem from the little I > > have read about this, then that is bad and he should be prosecuted. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:11 PM

but you still stand by saying I want to give the Democrats a pass, huh? Just wanna correct the failure to crop out what I actually said ;) Sam, you're amazing On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:40 PM

This is not about Pelosi. Remember the other thread about Pelosi's corruption? Yeah, we had none. But it's nice to pretend you would care. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > but you still stand by saying I want to give the Democrats a pass, huh? > Just wanna correct the failure to crop out what I actually said ;) > > Sam, you're amazing

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:49 PM

you're in charge of finding a reason to start one, Sam. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:59 PM

There were actually several threads regarding Pelosi and her purported corruption on the list last summer.  No proof however, just accusations as usual.  I hate the whole concept of deciding guilt by public opinion, whether the accused is Pelosi or Boehner.  Due Process, people.  It's there for a reason. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:05 PM

ya? What did she do that was corrupt, supposedly? I have only mildly been paying attention, but I thought the Republicans mainly thought she was a bitch, which... well, is an appellation that gets thrown around a lot, shall we say. Nonetheless. If there are credible grounds for corruption charges, she should be prosecuted. Otherwise people should shut up. The same applies to Boehner. If he has broken the law or legislative ethics rules, he should be prosecuted. If either skirted the law or the rules, then they should be exposed and removed from office. Otherwise the discussion should center on the facts. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:10 PM

General consensus among the opposition is that she uses her position frequently for financial gain.  Lots of mud has been thrown, but no legal action has ever been taken against her.  She is probably not lily white, but I would bet a gold dollar that you could not find a single member of any legislative body that is pure.  I think you have to sell your soul to get elected, and that the very process makes you dirty on some levels.  That, plus partisan politics, is what is destroying the ability of government to truly govern for the good of the people, if any government ever has. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:31 PM

I agree with the effect of money on elections. However. If it gets to a certain level of egregiousness, action should be taken, such as took place with what's his name, the exterminator from Sugarland. Since she certainly doesn't seem any less disliked than he was, the fact that nothing has been filed makes me wonder about the whispering campaign. I am not prepared to go to bat for her as I don't know the specifics, but cynicism says that sure, she may have done something shady. It also says that hmm, don't ya think people would have gotten formal if they could? The cliche is that you can indict a ham sandwich, but nobody has tried. So cynicism's last thought on the subject is that it's easier to throw mud than to make a case. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:19 PM

Here here! Or is it Hear Hear? . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:18 PM

http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/11/14/60-minutes-exposes-pelosi-corruption Finally something I agree with, and yet you seem to be attacking for defending Boehner. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > > There were actually several threads regarding Pelosi and her purported > corruption on the list last summer.  No proof however, just > accusations as usual.  I hate the whole concept of deciding guilt by > public opinion, whether the accused is Pelosi or Boehner.  Due > Process, people.  It's there for a reason

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:00 PM

What corruption? This is not about Pelosi. Remember the other thread about Pelosi's corruption? Yeah, we had none. But it's nice to pretend you would care. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > but you still stand by saying I want to give the Democrats a pass, huh? > Just wanna correct the failure to crop out what I actually said ;) > > Sam, you're amazing

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:21 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/the-democrats-corruption-problem/ Speaking of corruption . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > What corruption?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:33 PM

Not just oil companies, but specifically companies that are partnered in the Keystone XL project. Like companies who specialize in making the pipes, or TransCanada etc. In other words he stands to make a substantial profit because of his legislative efforts. When you stand to make a lot of money as a result of your abuse of office, isn't that corruption? And why the false equivalency. Are you saying because others do it its OK? That's a very shaky ethical stance. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:47 PM

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > When you stand > to make a lot of money as a result of your abuse of office, isn't that > corruption? > I don't know...is it? Are legislators forever required to only vote on issues that guarantee they will LOSE money...? Doesn't Congress regularly like to vote themselves pay increases? I mean....talk about cutting through the corruption red tape and getting straight to the marrow! Instead of selling votes to make ourselves more money, we'll use our votes EXPRESSLY to make us more money!

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:56 PM

A sitting Congress cannot vote themselves pay increases, they can only vote an increase for the next Congress, of which they may or may not be part. Just curious.  How many pay raises has Congress received over the last 20 years? On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:46 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > Doesn't Congress regularly like to vote themselves pay increases? I > mean....talk about cutting through the corruption red tape and getting > straight to the marrow! Instead of selling votes to make ourselves more > money, we'll use our votes EXPRESSLY to make us more money!

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:13 PM

Except that House rule 3 clearly states that "members shall vote on each question put, except having a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of each question." http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/fin%20trans%20pink%20sheet.pdf - pp3-4. And they give a very specific example that is very much akin to Boehner's inventstments. So yes in this case it can be considered to be corruption. The exceptions you are talking about are also dealt with in the guide. But it is very specifically defined and would rule out voting on salary increases etc. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:48 PM

Your article mention Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron. They are big companies. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:25 PM

Basically a Canadian firm is trying to build a pipeline through what some say are environmentally sensitive areas of the US without compliance with the permitting process, and  members of Congress set what White House claims is an unreasonable deadline for the permit to be issued that does not give enough time to determine if environmental damage is possible. I have to wonder if the uproar would be the same if a Middle Eastern country was trying to build a pipeline through the US heartland without complying with current regulation, and the Obama administration let them.  Or how quickly the opposition would point fingers if Obama allowed any pipeline without the environmental review, and a pipeline accident happened on his watch. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:44 PM

