Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize Obama hasn't been in office for 4 years and wasn't requesting additional spending on a program that failed to provide results.
Talking about Obama for this thread is On Topic, saying "But Bush" is Off Topic for this thread. I realize that being a liberal you have to ignore facts and I make that hard for you, but attacking me doesn't change them. If you don't like them I suggest you don't read my posts.
This man just lost the debate and is hoping for the "Its Fox News and not a reliable source" for his next argument. Grow up and if you cared nearly as much as you pretend you can find it yourself.
Liberal argument sequence... 1. But Bush (His original post) 2. Attack the poster (His next post)
It gets tiring to see the same 4 posts in a row on EVERY topic that shows Obama as corrupt.
Losses from Obama loans to "green" companies Solydnra - $535 Million Abount Solar - $400 Million First Solar - $3 Billion Fisker Automotive - $529 Million / Cut off after getting $193 Million of that A123 - $123 Million Ener1 - $118 Million ReVolt - $5 Million
Your entire post consisted of trying to mislead and lie to people. I called your bluff and no matter how many times you say "But Bush" and "Iraq" it doesn't make the FACT that Obama stole money from taxpayers to give to campaign contributors who bankrupted their companies almost immediatly after getting federal money.
Perhaps you can give examples of this? - Is it the recent increse in taxes without cutting spending on Jan 2 the example you were thinking of? - Or perhaps the promising to veto any deal to avert the sequester that didn't include more tax increases? - Maybe you meant last summer when they had to raise the debt ceiling and the president promised to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes? - No, I know, its the deal to raise the debt limit later this month were the president promied to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes. - I know, its over the last 4 years when the house proposes a budget every year and the DNC controlled senate refuses to propose one or bring up the House one for a vote.
It seems that the only time the Republicans got what they wanted, a spending cut, is when it was automatic from the president proposal of it because he refused to compromise six months earlier.
Just this week, Biden, told us that just slapping women is not that bad of a thing. Lets add to that all the personal attacks against Palin and her kids and then reexamine your statement about which party hates women.
His fisrt term he put $80 Billion towards this. You will remember great hits like Solendra, A123, and Fisker. The list of companies getting the money from that original program read like a whos-who of campaign donors. Many of the companies went bankrupt quickly after getting the federal money and none of them produced anything usable.
So, to anser your question "How is this not a good idea?" The track record is this will be a slush fund to reward his friends and accomplish nothing useful. Corrupt politics and corporate cronyism at its finest. Nothing to do with "socialism", just plain theft.
Thats cute, you think a national budget of $3.8 Trillion isn't enough to fund something like that. How much does the federal government need before it will fund that? $5Trillion, $10 Trillion?
4 years ago we spent $850 Billion on "infrastructure" and "shovel ready jobs" because the infrastructure needed $1.2 Trillion in fixing up at the time. Today we need $2 Trillion. How much of that $850 Billion went to where it was promised to go? None.
Why do you think giving them MORE money will fund something that will help you? They steal it, all of it. Cut the bureaucrats, you won't notice, except you may have to pay less in taxes. Until they can show they are responsible, I say we cut the federal budget in half every year until they are responsible.
If a 1% cut means cutting tuition reimbursment for active military, but also continues tuition reimbursment for illegal aliens and a $250 Million hand out to Egypt, its pretty clear that the Federal government has declared war on its people and the best we could hope for is to defund it until it behaves.
The embassy was under attack for over 8 hours before the ambassador was killed. Military troops were put into action to help long before the killing, but before they got to the area the generals that sent them were relieved of their command and the troops were called back, two sets of troops. Obama never called to find out if he could order anything to help or if anything could be done.
Your comment leads me to believe you have no idea what happened there.
Rate of spending increase under Bush 43 wasn't nearly as big as Obama. You are reading leftist lying publications. They are lumping the $400 Billion Omnibus spending bill and $850 Billion stimilus under Bush's last year while both were proposed and passed after Obama took office. If you ACTUALLY follow when the spening increases took place and ignore the lies, it was all Obama, but I understand that viewpoint is unpopular.
Yea, the average unemployment of 5% sucked. Along with not having to wonder if the president was going to drone striking you for being outspoken about him.
