Speaking of lies, smoothy is not my buddy. You can be a coward or document your charges, but since you can't document that leaves one option.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Speaking of lies, smoothy is not my buddy. You can be a coward or document your charges, but since you can't document that leaves one option.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You're history challenged, too. Republicans made an overture from the beginning, Obama said "I won."Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's a lie as all the republican overtures were designed to suck everybody into a negotiation that no matter what they would walk away from.
It was a stall tactic plain and simple. A stage for YOU guys to do what you do best, HOLLER, and BLAME.
Come on Tal, you've been leaning on that same excuse like a crutch too long. One need only recall it's been nearly 4 years since Dems in the Senate have passed a budget to see your side has culpability in this nonsense. You seem to think Democrats BS doesn't stink.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah it does, but not enough to hide the REPUBLICANS BS.Quote:
You seem to think Democrats BS doesn't stink
Most would never know, Republicans don't have the media covering for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Wonder why the media is so against you guys and you have such little support? I thought this was a center right country, so where is your center right media?
Maybe what YOU guys read write and broadcast is not what everyone else reads writes, and broadcasts? Is that blaming someone else for your own shortcomings?
I think you guys don't handle rejection very well myself. You holler too much for the rest of the country, and your alternatives are unacceptable to most. Take some responsibility for your own failings for once, it won't hurt you, it will help.
We've more than taken responsibility for Repubics shortcomings, waiting for you to reciprocate. The thing is you know Bush would not have gotten away with Benghazi, Fast and Furious, an EPA chief using an alias, the utter hypocrisy on transparency, all the late Friday news dumps, etc. The lamestream media would gave been relentless instead of turning a blind eye.
In a sweet twist of fate environmental groups are suing the Interior Dept over their designated 'solar zones.'
Funny how well-meaning libs either can't see the hypocrisy in their policies or just don't get they have consequences. Shut down thousands of acres of the most productive agricultural land on the planet to save a little fish instead of providing jobs and food for hungry people? You can't interfere with 'wetlands' like a tiny playa lake in the Texas Panhandle that may have water every few years, but you can kill bald eagles with windmills and cover pristine public wilderness with solar panels.Quote:
Environmental Groups Sue DOI for Narrow Focus on Public Lands as Solar Zones
A legal battle is brewing between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and three public-interest environmental groups that claim the government failed to consider degraded lands for the siting of "destructive" utility-scale solar plants, and that it focused instead on millions of acres of public land when it established solar energy zones in six southwestern states.
A complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday by the Western Lands Project, Desert Protective Council, and Western Watersheds Project says the government’s analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) "ignored alternative approaches that would be less damaging to the environment, more efficient, and less costly to taxpayers and ratepayers."
The DOI in October 2012 finalized its Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), establishing an initial set of 17 solar energy zones totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands that would serve as priority areas for commercial-scale solar development. It essentially provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting for solar power projects on public lands in six western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.
...
"Massive solar power plants will have irreversible, essentially permanent, impacts. The [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] admits that ecological recovery after solar plants are decommissioned, if even possible, could take 3,000 years," the groups said.
“The Administration is opting to needlessly turn multiple-use public lands into permanent industrial zones.” said Janine Blaeloch of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project. “Solar development belongs on rooftops, parking lots, already-developed areas, and on degraded sites, not our public lands."
I've been virtually coast-to coast since September and I can't say how many ugly farms I saw ruining the view. Now I know why Ted Kennedy didn't want it in his back yard. Surely we can do better than cover the earth in windmills and solar panels.
I think they actually want to cut down the rain forest to make that a solar zone too... if they have half a brain... the will make California a solar zone and send all the people up north. Prefferably to the artic circle.
So they have found a use for the valley then? Hope it doesn't affect the fish or what ever it was that the EPA were protecting
What about open space ? Seems to me that if they could reclaim degraded lands for siting ,it would be a better option than using 'pristine' Federal lands.
You mean to say you have been holding out on us, there are pristine lands?
More acres than populated by far .
Is that by or so far
By far.