The environmental issue have been resolved. Compliance, permits all done. This is about politics and for some reason this admin thinks permanent high unemployment and skyrocketing oil prices is good. Unfortunately many agree with him simply because he's not a Republican. Sad. . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:54 PM

Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline would not affect them for decades.  There have been multiple statements of how many jobs would be created, but even if you accept the highest estimate of 179,000 jobs by 2035, it would have almost nil effect on unemployment rates. Also, I know you will find this hard to believe, but it is possible to agree or disagree with someone on an issue regardless of their political party. What's sad is that you don't seem to be able to grasp this, and automatically sign on to whatever cause your political heroes endorse with no thought to the facts of the situation, and immediately label as partisan anyone who disagrees with you. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:59 PM

Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many other issues. It is possible to decide something is wrong without checking the party line. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:02 PM

Absolutely true in this case.  I am aghast that Patrick Leahy, who was one of the very few politicians I actually liked, introduced the PIPA bill.  Did some serious rethinking of my opinion of him as a result. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and > Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is > bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many > other issues. It is possible to decide something is wrong without checking > the party line.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:08 PM

check out Obama's campaign contributions from Hollywood. I was worried that he would sign it. Still am, a little. That he had to come out against it is a measure of how bad the bill really is. I am still afraid that while we are looking at the SOPA boogieman, compromise legislation will go through that is only moderately poisonous to the internet. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 04:18 PM

Obama's Hollywood contributors aren't the big corporations behind these bills.  In fact, a large number of those in the entertainment industry aren't very happy the companies controlling the record labels and film distribution.  See recent statements by George Lucas regarding his latest film, and his "retirement". With the exception of Warner Music, none of the major record labels are US based companies, but they certainly want their fingers in the pie when it comes to writing legislation.  One of the major players from the film industry with their hands all over these bills is News Corp, and it's not likely Obama is going to be on the same page with them. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:05 PM

Lamar Smith, a republican from Texas (go figure), has promised to bring it back up this spring...so it's not dead...it's zombie legislation... check out Obama's campaign contributions from Hollywood. I was worried that he would sign it. Still am, a little. That he had to come out against it is a measure of how bad the bill really is. I am still afraid that while we are looking at the SOPA boogieman, compromise legislation will go through that is only moderately poisonous to the internet. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:14 PM

this is I think the third time that Leahy has introduced copyright legislation. And each bill has been worse than the last. I saw a rumor go by on Twitter yesterday that he was trying to work a deal out with Kyl. Have not followed up on that to check it, but the source was mmm, I would say, likely to have some basis for saying this. It's nowhere near dead. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:43 PM

That was in the news... this is I think the third time that Leahy has introduced copyright legislation. And each bill has been worse than the last. I saw a rumor go by on Twitter yesterday that he was trying to work a deal out with Kyl. Have not followed up on that to check it, but the source was mmm, I would say, likely to have some basis for saying this. It's nowhere near dead. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Lamar Smith, a republican from Texas (go figure), has promised to > bring it back up this spring...so it's not dead...it's zombie legislation... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- result. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:03 PM

I was shocked...mark Kirk, my republican senator, and I actually agreed the SOPA and PIPA were bad *looking up at the sky for falling objects...* Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many other issues. It is possible to decide something is wrong without checking the party line. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:11 PM

So now you're bi-partisan? What Republican issue did you support that dems were against? . On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: > > Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and > Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is > bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many > other issues. It is possible to decide something is wrong without checking > the party line.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:20 PM

what? Can you not get bipartisan through your head, Sam? You're still talking about "Republican issue".... I am saying that the current copyright legislation has members of both parties on each side. Issa, for example, is on the right side on this one, and Boxer and Feinstein are not. And Issa is right and Boxer and Feinstein are not. Republican issues have nothing to do with it, and what are they anyway? Don't raise anyone's taxes is about the extent of it as far as I can tell... that, and Obama should be a one-term president. Rather thin stuff. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:08 PM

> Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline > would not affect them for decades.  There have been multiple > statements of how many jobs would be created, but even if you accept > the highest estimate of 179,000 jobs by 2035, it would have almost nil > effect on unemployment rates. Oil is expected to hit $4.00 a gallon this summer. If a pipeline were being built and future supplies were guaranteed the value would not rise so high. As for jobs, hasn't Obama been the jobs president? Shovel ready and all that? Now there are real jobs and he says no because people will be better off collecting unemployment. These jobs won't solve the 9% unemployment disaster but will be a start in the right direction. Hell, start drilling in the gulf if you really wanted to put people to work. > Also, I know you will find this hard to believe, but it is possible to > agree or disagree with someone on an issue regardless of their > political party. I do believe. It's the few here that have tunnel vision. > What's sad is that you don't seem to be able to grasp this, and > automatically sign on to whatever cause your political heroes endorse > with no thought to the facts of the situation, and immediately label > as partisan anyone who disagrees with you. Yada yada yada. I defend Republicans so I'm a mindless lemming brainwashed by Fox and Rush. Why are you so predictable and 95% of your attacks are against anything Republican. That's what's truly sad.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:41 PM