I really hated those parts of 2001-2008.
I really perfer 8% unemployment, reduced credit rating for government bonds, and killing of US citizens without trial.
I realize facts are anathema to attempting to spin something away from Obama, but this is the OBAMA administration doing this. This is the same OBAMA administration that was dragged kicking and screaming to answer the question "Can you drone strike kill a US citizen within the US?". This is the same OBAMA administration that still hasn't answered Congress' questions about the murder of over 200 Mexicans in Fast and Furious. This is the same OBAMA administraiton that hasn't answered Congress' questions on the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens.
I realize you want to protect your hero, but your hero is crap. All that I listed above has nothing to do with Congress, or what is being proposed in the article. You are just trying to get another free pass for the dictator and I'm calling you out for it.
Don't some time share models give you points that you can use at any of their resorts. You pay a big fee once a year, get your points and visit all their properties you want until the points run out. No microtransactions, but tiny fees for each use.
The issue is you would need a large set of useful sites and one payment area for all of them, something like cable or Netflix. You pay one company to get content from a bunch of different places.
Each weapon is not a launch site. Most ICBMs have multiple warheads, so taking out 1 site could mean 20 out of commission. Then you have failure rate probably around 20%, them missile guidance errors of a few percent, if they have SDI it can take out up to 70% most likely. Between all that your 1000 suddenly becomes around 5, and those 5 won't be your top targets and some of those 5 may hit the same target multiple times. So by the time you launched all 1000, a lot of your opponent's targets are still there and the beating you just took means you can't build more. During the cold war 1000 only would be idiotic.
What no one is mentioning though is nuclear subs or stealth bombers. Both are able to deliver to targets in non-ICBM ways that are probably much more reliable. With the stealth bomber and subs, 1000 might just be enough for one large conflict.
The other thing not mentioned, a lot of the older ones were called tactical nukes. Something like the Davy Crocket which was launched from a ground artillery piece from a couple of miles away and was small yield. Meant for a Russian tank column. The A-4 and I think F-111 could both carry small nuclear bombs which we no longer have. We don't use those anymore and things like that probably accounted for half of what we used to have.
Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that. Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.
You are Straight.
1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?
When Bill Clinton was president he sold top secret ICBM technology to the Chinese in return for cash donations to the DNC, specifically his and Gore's election campaigns. This is fact. When asked about it during a debate between Gore and Bush, Gore's response was "No controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was the only one authorized to prosecute and she was told not to.
I really have a hard time listening to Gore, especially when it comes to campaign contributions. What he and Clinton did was treason, period, and he abused his power to not be prosecuted.
One of the articles shows two differnet replicas being built and flown 1986 and 1998 in USA and Germany. The only issue I have with it is the engine that would have been needed to get it in the air shouldn't have existed then. It appears the original engines he used no longer exist, so it will remain a mystery. The claims he made on engine weight and HP are quite a bit ridiculous for the time. As for the design of the plane, it could easily fly, but wouldn't be my first choice to try out, maybe if it had a larger rudder because in a slight wind it would probably be impossible to land.
Nor are you likely to ever need one for self defense if you're not doing stupid things.
Facts. Guns are used for self defense about 989,000 times a year around the year 2000 in the US. Guns are used for murder about 10,000 times a year. Don't make up statements that the facts clearly show are wrong.
This is EXACTLY my point, hedwards is litterally making stuff up to deamonize law abiding citizens and claiming they should have no right to protect themsleves. This is the reason the NRA is attacking video games and the movie industry, but people are demanding something gets done and the NRA is providing the least resistance and most likely to be held up in court. They can back up their claims about self defense with guns with decades of facts, but the video game industry has no such history or facts.
Video games, or pictures of snakes is not what the debate is about. Its about gun control. Since there are so many people all gung-ho to trample on the rights of others, people like the NRA are doing to you what you do to them. They are blaming what you like to distract from you taking away what they like, the only difference is they have a constitutional amendment protecting them. Since so many are DEMANDING something gets done, ask yourself what is easier for Congress to accomplish: Banning constitutionally protected right to own gus, or trying to destroy video games. You may think video games is a first amendment thing, but we have been adding more and more exceptions to the first amendment lately and I'm not sure you will be able to argue first amendment protections when someone shows it can harm people but still demand the second amendment be trampled on for the reason that it can harm people.