The Federal Government owns 50% of the land in the Western states and about 15% Eastern states. Most of it is undeveloped wilderness. A total of 30% of the United States. 650 million acres!! There is no way that much land ownership by the government is justified.
More important. There are many places in the Western states to place solar farms that would be equally suitable that are as the complaint noted ,degraded lands ;begging for reclamation.
Are those degraded acres on federal lands?
The article doesn't specify .But the general idea is that they should not be on public lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Quote:
The Administration is opting to needlessly turn multiple-use public lands into permanent industrial zones.” said Janine Blaeloch of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project. “Solar development belongs on rooftops, parking lots, already-developed areas, and on degraded sites, not our public lands."
For my 2 cents ;I don't mind energy leases on Federal lands . I think the Feds own too much land anyway.
So let's spoil it all with oil rigs and above-ground pipelines and gravel pits and fracking plains?
It's like gun control--once you start taking away, where will it stop?
I think those activities leave less of a fingerprint on the land than massive solar farms and wind farms that lose half the energy they produce in transmission .
So ;when are you going to move into an energy efficient yurt ?
You just can't make this stuff up... it just baffles me how he gets away with this BS.
Obama Angrily Denounces His Own Idea
Whining and whimpering about his own plan. Yes sir, policies have consequences.Quote:
And who, pray tell, is primarily responsible for these "not smart , not fair," job-destroying, chaos-creating cuts? Over to you, liberal reporter Bob Woodward:
"It was the White House. It was Obama and Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and said, '[the sequester] is the solution.'"
Woodward went on to say that "everyone has their fingerprints" on the package of cuts -- which is true to a large extent. The idea was the Obama administration's brain child, they proposed it, members of both parties in both houses voted for the 2011 debt deal (in which the sequester was embedded), and the president affixed his signature to it. He also threatened to veto Republicans' attempts to make the cuts more responsible and targeted. But now, as Obama tells it, America faces a sequester-induced apocalypse, and it's all the GOP's fault. Criminals will run free. Airport delays will get worse. Fires will burn unfought. Puppies will go uncuddled. All because Republicans are willing to allow the president's own proposal to go into effect.
Very simple... the President has yet to propose so called 'responsible " cuts . Oh they get orgasmic over the defense cuts ;but nothing else is on their agenda. It's always expand the government .
Hello again, tom:
He's not going to either.. IF he does, the Republicans will tear it apart... This ISN'T about plans, or details.. It's STILL about politics...Quote:
the President has yet to propose so called 'responsible " cuts .
Obama 2.0 is NOT going to give an inch... It's been said that he wants to DESTROY the Republican party... Pansy lefty's say, NO, that's not true, he wants to govern... But, it's TRUE, all right.. And he's going to DO it. He's RIGHT. It SHOULD be done. They're worthless.
Payback is b1tch...
Excon
How cynical. You really think after being an unrelenting target of right wing rock throwing for 4 years he is going to give you more rocks to throw?
Already the repubs have tipped their hand with the rebuttal to the SOTU speech they had ready to go before he even delivered the speech, confirming Kerry with no problem at State, and holding up Hagle and Brennan over Benghazi, which is the domain of state.
Then leave town while another crisis they manufactured the sequester, looms ahead at the end of the month. More egregious is Rubio announcing how dead on arrival the Presidents's immigration bill is and it's the same as his own.
That's unmitigated gall to demand he lead, so you can take target practice and blame him because repubs have done NOTHING.
Bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa! Well yes of course they'd like us to believe that the issue with Benghazi was a State Dept failure. But you and I know it goes much deeper than that.Quote:
and holding up Hagle and Brennan over Benghazi, which is the domain of state.
No ,the President is back from his golf junket with Tiger .Quote:
Then leave town while another crisis they manufactured the sequester, looms ahead at the end of the month
I am going to keep that quote handy... yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.Quote:
That's unmitigated gall to demand he lead,
Hello again, tom:
As though you'll FOLLOW his lead... You don't want him to lead.. You want him to put his balls on the table so you can CHOP 'em off.Quote:
yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.