Oil always peaks out in the summer.  And that is cheap compared to the rest of the world...If the pipeline was built, are they going to go poof and it is there?  It is going to take several years to get it built and inspected before it is even ready to have oil flow through it,  It takes about a year for oil to process from crude to gas, so even if they started today, it would probably be a decade before you say any effect on the prices of gas. Most of our gas comes from oil purchased via the commodities trade and comes from foreign sources.. I the republicans didn't block the bills for those shovel ready jobs, they would be there.  Despite all of that he was able to staunch the hemorrhaging of jobs the economy saw under Bush and get the numbers moving in a positive direction. Unemployment went down to 8% BTW... Eric > Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline > would not affect them for decades.  There have been multiple > statements of how many jobs would be created, but even if you accept > the highest estimate of 179,000 jobs by 2035, it would have almost nil > effect on unemployment rates. Oil is expected to hit $4.00 a gallon this summer. If a pipeline were being built and future supplies were guaranteed the value would not rise so high. As for jobs, hasn't Obama been the jobs president? Shovel ready and all that? Now there are real jobs and he says no because people will be better off collecting unemployment. These jobs won't solve the 9% unemployment disaster but will be a start in the right direction. Hell, start drilling in the gulf if you really wanted to put people to work. > Also, I know you will find this hard to believe, but it is possible to > agree or disagree with someone on an issue regardless of their > political party. I do believe. It's the few here that have tunnel vision. > What's sad is that you don't seem to be able to grasp this, and > automatically sign on to whatever cause your political heroes endorse > with no thought to the facts of the situation, and immediately label > as partisan anyone who disagrees with you. Yada yada yada. I defend Republicans so I'm a mindless lemming brainwashed by Fox and Rush. Why are you so predictable and 95% of your attacks are against anything Republican. That's what's truly sad.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 07:55 PM

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I the republicans didn't block the bills for those shovel ready jobs, they > would be there.  Despite all of that he was able to staunch the hemorrhaging > of jobs the economy saw under Bush and get the numbers moving in a positive > direction. There were no shovel ready jobs, it was a sales pitch like Hope and Change. > Unemployment went down to 8% BTW... > Ha. Millions of people will likely never work again. You know every month people hit the 99 week cap and drop off the unemployment roll. Give Obama another term and it'll be down to 4.5%

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 08:06 PM

A lot of our gas comes from Canada.  Still doesn't mean that allowing them to build a pipeline without complying with the rules is a good idea.  As with nuclear power, drilling, tar sands or any other process, energy that is not safely produced is not cheap in the long run.  But tell that to the greedy bastards who don't care what they destroy as long as they get rich. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 10:22 PM

I don't think log run is in their vocabulary... A lot of our gas comes from Canada.  Still doesn't mean that allowing them to build a pipeline without complying with the rules is a good idea.  As with nuclear power, drilling, tar sands or any other process, energy that is not safely produced is not cheap in the long run.  But tell that to the greedy bastards who don't care what they destroy as long as they get rich. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Oil always peaks out in the summer.  And that is cheap compared to the > rest of the world...If the pipeline was built, are they going to go > poof and it is there?  It is going to take several years to get it > built and inspected before it is even ready to have oil flow through > it,  It takes about a year for oil to process from crude to gas, so > even if they started today, it would probably be a decade before you say any effect on the prices of gas. > Most of our gas comes from oil purchased via the commodities trade and > comes from foreign sources.. > > I the republicans didn't block the bills for those shovel ready jobs, > they would be there.  Despite all of that he was able to staunch the > hemorrhaging of jobs the economy saw under Bush and get the numbers > moving in a positive direct

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 03:47 PM

Ah, there are issues with the pipeline route too? I assumed the concerns were around the extraction process. Cause this is tar-sand oil, right? Noted, then, though the main point I was trying to make was even if you don't believe the problem is some sort of attempt at responsible stewardship -- which I assume Sam does not -- then it is still unclear to me that there's a calculation over votes. A lot of voters could be swayed by the advertising a few oil industry donations could buy. Maybe more than the number of voters who would be won over by not allowing the pipeline, is what I am saying. Cynicism may be rampant in this day and age, but I am not sure that even the most amoral calculation would support blocking the pipeline for votes. If not, gasp, there may have been policy reasons in play. Who knows ;) On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/19/2012 01:58 PM

specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation for votes from the green movement." Is there a specific agreement? Has this been publicized in a reputable newspaper, not world net daily btw. Boehner's involvement is very clear and is mostly there for all to see. His financial disclosure statements (where complete) show that he stands to benefit from legislation he created and sponsored. Last I looked financial gain via the misuse of one's legislative office is one of the definitions of political corruption. Where is the so called deal with the "green movement" and where is it documented? How is making a decision that is in line with a substantial block of supporters considered corruption? I thought that is what politicians are supposed to do - advance legislation or make decisions that represent a significant proportion of your electorate's wishes. So Jerry the next time a Republican politician makes a deal that a portion of the republican electorate supports, are you going to call that corrupt? Next you say you have not done the research. Its arguing from ignorance rather from knowledge. If you have not done the research why the hell should your comments have any validity. For that matter why should anyone even respect those opinions if they are based on self-admitted ignorance. Moreover just because someone from the political opposition has done something similar in your perception (again opinion not fact so far), that does not mean that a false equivalence is a legitimate argument. On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/23/2012 03:29 PM

"specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation for votes from the green movement." Aside from common sense, what do you need?  You think they made a document and posted it on the net?  Is there a recording somewhere?  Please. Sometimes, one has to connect the dots.  However, if you do a google search for "Obama pipeline Green movement", you can find plenty of stuff about this (particularly on the Hill website).  I will give you this tidbit from one of the articles.  Take it however you want: Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune recently said that approval of the pipeline would hurt the group?s ability to mobilize members on Obama?s behalf. He also warned that it would have a ?big impact? on his group?s allocation of campaign resources between congressional races and the White House contest. "So Jerry the next time a Republican politician makes a deal that a portion of the republican electorate supports, are you going to call that corrupt?" Sure.  I despise them all, regardless of party.  As I have stated many times.  Republicans suck.   They just suck less than Democrats.  While I am a registered Republican, I follow Friedman's philosophy. I am a Republican with a capital 'R,' and a libertarian with a small 'l.' I have a party membership as a Republican, not because they have any principles. But because that's the way I am the most useful and have the most influence. My philosophy is clearly libertarian. - Milton Friedman "Next you say you have not done the research. Its arguing from ignorance rather from knowledge. If you have not done the research why the hell should your comments have any validity. " I sure did say I have not researched the accusations and I said I had no problem *believing* the accusations.  As to my comments, the only validity they have are the the same validity that *anyone* posting on some random internet group has:  none. "For that matter why should anyone even respect those opinions if they are based on self-admitted ignorance" They shouldn't.  And they should not respect the opinons of the so called "knowledgeable" without verification, especially sense so many of the "knowledgeable" are ignorant, even with the facts. "Moreover just because someone from the political opposition has done something similar in your perception (again opinion not fact so far), that does not mean that a false equivalence is a legitimate argument." But is sure does bring the hypocrisy of other posters out, which is very enjoyable. J - I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes. - Thomas Paine If he makes the right decision young people will be there to support him moving a public agenda forward and creating a clean energy economy - Maura Cowley, co-director of the youth-focused Energy Action Coalition, on the Keystone Pipel

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/23/2012 04:02 PM

> "specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation for > votes from the green movement." > > Aside from common sense, what do you need? Actual numbers instead of rhetoric would help. If its not there then obviously all people can conclude is that you may be making it up. > You think they made a document > and posted it on the net?  Is there a recording somewhere?  Please. Then how do we know you're not just telling a story for some obscure political end? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Again no numbers etc., just more "The Sky is Falling!!!" ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- So again all you are doing then is just repeating someone's lie. So by your argument, you're demonstrating what Asimov states: 'There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." ' - Issac Asimov ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- So you are admitting that you comments have no validity. End of story. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- In other words all is allowed, lies prevarications distortions just to make the other

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/23/2012 08:58 PM

"Again no numbers etc., just more 'The Sky is Falling!!!' It's amazing.  Progressive statists can't connect the dots when it doesn't fit their world view but they have no problem connecting the dots along the lines of Trig Truthers, 911 Truthers, Florida 2000 Truthers, Ohio Diebold Truthers, and so on. "So again all you are doing then is just repeating someone's lie." What lie?  I gave two examples of the green movement indicating they would not support Obama if he allowed the pipeline.  You think they are the only ones?  Anyway, if it makes you feel better, call it my opinion. "In other words all is allowed, lies prevarications distortions just to make the other" According to progressive hero Saul Alinksy, yes... I don't follow that philosophy though.  In this case it was actually pertinent.  You say that Boehner is makes several hundred thousand dollars potentially.  That's chump change compared to what Nancy accomplished.  He was a poor student.  Plus, she actually got her deals through. . . "So you are admitting that you comments have no validity. End of story." Yes Larry.  I am also saying your comments have no validity without confirmation.  Hence the word "all".  No one should believe what they read on the internet without the willingness to verify. J - It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion. - Joseph Goebbels The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. - Joseph Goebbels

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/24/2012 08:13 AM

I am not interested in myths. You made a statement that requires proof. Now I am calling you on it. Where is the proof? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/24/2012 08:14 AM

BTW have you ever read Alinsky or have any idea of what he did? If so you would never be parrotting the right wing myth about the evils of the man. For instance you know that he was quite conservative and a republican. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:17 AM

"I am not interested in myths. " Well good God, why are you a progressive statist? "Now I am calling you on it. Where is the proof?" Larry, I have given you all the proof I need to give you.  Take it or leave it.  Call it an opinion.  Ignore it.  Call me a liar, a propagator, whatever you want.  Call yourself the winner in a meaningless online debate.  I don't care.  In the end, just like always, Obama still sold out the American people. By the way, what about Buffett? One of Obama's puppet masters is going to make off like a bandit on this.  Wonder if Goldman Sachs is going to profit?  May be worth looking in to. "BTW have you ever read Alinsky or have any idea of what he did? " Yeah, I've read it and I know what he did.  I love the dedication. ?Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishmentand did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom ? Lucifer.? In the end, I don't think you care about the argument as much as you don't like to see Obama's integrity challenged.  One thing I have noticed is that progressive statists can instantly believe the fallibility  of an opponent (even without proof) but will never recognize a shortcoming or negative of a perceived friend regardless of proof or not. Anyway, on to a personal question: Are you okay?  You seem kind of high strung lately. J - *?The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. ?the essence of Lenin?s speeches during this period was ?They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.? And it was.? **-  Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, P.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:21 AM