Its kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction, but with rights instead of nukes. I'm aware of many Supreme Court rulings protecting the second amendment, but I don't know of many protecting video games under the first. Until people turn on the government intrusion instead of the NRA, video games will be under constant attack no matter what research or statements people make.
Because the equal protections under the law is in the Constitution under amendment 14. Therefore they can ignore it just like they do the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments, amongst others.
She recently did a special called "Wishful Drinking", which is about her life, where she complained that someone on the internet say she looked like Elton John. She said it wasn't so much that they said it as much as she understood what they meant.
She is actually pretty funny and it was a pretty good show.
No its not. I've never heard a single progressive politician proposing a law that says that. Perhaps you could let me know.
Progressive laws: You are too dumb to save for retirement, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Social Security. You are too dumb to medical take care of yourself, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Medicare/Medicaid You are too fat, we will ban sodas larger than 16 oz. You are too dumb to protect yourself, you should not be allowed to have a gun. You are too dumb to give your political opinion on TV, we will prevent you from putting on TV commericals for a candidate 90 days before an election. You are too dumb to develop your property correctly, we will seize it and give it to a mall developer because then the government will get more in taxes. You are too useless to get a job, we will take money from others and pay you not to work for 2 years straight. You are too dumb to get an ID, we will let anyone vote just by saying their name and pretend voter fraud never happens.
Those are the progressive laws I know about and that they brag about day after day.
Perhaps you should read something called the 10th Amendment.
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Show me where cell phone location without a warrant is granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution and you are correct. I've read it before and there is nothing granting the Federal Government warrantless tracking of citizens. Ergo, State law here would trump Federal Law here.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize Obama hasn't been in office for 4 years and wasn't requesting additional spending on a program that failed to provide results.
Talking about Obama for this thread is On Topic, saying "But Bush" is Off Topic for this thread. I realize that being a liberal you have to ignore facts and I make that hard for you, but attacking me doesn't change them. If you don't like them I suggest you don't read my posts.
This man just lost the debate and is hoping for the "Its Fox News and not a reliable source" for his next argument. Grow up and if you cared nearly as much as you pretend you can find it yourself.
Liberal argument sequence...
1. But Bush (His original post)
2. Attack the poster (His next post)
It gets tiring to see the same 4 posts in a row on EVERY topic that shows Obama as corrupt.
Losses from Obama loans to "green" companies
Solydnra - $535 Million
Abount Solar - $400 Million
First Solar - $3 Billion
Fisker Automotive - $529 Million / Cut off after getting $193 Million of that
A123 - $123 Million
Ener1 - $118 Million
ReVolt - $5 Million
Your entire post consisted of trying to mislead and lie to people. I called your bluff and no matter how many times you say "But Bush" and "Iraq" it doesn't make the FACT that Obama stole money from taxpayers to give to campaign contributors who bankrupted their companies almost immediatly after getting federal money.
Perhaps you can give examples of this?
- Is it the recent increse in taxes without cutting spending on Jan 2 the example you were thinking of?
- Or perhaps the promising to veto any deal to avert the sequester that didn't include more tax increases?
- Maybe you meant last summer when they had to raise the debt ceiling and the president promised to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes?
- No, I know, its the deal to raise the debt limit later this month were the president promied to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes.
- I know, its over the last 4 years when the house proposes a budget every year and the DNC controlled senate refuses to propose one or bring up the House one for a vote.
It seems that the only time the Republicans got what they wanted, a spending cut, is when it was automatic from the president proposal of it because he refused to compromise six months earlier.
Then get me back my $500 Million from Solyndra if it is as you say. That would cover 25% of this proposed new spending.
Just this week, Biden, told us that just slapping women is not that bad of a thing. Lets add to that all the personal attacks against Palin and her kids and then reexamine your statement about which party hates women.
His fisrt term he put $80 Billion towards this. You will remember great hits like Solendra, A123, and Fisker. The list of companies getting the money from that original program read like a whos-who of campaign donors. Many of the companies went bankrupt quickly after getting the federal money and none of them produced anything usable.
