(O)bama Fails to Steer New Energy Policy to Passage, Some Democrats Complain
140 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mexican;22687197]You are the master of the lol paragraph break.[/QUOTE]
these people are funny
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22685730]
You're a most interesting person. I can see you lean to the left a good deal, but you're not an asshole about it.[/QUOTE]
Just because someone is left doesn't make them an asshole. People in general can be assholes, regardless of political persuasion.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;22687264]Just because someone is left doesn't make them an asshole. People in general can be assholes, regardless of political persuasion.[/QUOTE]
exactly
KMM is a conservative, but I don't think I've seen him be an asshole really. I only agree with him on like 5% of the issues though.
[QUOTE=the_KMM;22686692]Why should anyone say 'yes' to anything they don't want passed[/QUOTE]
They are saying no to everything. It seems like the point is to slow down the political process as much as possible so they can complain about how the Democrats are failing to get shit done. That way more Republicans get elected. That's why the health care bill became the mess that it is. The Democrats had to bend over backwards to get votes and changed all the shit to fit with the Republicans and more conservative Democrats.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22672366]Wouldn't that be something like "EO3"?
With the "E" and "3" being the hands?[/QUOTE]
-(O)-
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;22687379]-(O)-[/QUOTE]
That remind me of a Tie Fighter.
(-O-)
[QUOTE=JDK721;22686803]except they say no to EVERYTHING[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I respect their right to say no to everything. They were elected by their district or their state, and that's the way the constitution works. What the constitution does not provide for is the filibuster practice. That is not something that is an implied power of the minority; its existence is an affront to the republican principles which our nation was founded upon. It essentially gives the members of the minority party 1 and 1/3 votes, as long as that vote is "No". It is a ridiculous way to run a country.
Filibustering should have some sort of limit.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;22673874]
They show that MSNBC is just as biased as Fox.
Also, this is 7 pieces of evidence now. Not just 3.[/QUOTE]
No, see there's a difference.
MSNBC is just liberals circle jerking, and noone wants to see that so nobody watches it.
Fox actually tries to get people believe in a certain political ideology. Fox is essentially the media wing of the republican party. Did anyone notice their lack of tea party support as soon as it became its own party? That happened because the tea party, obviously a siphon of potential republican votes, became a threat to the cause. Even Glenn Beck jumped off that bandwagon.
Basically, it amounts to this:
Moderately liberal guy watches MSNBC; Agrees with what's said; stays liberal.
Moderately conservative guy watches Fox; watches Fox; starts spewing nonsense as if it's fact; wears tinfoil hat to protect from government satellite;???; Profit!!!
[QUOTE=Soldier32;22686958]I remember watching a video on Wind Power or something. They were saying it's a good source of clean, environmentally safe energy but the wind isn't very reliable since it stops every now and then and that solar panels are good but they are very expensive.[/QUOTE]
That's a common misconception. Especially if the turbines are put out off shore, there will be an almost constant rate of wind pushing them.
If you can manage it, get a copy of this month's issue of Popular Mechanics. They go into detail busting myths about different energy issues of today, such as "clean" coal, nuclear power, geothermal energy, and of course, wind power.
The key is to grid the wind farms together so when one area is having the wind slow down a bit, the other farms that do have a lot of wind pick up for it. With such a system (that's currently under development at the moment), it could possibly generate constant power no matter how much wind a particular area may not be picking up because there will always be wind [I]somewhere[/I] to pick up the slack.
[QUOTE=Jewsus;22687568]I disagree. I respect their right to say no to everything.[/QUOTE]
yeah saying no to ending discrimination, etc.
no problems there
[QUOTE=JDK721;22688128]yeah saying no to ending discrimination, etc.
no problems there[/QUOTE]
GUYS!!!
I'm distancing myself from him!!!
SEE!!!
You guys are actually in luck, because I have been researching E-reform for a while now.
1.) cap and trade isn't going to happen. It is going to be an ammendment on the bill (if anything), that won't pass.
2.) It is going to pass. Literally. If not the Obama Bill then the one under Luger. There is bipartisan support for some Energy-Reform getting done (BP oil spill basically was the perfect catalyst to jump start this sorta stuff), it is just a question on how much.
[QUOTE=Neolk;22701494]
1.) cap and trade isn't going to happen.[/QUOTE]
well shit
[QUOTE=JDK721;22688128]yeah saying no to ending discrimination, etc.
no problems there[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that it's only OK to support someone else's free speech if their views are more politically and morally correct?
uh yeah
[editline]10:54AM[/editline]
let's end the discrimination against the gays for example
Nuclear power please.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;22705396]So you're saying that it's only OK to support someone else's free speech if their views are more politically and morally correct?[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that? Do you even know what discrimination is? They can have their own beliefs about gay marriage and whatever else, but it becomes a problem when they turn those beliefs into [B]discrimination.[/B]
[QUOTE=JDK721;22708512]Where did I say that? Do you even know what discrimination is? They can have their own beliefs about gay marriage and whatever else, but it becomes a problem when they turn those beliefs into [B]discrimination.[/B][/QUOTE]
He said he respected their right to speech about those things. If they want to disagree, fine, they have to do so. He didn't even bring discrimination into it, you just pulled that out of your ass to try to make him seem like some kind of asshole.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;22709272]He said he respected their right to speech about those things. If they want to disagree, fine, they have to do so. He didn't even bring discrimination into it, you just pulled that out of your ass to try to make him seem like some kind of asshole.[/QUOTE]
The problem is when they start saying no to ending discrimination. Don't you see a fucking problem with that? I'll respect their beliefs as long as they don't use them to infringe upon other people's rights. When it comes to gay marriage then they need to fuck off and just let homosexuals marry, even if they don't agree with it. They can SAY and BELIEVE whatever they want though. I respect that. Unfortunately though they use their bigoted views to keep gay marriage, etc. illegal.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;22709272]He said he respected their right to speech about those things. If they want to disagree, fine, they have to do so. He didn't even bring discrimination into it, you just pulled that out of your ass to try to make him seem like some kind of asshole.[/QUOTE]
Him? He? why are you talking in third person
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.