Well, it AIN'T happening... He's GOT your balls in his clutch instead, and he's SQUEEZING. I'm LIKING it.
Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha.
Excon
Two hostages are better than one right? Imean how doyou demand answers without going to the meetings? Kerry pointed that out during his hearings, so why even ask the questions of rhse who weren't there. McCain even admitted it was a partisan witch hunt, He said of Hagle, "He was a bad boy when he was a republican".Quote:
QUOTE by tomder,
Bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa! Well yes of course they'd like us to believe that the issue with Benghazi was a State Dept failure. But you and I know it goes much deeper than that.
A break from republican rock throwing?Quote:
No ,the President is back from his golf junket with Tiger .
For 4 years he has said lets go, and for 4 years repubs have said NO! Then they go home and leave the work behind. Love to see some town hall meetings from the constituents back home. The big stall will bite you.Quote:
I am going to keep that quote handy... yeah we are showing gall expecting the President to lead.
Still with that meme, eh? What's funny to me, besides the fact that he can't get his own party to do his bidding or pass a budget for that matter, is you can't see the absurdity of throwing a tantrum over the possibility his own idea may actually take effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Tantrum?? Me?? Not likely, I have thrived and survived no matter what you guys are hollering your gloom and doom about, and the blame game that only fools YOU.
You better listen when I tell you to rise above your own fear or drown in your own crap. Its bad enough to isolate yourself from the facts, but far worse to be alone. Compromise guy, we all thrive.
The President was for the sequester before he was against it .
Remember when President Obama supported the sequester cuts? - YouTube
“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one"(November 21, 2011)
The sad part is that I agreed with the President... The sequesters should happen. The problem is that as President ,he set no priorities on what should be trimmed from the various budgets. But he let lard a$$es like Leon Panetta sit around for almost a year making no budgetary decisions. Now he thinks Hagel can manage it?? PLEEESE!! Hagel will just blame the "Jewish lobby"(his words ) while he sucks up to Iran.
$2.7 trillion in revenue in 2013 and about $3.8 trillion in spending.
$85 billion in sequester cuts represents a 2.2 percent reduction in spending in 2013, or less than half of one percent of the $16.5 trillion federal debt.
This is just a rounding error ;and yet the President runs around the country like the sky is falling.
The House passed legislation twice last year that would replace across-the-board cuts. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in years.
LOL, Obama is the one throwing a tantrum, hollering doom and gloom and blaming others for his own policy. Geez Tal, keep up.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Prince Harry the Obtuse hasn't allowed a single House passed Budget to even come up for a vote since The Messiah took office LAST election.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Telling America to be forewarned about republican intransigence is not a tantrum, it's a public service, Like the ride of Paul Revere.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
You guys are very good at what you do, obstuct, delay, and stall. Governance though, not so good.Quote:
On December 6, 2012, another milestone in filibuster history was reached when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal, though he did not give a lengthy speech, instead merely invoking the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes. McConnell had attempted to force the opposition Democrats, who had a majority in the Senate, to refuse to pass what would have been a politically-costly measure that would nonetheless solve the current ongoing debt ceiling deadlock; when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) elected to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules regarding filibusters on his proposal, effectively engaging in the first self-filibuster in Senate history.
Where is the budget from the Senate ? You deflected ;but did not answer. No , the Repubics did not block a vote on the budget... but nice try.
Your answer is totally devoid of reality. Obama is "forewarning" (fear mongering) about his own plan, Tal. Republicans did their part with the revenue part, raising taxes Time for Obama to do his part on meaningful spending cuts or HIS SEQUESTER PLAN takes effect. I don't know what you're missing about Obama suddenly not liking his own plan, which Republicans agreed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What do you not get about reaching an agreement then Obama calling foul on his own plan?
As for McConnell.. he introduced an unconstitutional bill to allow the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own without Congressional consent.. It was a goofy proposal from a beltway goofball. He never thought Reid was goofy enough to bring it to the floor. But Reid proved him wrong.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 AM. |