Love it, can I steal that? > > > In the end, I don't think you care about the argument as much as you don't > like to see Obama's integrity challenged.  One thing I have noticed is that > progressive statists can instantly believe the fallibility  of an opponent > (even without proof) but will never recognize a shortcoming or negative of > a perceived friend regardless of proof or not.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:47 AM

> "I am not interested in myths. " > > Well good God, why are you a progressive statist? Because it damn well treats people better than the botched abortion on toast that is the current system. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- What proof no numbers or stats just screeds and poor rhetoric. Again if you cannot show any demonstrable evidence then you're just blowing it out your butt. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- So then what is different than what Alinsky suggested for people to collectively get the same amount of impact as someone with an income of 20 million plus a year. What is wrong about that? Or do you think that we ought to be ruled by the rich? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- For one thing your term progressive statist is interesting, a pure propaganda term intended to denigrate and belittle the opposition. What's the matter liberal just doesn't do it for you any more? > > Anyway, on to a personal question: > > Are you okay?  You seem kind of high strung lately. I do not know you. I do not care to. So frankly it is not your business one way or another. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/26/2012 01:03 PM

"Because it damn well treats people better than the botched abortion on toast that is the current system." I don't want myths.  I want NUMBERS. "Again if you cannot show any demonstrable evidence then you're just blowing it out your butt." Fine.  I am blowing it out my butt.  Just like that myth about "treats people better". "So then what is different than what Alinsky suggested for people to collectively get the same amount of impact as someone with an income of 20 million plus a year. What is wrong about that? Or do you think that we ought to be ruled by the rich?" We ARE ruled by the rich. And it's not so much Alinsky's goal as his tactics and ethics. "I do not know you. I do not care to. So frankly it is not your business one way or another." Fair enough.  If I could though, I'd buy you a beer (if you drink beer, but you're probably the wine type).  Seems like you need one. Anyway, I'll share a personal issue I have:  I was told that if Obama wins this year, it will be my fault.  Is that not a huge cross to bear? J - When a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch. - Polybius

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/26/2012 01:27 PM

have you actually read his book, or anything about him? This really sounds like the Fox News version of his life. Or does saying that make me a progressive statist too? I really want to know if you'll apply the term to someone who left Canada because they didn't like the nanny state :) On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/28/2012 09:23 AM

"and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a US government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers." I'll give you that he was a pragmatist.  But, so were Stalin and Mao. "I know the right has been demonizing him because of the Chicago-organizer link to Obama, but that has about as much validity as Freedom fries had back in the day." Who cares about the link to Obama?  It's more about the lack of ethics and morals that concern me and that ideal being propagated for others to use. "have you actually read his book, or anything about him? " Already answered. Anyway, just to find more about his character, you can read a 1972 Playboy interview.  In it, he describes a system where he could use fraud to get a meal for the price of a cup of coffee.  He then talks about teaching this trick to dozens of students.  The kicker is, he then describes how irate he became when the restaurants changed their receipts, thus making it impossible for him and his cronies to keep stealing from them.  He was actually angry that the restaurants wanted to protect their work. "This really sounds like the Fox News version of his life. " I wouldn't know.  I haven't watched Fox News in months (and didn't watch it much then) and don't plan on watching them in the future.  I have decided that they are just another arm of the progressive news establishment. Their job is to push those not on board with the program to acceptable alternatives.  For example, if we can't convince Americans that Obama is great, we'll have to make them think Romney is great. "Or does saying that make me a progressive statist too? " I don't know.  From your posts, I would definitely put you as less than conservative. "I really want to know if you'll apply the term to someone who left Canada because they didn't like the nanny state :)" Which is really ironic considering how things have changed lately. J - You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. When half of the people get an idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. - Adrian Pierce Rogers

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/28/2012 02:26 PM

> "and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a > US government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers." > > I'll give you that he was a pragmatist.  But, so were Stalin and Mao. Wait... weren't you just complaining that he practiced the politics of division, or something like that? You're entitled to not like the guy, but you get bonus points if your reasons aren't mutually contradictory. > "I know the right has been demonizing him because of the Chicago-organizer > link to Obama, but that has about as much validity as Freedom fries had > back in the day." > > Who cares about the link to Obama?  It's more about the lack of ethics and > morals that concern me and that ideal being propagated for others to use. > Huh. All I know is that nobody else had ever heard of the guy until Obama got elected, and then community organizer became a dirty word. "have you actually read his book, or anything about him? " > > Already answered. > No actually... not that I saw. Unless the answer is no? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Link? Never heard this. I suppose it's possible, as the 60s did have a kind of *Steal this Book * mentality...shrug. I am talking about his philosophy as laid out in his book. I am betting that you got this anecdote from some right-wing screed that seriously distorted it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- AH. They are not crazy *enough* for you, I get it. The *National Standard*version then? The Michael Savage version? Whatever. "Or does saying that make me a progressive statist too? " > > I don't know.  From your posts, I would definitely put you as less than > conservative. Less than, lol. You're the neo-liberal here ;) I think we seriously disagree on the meaning of the word conservative. In my world, conservatives don't squander lives and money on ventures that work against the interests they are supposed to be managing. "I really want to know if you'll apply the term to someone who left Canada > because they didn't like the nanny state :)" > > Which is really ironic considering how things have changed lately. Eh. They've learned to gerrymander and sell out to big business, especially in Ontario. But they are still a nanny state -- they just let people destroy the environment as well. > J ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/29/2012 10:22 PM