So, to anser your question "How is this not a good idea?" The track record is this will be a slush fund to reward his friends and accomplish nothing useful. Corrupt politics and corporate cronyism at its finest. Nothing to do with "socialism", just plain theft.
Thats cute, you think a national budget of $3.8 Trillion isn't enough to fund something like that. How much does the federal government need before it will fund that? $5Trillion, $10 Trillion?
4 years ago we spent $850 Billion on "infrastructure" and "shovel ready jobs" because the infrastructure needed $1.2 Trillion in fixing up at the time. Today we need $2 Trillion. How much of that $850 Billion went to where it was promised to go? None.
Why do you think giving them MORE money will fund something that will help you? They steal it, all of it. Cut the bureaucrats, you won't notice, except you may have to pay less in taxes. Until they can show they are responsible, I say we cut the federal budget in half every year until they are responsible.
If a 1% cut means cutting tuition reimbursment for active military, but also continues tuition reimbursment for illegal aliens and a $250 Million hand out to Egypt, its pretty clear that the Federal government has declared war on its people and the best we could hope for is to defund it until it behaves.
The embassy was under attack for over 8 hours before the ambassador was killed. Military troops were put into action to help long before the killing, but before they got to the area the generals that sent them were relieved of their command and the troops were called back, two sets of troops. Obama never called to find out if he could order anything to help or if anything could be done.
Your comment leads me to believe you have no idea what happened there.
Rate of spending increase under Bush 43 wasn't nearly as big as Obama. You are reading leftist lying publications. They are lumping the $400 Billion Omnibus spending bill and $850 Billion stimilus under Bush's last year while both were proposed and passed after Obama took office. If you ACTUALLY follow when the spening increases took place and ignore the lies, it was all Obama, but I understand that viewpoint is unpopular.
Omnibus bill March 11, 2009 signed by Obama
Stimilus bill Feb 17, 2009 signed by Obama
Facts really suck when people try and bash Bush for overspending.
Yea, the average unemployment of 5% sucked.
Along with not having to wonder if the president was going to drone striking you for being outspoken about him.
I really hated those parts of 2001-2008.
I really perfer 8% unemployment, reduced credit rating for government bonds, and killing of US citizens without trial.
I realize facts are anathema to attempting to spin something away from Obama, but this is the OBAMA administration doing this. This is the same OBAMA administration that was dragged kicking and screaming to answer the question "Can you drone strike kill a US citizen within the US?". This is the same OBAMA administration that still hasn't answered Congress' questions about the murder of over 200 Mexicans in Fast and Furious. This is the same OBAMA administraiton that hasn't answered Congress' questions on the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens.
I realize you want to protect your hero, but your hero is crap. All that I listed above has nothing to do with Congress, or what is being proposed in the article. You are just trying to get another free pass for the dictator and I'm calling you out for it.
Don't some time share models give you points that you can use at any of their resorts. You pay a big fee once a year, get your points and visit all their properties you want until the points run out. No microtransactions, but tiny fees for each use.
The issue is you would need a large set of useful sites and one payment area for all of them, something like cable or Netflix. You pay one company to get content from a bunch of different places.
Each weapon is not a launch site. Most ICBMs have multiple warheads, so taking out 1 site could mean 20 out of commission. Then you have failure rate probably around 20%, them missile guidance errors of a few percent, if they have SDI it can take out up to 70% most likely. Between all that your 1000 suddenly becomes around 5, and those 5 won't be your top targets and some of those 5 may hit the same target multiple times. So by the time you launched all 1000, a lot of your opponent's targets are still there and the beating you just took means you can't build more. During the cold war 1000 only would be idiotic.
What no one is mentioning though is nuclear subs or stealth bombers. Both are able to deliver to targets in non-ICBM ways that are probably much more reliable. With the stealth bomber and subs, 1000 might just be enough for one large conflict.
The other thing not mentioned, a lot of the older ones were called tactical nukes. Something like the Davy Crocket which was launched from a ground artillery piece from a couple of miles away and was small yield. Meant for a Russian tank column. The A-4 and I think F-111 could both carry small nuclear bombs which we no longer have. We don't use those anymore and things like that probably accounted for half of what we used to have.
Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that.
Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.
You are Straight.
1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?
Man-Bear-Pig, I'm being totally cereal!
When Bill Clinton was president he sold top secret ICBM technology to the Chinese in return for cash donations to the DNC, specifically his and Gore's election campaigns. This is fact. When asked about it during a debate between Gore and Bush, Gore's response was "No controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was the only one authorized to prosecute and she was told not to.
I really have a hard time listening to Gore, especially when it comes to campaign contributions. What he and Clinton did was treason, period, and he abused his power to not be prosecuted.
Next best thing
One of the articles shows two differnet replicas being built and flown 1986 and 1998 in USA and Germany.
The only issue I have with it is the engine that would have been needed to get it in the air shouldn't have existed then. It appears the original engines he used no longer exist, so it will remain a mystery. The claims he made on engine weight and HP are quite a bit ridiculous for the time. As for the design of the plane, it could easily fly, but wouldn't be my first choice to try out, maybe if it had a larger rudder because in a slight wind it would probably be impossible to land.
Nor are you likely to ever need one for self defense if you're not doing stupid things.
Facts. Guns are used for self defense about 989,000 times a year around the year 2000 in the US. Guns are used for murder about 10,000 times a year. Don't make up statements that the facts clearly show are wrong.
This is EXACTLY my point, hedwards is litterally making stuff up to deamonize law abiding citizens and claiming they should have no right to protect themsleves. This is the reason the NRA is attacking video games and the movie industry, but people are demanding something gets done and the NRA is providing the least resistance and most likely to be held up in court. They can back up their claims about self defense with guns with decades of facts, but the video game industry has no such history or facts.
Video games, or pictures of snakes is not what the debate is about. Its about gun control. Since there are so many people all gung-ho to trample on the rights of others, people like the NRA are doing to you what you do to them. They are blaming what you like to distract from you taking away what they like, the only difference is they have a constitutional amendment protecting them. Since so many are DEMANDING something gets done, ask yourself what is easier for Congress to accomplish: Banning constitutionally protected right to own gus, or trying to destroy video games. You may think video games is a first amendment thing, but we have been adding more and more exceptions to the first amendment lately and I'm not sure you will be able to argue first amendment protections when someone shows it can harm people but still demand the second amendment be trampled on for the reason that it can harm people.
Its kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction, but with rights instead of nukes. I'm aware of many Supreme Court rulings protecting the second amendment, but I don't know of many protecting video games under the first. Until people turn on the government intrusion instead of the NRA, video games will be under constant attack no matter what research or statements people make.
Because the equal protections under the law is in the Constitution under amendment 14. Therefore they can ignore it just like they do the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments, amongst others.
Its for your own good, so stop asking questions.
She recently did a special called "Wishful Drinking", which is about her life, where she complained that someone on the internet say she looked like Elton John. She said it wasn't so much that they said it as much as she understood what they meant.
She is actually pretty funny and it was a pretty good show.
No its not. I've never heard a single progressive politician proposing a law that says that. Perhaps you could let me know.
Progressive laws:
You are too dumb to save for retirement, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Social Security.
You are too dumb to medical take care of yourself, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Medicare/Medicaid
You are too fat, we will ban sodas larger than 16 oz.
You are too dumb to protect yourself, you should not be allowed to have a gun.
You are too dumb to give your political opinion on TV, we will prevent you from putting on TV commericals for a candidate 90 days before an election.
You are too dumb to develop your property correctly, we will seize it and give it to a mall developer because then the government will get more in taxes.
You are too useless to get a job, we will take money from others and pay you not to work for 2 years straight.
You are too dumb to get an ID, we will let anyone vote just by saying their name and pretend voter fraud never happens.
Those are the progressive laws I know about and that they brag about day after day.
Perhaps you should read something called the 10th Amendment.
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Show me where cell phone location without a warrant is granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution and you are correct. I've read it before and there is nothing granting the Federal Government warrantless tracking of citizens. Ergo, State law here would trump Federal Law here.