"Wait... weren't you just complaining that he practiced the politics of division, or something like that? You're entitled to not like the guy, but you get bonus points if your reasons aren't mutually contradictory." My views of him are not contradictory and are pretty easy to pick up.  I don't know how anyone can even began to come to that conclusion. Let me ask this:  In your opinion, who was Alinsky trying to help and did it work? "Huh. All I know is that nobody else had ever heard of the guy until Obama got elected, and then community organizer became a dirty word." You should clarify and say that nobody you know had heard of him.  He's actually old news to those who pay attention.  I first heard of him when the Clinton's where in the White House.  In fact, there is another missing document issue with Hilary.  Her senior thesis was on Alinsky.  She asked Wellesley not to release the thesis.  Her opponents wanted the thesis in order to prove her socialist creds.  In the end, it was a wild goose chase for her opponents. "AH. They are not crazy *enough* for you, I get it. The *National Standard*version then? The Michael Savage version? Whatever." When I think crazy, I think of MSNBC or the Huffington Post and I certainly don't utilize those.  I don't read the National Standard.  I don't like William Kristol or Fred Barnes (who seem to be frequent Fox contributors). I can't stand Michael Savage.  So, you're right, whatever. "Less than, lol. You're the neo-liberal here ;) " More than you know, if you consider the original definition of "liberal" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism ) and not the current definition. Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. "I think we seriously disagree on the meaning of the word conservative.  In my world, conservatives don't squander lives and money on ventures that work against the interests they are supposed to be managing." Mine either. I think you are equating Republicans with conservatives.  They are not the same.  There are actually very few Republicans who are conservative.  If you are equating the two, then it sounds like you are accusing Republicans of warmongering for profit.  That's fine.  However, the Democrats are just as guilty, if not more so.  Right now, it looks like Obama is ramping up for a nice Middle East action to protect/expand oil interests. "Eh. They've learned to gerrymander and sell out to big business, especially in Ontario. But they are still a nanny state -- they just let people destroy the environment as well." Then welcome to Canada Part Deux. J - Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan From an early age, smart people are reminded of their intelligence, separated from their peers in gifted classes, and presented with opportunities unavailable to others. For these and other reasons, intellectuals tend to have an inflated sense of their own wisdom. It is thus arrogance, and not intelligence, that leads them into trouble. They?re so smart, hubris compels them to believe, that they can run everyone else?s life. But no one is that smart. What?s more, theorists devising systems for the rest of us to live under often have a difficult time running their own lives. Mundane tasks are to them what quantum physics is to the rest of us. - Daniel J Flyn

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/30/2012 01:46 AM

> My views of him are not contradictory and are pretty easy to pick up.  I > don't know how anyone can even began to come to that conclusion. > Apparently not. Let me ask this:  In your opinion, who was Alinsky trying to help and did > it work? > Who knows? Depends on what communities it was applied in, and how well. When we used his methods, a problem got solved that the community thought was a problem. Some people were unhappy and I myself would have preferred another outcome, but it's about the community discovering that it *can* solve its own problems. But this process necessarily happens one problem at a time and depends on who else doesn't like the proposed solution, shrug. Getting speed bumps or a stop sign is a nice beginning project. The group I worked with doesn't seem to be around any more, but the community, which was blighted and racially troubled at the time, has apparently gentrified. So huh, Alinsky's ideas do seem to have improved things in that community, a little at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Rainier,_Maryland But possibly this mainly happened because nobody that didn't live there cared too much. But they people who lived there *did* and hey, local values, right? This is what I worked on as a VISTA volunteer, by the way. Using Alinsky's book. Ayup. Sorry if that disturbs your worldview. At a minimum the whites and the blacks started talking, and together solved one big problem in that part of the world at the time -- all the hearings happened in Upper Marlboro, which was unreachable without a car and maybe still is. The problem I referred to above was a badly deteriorated boarded up old house, the problem the neighborhood I was working it picked to work on. I would have liked to see it rehabbed but that wasn't in the cards and structurally iit was probably too far gone anyway. And the community -- key point -- wanted it gone and could make that happen, and on the other hand had neither the means nor the desire to fix it had that even been possible, shrug. You should clarify and say that nobody you know had heard of him.  He's > actually old news to those who pay attention.  I first heard of him when > the Clinton's where in the White House.  In fact, there is another missing > document issue with Hilary.  Her senior thesis was on Alinsky.  She > asked Wellesley > not to release the thesis.  Her opponents wanted the thesis in order to > prove her socialist creds.  In the end, it was a wild goose chase for her > opponents. On the contrary, see above. But I used to get a lot of blank stares when I talked about this. As for the rest of what you say here, I have no information, but it sounds pretty wild-eyed to me. > > When I think crazy, I think of MSNBC or the Huffington Post and I certainly > don't utilize those.  I don't read the National Standard.  I don't like > William Kristol or Fred Barnes (who seem to be frequent Fox contributors). >  I can't stand Michael Savage.  So, you're right, whatever Well, you're still not saying where you *do* get your information. But it doesn't seem to have been from reading the actual book. "Less than, lol. You're the neo-liberal here ;) " > > More than you know, if you consider the original definition of "liberal" ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism ) and not the current > definition. > Good! Now look up "neo-liberal." Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited > government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of > individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, > and free markets. I am on board for that. > "I think we seriously disagree on the meaning of the word conservative.  In > my world, conservatives don't squander lives and money on ventures that > work against the interests they are supposed to be managing." > > > Mine either. > Even better. > > I think you are equating Republicans with conservatives.  They are not the > same.  There are actually very few Republicans who are conservative.  If > you are equating the two, then it sounds like you are accusing Republicans > of warmongering for profit.  That's fine.  However, the Democrats are just > as guilty, if not more so.  Right now, it looks like Obama is ramping up > for a nice Middle East action to protect/expand oil interests. No, but most people do. If you don't that's great. I *am* saying that warmongering for profit did happen, and I do not agree with it. Doesn't matter who does/did it. > "Eh. They've learned to gerrymander and sell out to big business, > especially in Ontario. But they are still a nanny state -- they just let > people destroy the environment as well." > > Then welcome to Canada Part Deux. > Not sure what you mean by that, but if you are expecting me to defend the Canadians, I dunno... try Larry. It's not my thing. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/31/2012 10:04 AM

"Apparently not." If you see a contradiction, so be it.  It doesn't matter to me. "Who knows? Depends on what communities it was applied in, and how well." I see. "On the contrary, see above. But I used to get a lot of blank stares when I talked about this. As for the rest of what you say here, I have no information, but it sounds pretty wild-eyed to me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis "Well, you're still not saying where you *do* get your information." I read.  A lot. I do not watch network news.   I do not listen to or watch Sean Hannity (GOP Shill), Rush Limbaugh (Shill for something but I am not sure what), Glen Beck (shill for himself), Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Fox and Friend, MSNBC, CNN. I do watch the local news. When time permits, I like to listen to Neal Boortz.  I like to watch CNBC during the day (Can't stand Cramer though). "But it doesn't seem to have been from reading the actual book." Again, so be it.  I am not reading again.  My stack of reading material is through the roof. "Good! Now look up 'neo-liberal.'" Yeah, I got it.  An extension of classical liberalism to economics. "No, but most people do. If you don't that's great. I *am* saying thatwarmongering for profit did happen, and I do not agree with it. Doesn't matter who does/did it." Exactly.  Now, if the majority of the people would get on board, the country might be able to throw some bums out and concentrate on fixing some internal issues. "Not sure what you mean by that, but if you are expecting me to defend the Canadians, I dunno... try Larry. It's not my thing." Just saying welcome to more of the same thing. You didn't escape it. J - Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. - Abraham Lincoln

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/31/2012 07:44 PM

"On the contrary, see above. But I used to get a lot of blank stares > when I talked > about this. As for the rest of what you say here, I have no information, > but it sounds pretty wild-eyed to me." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis Hehe. I have actually had a number of dealings with wikipedia articles lately, and one thing they have not done for me is make me any more  likely to think something is *not* wild-eyed because it has a wikipedia article. I used to defend wikipedia, but these days I think it is only true that wikipedia often approximates truth when the topic is not controversial. This does not apply here. So I think my indifference to this matches yours to primary sources. Ah well.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/31/2012 07:53 PM

I am certainly no fan of Hlary's but here is the thesis: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5577966/Hillary-Rodham-Clintons-Wellesley-College-Senior-Thesis-1969 It is certainly not the worshipful screed of Alinsky that her critics claim. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/01/2012 11:23 AM

"Hehe. I have actually had a number of dealings with wikipedia articles lately, and one thing they have not done for me is make me any more  likely to think something is *not* wild-eyed because it has a wikipedia article." Exactly.  Wikipedia is just another reference.  It is not a definitive source. I am not so sure there isn't a hidden agenda there when one considers how much Soros and other progressive groups contribute to the site in terms of funds and leadership. "It is certainly not the worshipful screed of Alinsky that her critics claim." Exactly. Much ado about nothing.  The Clintons should have never request that it be locked down.  The mystery of the contents became a bigger issue than what it contained.  Kind of like Obama's birth certificate.  Now, if he would just release his college records . . . J - My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. - Barack Obama* * Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the white house counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency - Barack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/01/2012 12:46 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- That is avery disingenuous and sleazy innuendo. Very like what McCarthy tried to do. Let me guess you also are going to accuse those who contribute to the acting sections of being thespians and most of the participants in general of being heterosexuals. chances are you don't get the joke so I'll give you the source: http://gis.washington.edu/phurvitz/outgoing/bustagut/Non-SlanderousPoliticalSmearSpeech.htm Moreover, if anything go through the discussion logs and the ones who are very interested in changing wiki entries and advance agendas are the various right wing groups, like Operation Rescue (see the abortion pages) or  global warming deniers or Ron Paul's followers. In other words the reich wing, not progressives. Finally funny how you bring up Soros so much, and with the typical accusations. Yet the uber rich that seem actually to be doing what you accuse Soros of are the Koch brothers. Of course with them its a matter of getting the best politicians money can buy instead of reinforcing civil society. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asi

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:09 PM

"That is avery disingenuous and sleazy innuendo." That's a very serious allegation considering how much you use it.  I'll have to consider it since you know so much about it. "Very like what McCarthy tried to do." Case in point.  McCarthy was actually right about a number of things.  Here you go: "With Joe McCarthy it was the losers who've written the history which condemns him," said Dan Flynn, director of <http://www.academia.orgAccuracy in Academia's recent national conference on McCarthy, broadcast by C-SPAN. Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in Moscow and now the famous Vanona Intercepts -- FBI recordings of Soviet embassy communications between 1944-48 -- the record is showing that McCarthy was essentially right. He had many weaknesses, but almost every case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network. "Finally funny how you bring up Soros so much, and with the typical accusations. Yet the uber rich that seem actually to be doing what you accuse Soros of are the Koch brothers. Of course with them its a matter of getting the best politicians money can buy instead of reinforcing civil society." That's right Larry, Nazi collaborator and Jewish turncoat Soros, who has crashed monetary systems, has no political agenda.  Good one.  Are you really going to argue that New World Order supporter Soros is for civil liberties? Anyway, this quote probably summarizes best why you defend him: The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat - George Soros Anyway, you got any quotes from the Koch brothers about submitting to international governance? J - The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States - George Soros To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision-making - George Soros In short, we need a global society to support our global economy - George Soros The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. - George Soros

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:32 PM

Yes...a 13 year old Nazi collaborator...LOL " Soros was born in Budapest, Hungary to Tivadar (also known as Teodoro) and Elizabeth Soros. Tivadar Soros, a Hungarian Jew, had been a prisoner of war during and after World War I until he escaped from Russia and rejoined his family in Budapest.[11][12] Tivadar was an Esperantist writer and taught George to speak Esperanto from birth.[13] Soros later said that he grew up in a Jewish home and that his parents were cautious with their religious roots.[14] Soros was thirteen years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary.[15] Soros took a job with the Jewish Council,[11] which had been established during the Nazi occupation of Hungary to carry out Nazi and Hungarian government anti-Jewish measures.[16][17] Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis:     The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper ... It said report to the rabbi seminary at 9 am ... And I was given this list of names. I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported."[18] Later that year, at age 14, Soros lived with and posed as the godson of an employee of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture. The official once was ordered to inventory the remaining contents of the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country; rather than leave the young Soros alone in the city, the official brought him along.[19] The next year, 1945, Soros survived the Battle of Budapest, in which Soviet and German forces fought house-to-house through the city. Soros emigrated to England in 1947 and, as an impoverished student, lived with his uncle, an Orthodox Jew. His uncle paid his living expenses while he attended the London School of Economics, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Philosophy in 1952.[20] While a student of the philosopher Karl Popper, Soros worked as a railway porter and as a waiter. A University tutor requested aid for Soros, and he received GB£40 from a Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) charity.[21] In a discussion at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in 2006, Alvin Shuster, former foreign editor of the Los Angeles Times, asked Soros, "How does one go from an immigrant to a financier? ... When did you realize that you knew how to make money?" Soros replied, "Well, I had a variety of jobs and I ended up selling fancy goods on the sea side, souvenir shops, and I thought, that's really not what I was cut out to do. So, I wrote to every managing director in every merchant bank in London, got just one or two replies, and eventually that's how I got a job in a merchant bank."[22] That job was an entry-level position in Singer & Friedlander." "Finally funny how you bring up Soros so much, and with the typical accusations. Yet the uber rich that seem actually to be doing what you accuse Soros of are the Koch brothers. Of course with them its a matter of getting the best politicians money can buy instead of reinforcing civil society." That's right Larry, Nazi collaborator and Jewish turncoat Soros, who has crashed monetary systems, has no political agenda.  Good one.  Are you really going to argue that New World Order supporter Soros is for civil liberties? Anyway, this quote probably summarizes best why you defend him: The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat - George Soros Anyway, you got any quotes from the Koch brothers about submitting to international governance? J - The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States - George Soros To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision-making - George Soros In short, we need a global society to support our global economy - George Soros The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. - George Soros

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 09:47 PM

assuming this is true, and he did that, this is not collaboration. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/26/2012 01:24 PM

and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a US government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers. I know the right has been demonizing him because of the Chicago-organizer link to Obama, but that has about as much validity as Freedom fries had back in the day. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 02:41 PM

It really went down like conversations I have with my 5 year, with the GOP playing their usual part as the truculent child. Dept. of State: "There are a couple options here that we need time to look at. I'm not sure that the one you are currently proposing is a good idea." Congressional GOP: "NO! Do it now! I said, Obama! I said!!!!!" Dept. of State: "Just chill out, ok? Use your words please and listen to the tone of your voice. If we can discuss this, we can probably figure out a good way to deal with it, alright?" Congressional GOP: "I'm going to kick the wall and scream until you do it!" Dept. of State: "Fine, have it your way. The answer is no. Now go to your room and think about the right way to get what you want. I'll give you a hint: It isn't by screaming and demanding and kicking the wall." Of course my 5 year old does a way better job with compromise and using her words but it certainly does give the flavor of dealing with out of control pre-schoolers. Cheers, Judah > > oh, ok.....that's kinda like pointing out the blue sky and the green grass.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 02:50 PM

yes but that is a child. We talking adult republican politicians here who have no restraints whatsoever. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 09:24 PM

I get it, this is when we pretend .01 percent represents the lot. Very funny. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/18/2012 09:51 PM

Let's hear the other sides point of view: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288490/obama-s-forced-keystone-decision-rejects-jobs-energy-and-logic-nicolas-loris . > > Now watch the Republicans whine about not making as much money as they > were slated to do. > > http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71598.html


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

December 21, 2014

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31       

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference