March 23, 2012
— Gabriel Malor FRIDAY! WOOOOOOOO!!
57% of Americans say the government should approve Keystone XL, all of it and not just the bottom half. That includes majorities of Republicans and independents and a plurality of Democrats.
Speaker Boehner's office provided this helpful visual aid:

Liberals now outnumber conservatives in just one state, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. Nationwide, conservatives outnumber liberals by nearly two to one.
Environmentalists dispute GOP claims that Obama is an economy-destroying envirowackjob because they didn't get ponies with their anti-prosperity EPA and DOE regulations, or something.
The strange underground booms in Clintonville, Wisconsin, made the NYTimes print version. It's a weird situation and nobody seems to know anything.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:53 AM
| Comments (261)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: sickinmass at March 23, 2012 03:06 AM (bcNec)
Posted by: The Wisonsin Mole People at March 23, 2012 03:15 AM (+MbqG)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 03:16 AM (caupe)
Posted by: Red in Maine at March 23, 2012 03:19 AM (BdP+C)
Posted by: dogfish at March 23, 2012 03:20 AM (N2yhW)
I'm mildly surprised no one has blamed Scott Walker.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 23, 2012 03:24 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: sickinmass at March 23, 2012 03:28 AM (bcNec)
It may be the
Posted by: Red in Maine at March 23, 2012 07:19 AM (BdP+C)
FIFY
Posted by: Baraka Obama at March 23, 2012 03:28 AM (KI/Ch)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2012 03:30 AM (DiqH3)
Posted by: dogfish at March 23, 2012 03:30 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Jim in Virginia at March 23, 2012 03:30 AM (sFLSe)
Posted by: dogfish at March 23, 2012 07:30 AM (N2yhW)
Wait, there are virgins among the owsies? Or are we including males?
Posted by: Grey Fox at March 23, 2012 03:33 AM (MOcee)
Posted by: McLovin at March 23, 2012 03:36 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 23, 2012 03:37 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: McLovin at March 23, 2012 03:39 AM (j0IcY)
Why is everyone making such a fuss about the noise?
Just doing a little remodeling. I have to make some more room. We´re expecting a crowd.
Posted by: Satan at March 23, 2012 03:40 AM (FuDYO)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 23, 2012 03:41 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 03:42 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: JimK at March 23, 2012 03:43 AM (sUSBY)
Posted by: Satan at March 23, 2012 03:45 AM (FuDYO)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 23, 2012 03:46 AM (Gc/Qi)
The USGS has come out and said it was a 1.5 magnitude earthquake that made the sounds and that it is unlikely the sounds would be made by an earthquake that small. Your government working just as you'd expect.
>Earthquakes can generate seismic energy that moves through rock at thousands of miles per hour, producing a sonic boom when the waves come to the surface, Caruso said.
"To be honest, I'm skeptical that there'd be a sound report associated with such a small earthquake, but it's possible," he said.<
http://www.startribune.com/local/143878936.htmlPosted by: Buzzsaw at March 23, 2012 03:46 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 03:48 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at March 23, 2012 03:49 AM (Vfa18)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 23, 2012 03:51 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 23, 2012 03:51 AM (Af3Wg)
If I am not the Republican nominee you should all vote Democrat.
That will save the country if I am not the nominee.
Posted by: Rick Santorum at March 23, 2012 03:52 AM (zKFOT)
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 23, 2012 03:55 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 23, 2012 03:57 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: kawfytawk at March 23, 2012 03:57 AM (VIm97)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 03:59 AM (WU3T3)
--
Maybe, since neither "Repo Man" nor Santorum will correct our economy and secure our Liberty. Aside from sour grapes, Santorum's "attack" sounds like a spoiled crybaby, "me, me, only me; I'll Attack China!" In debate, he promised repeatedly to endorse whichever candidate won the Republican Primary against Obama. Regarding the only alternative to the status quo, Santorum already endorsed Ron Paul as the only fiscal conservative alternative to the Republican contestants and Obama. And regarding protecting and upholding the US Constitution, Mitt Romney in debate deferred to Republican Ron Paul as "our constitutional candidate".
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 04:00 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at March 23, 2012 04:00 AM (fuw6p)
Rick Santorum
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:01 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:03 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: HH at March 23, 2012 04:03 AM (KB0hv)
Oh my...just got a lookk at the college co-ed, racist-freak-out. Good Lord what has Liberal, Black Theology- indoctrination wrought.
**
Some one should caption the video, hard to understand all the comedy gold and sadness.
**
Morn' all.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 23, 2012 04:03 AM (8ieXv)
--
Or many major research universities across America.
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 04:03 AM (lpWVn)
My thought too, Obama likes people getting paid to build pipelines as long as they don't actually use 'em for that nasty oil.
Posted by: waelse1 at March 23, 2012 04:04 AM (VaU8E)
Posted by: kawfytawk at March 23, 2012 04:04 AM (VIm97)
Voice was done very mocking, and no explanation for the chapel or who put up the plaque or even if it is a private chapel or one owned by the diocese.
The inference was that the Vatican is kept going with drug money. It was awful. I felt like I was listening to something from pre-WWII or something.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:04 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: McLovin at March 23, 2012 04:05 AM (j0IcY)
Damn Brits, still blowing Henry the 8th. Oh well, they've been lost since WW2.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:06 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: lecture us, Mr. Dad at March 23, 2012 04:08 AM (Vg4Vv)
I am going to try to put it out of my mind but it sounded much worse than what I have written. The reporter was just terrible.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:09 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:10 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at March 23, 2012 04:10 AM (fuw6p)
Posted by: Barnacle Frank at March 23, 2012 04:11 AM (WUWb9)
Until this tantrum, it wasn't obvious to everyone that despite his seeming virtues, Santorum is a complete buffoon. Those who ignore this are as belligerent as their man Santorum, clinging bitterly to the man who began his campaign in debate promising "I'll Attack China!" Btw, whether accurate or not, this week Drudge linked to a US population statistic finding Asians becoming the most prolific segment of American society. Way to go, Rick. Antagonize everyone. Gee, by his own rationale, we may as well stick with Obama on that note, divide and conquer.
Before this year, I actually had a good impression of Rick Santorum. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 04:13 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:14 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Red in Maine at March 23, 2012 04:14 AM (BdP+C)
Why the heck is the Catholic chuch the media's boogeyman all of a sudden?
Because unlike certain other religions, the Catholics don't get pissy, and cut your head off when you insult them.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at March 23, 2012 04:14 AM (L7hol)
Posted by: waelse1 at March 23, 2012 08:04 AM (VaU8E)
BUT, the pipe line right of way is dual use because it can be converted to a high speed rail corridor--presto more green energy jobs. And Warren Buffet's rail cars can bring the oil down faster with high speed rail, so it is a win-win for the US. Also, we will fill the rail cars returning to Canada with illegal aliens and drop some of them off in each state the pipe line goes through so we will increase diversity as well.
Posted by: Barky O & Sharif Joe at March 23, 2012 04:15 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 04:16 AM (WU3T3)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at March 23, 2012 08:10 AM (fuw6p)
Because it is the worlds largest provider of services to the poor and if it can be brought down it will leave governments as the only source of relief for these people.
That is a fantastic amount of power over peoples lives which, if you have been paying attention, is what these politicians seem bent on.
Posted by: Panzer Trout at March 23, 2012 04:18 AM (j5CHE)
Posted by: Laura Castellano at March 23, 2012 04:18 AM (fuw6p)
Not necessary, we're still here.
Posted by: Those guys hanging out at Home Depot at March 23, 2012 04:18 AM (5KvzL)
Holy crap, I'd have turned that garbage off, too. Why the heck is the Catholic chuch the media's boogeyman all of a sudden?
Obamacare. Contraception. Hmmmmm
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 04:18 AM (I2LwF)
Ok, maybe it isn't, maybe I'm just seeing it more since Obama's attempt to delete the first amendment.
Not coincidental.
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 04:19 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 04:20 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:20 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Mr Pink at March 23, 2012 04:20 AM (ZvMnN)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:21 AM (5KvzL)
Or, to misquote a classic exchange:
"That's because Catholics don't cut people's heads off when they lose."
"New strategy, Chris, let the Muslims win."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:21 AM (8y9MW)
Like the new "rule" that you can't protest government officials at any location where they are present?
Posted by: Panzer Trout at March 23, 2012 04:21 AM (j5CHE)
This is an interesting date in history:
In 1775 Patrick Henry made his famous call for American independence from Britain, telling the Virginia Provincial Convention, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
In 1933 the German Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act, which effectively granted Adolf Hitler dictatorial legislative powers.
Posted by: Nash Rambler at March 23, 2012 04:22 AM (b6FgX)
What? I missed that one.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:22 AM (8y9MW)
Oh I get the Romneybots thought process. Its better to have a more liberal court if a Republican does it.
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 08:16 AM (WU3T3)
Or better yet, government run health care is better if it's called Romneycare instead of Obamacare.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 23, 2012 04:23 AM (7+pP9)
unless they got in the way of an emanation of a penumbra of a socialist goal!
Posted by: Barky O & Sharif Joe at March 23, 2012 04:23 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:24 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 08:20 AM (GoIUi)
You should try to find Red Eye Radio. It's an overnight conservative talker with a slant toward the interests and needs of over-the-road truckers. Quite refreshing, and they don't mince words when it comes to politics.
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 04:25 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 23, 2012 04:26 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Hrothgar Mittens Staffer at March 23, 2012 04:27 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Panzer Trout at March 23, 2012 04:28 AM (j5CHE)
I heartily recommend Red Eye Radio. I don't know one of the guys, but Gary McNamara got his start in the afternoons on WBAP here in DFW. I really miss his show- it was far better than Mark Davis is. I even prefer him to Mark Levin (it was to make room for Levin's show that he was moved to the overnight show).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:28 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Havedash at March 23, 2012 04:30 AM (JfvbF)
Here is an article in USA Today this morning:
http://tinyurl.com/6t3ta5o
The title is "Why I'd Repeal Obamacare" and it is written by Governor Romney.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:31 AM (GoIUi)
Unfortunately, if you work in the belly of the beast (DC and/or Congress) for more than two years, the mantle of superiority wears lightly on your shoulders and you just know than you really are better than the peasants and deserve every perk you and your buddies can dream up.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 23, 2012 04:32 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 04:32 AM (GoIUi)
"The founder of the environmental group 350.org, Bill McKibben, says Obama is far too much in the political center for many environmentalists."
They really do want full-blown communism, don't they?
Posted by: Cicero Kid at March 23, 2012 04:32 AM (3bWHe)
Skimming that article (and reading the first several paragraphs pretty thoroughly) I'd want someone to dissect the entire law for me. Changing "willfully and knowingly" to just "knowingly" isn't something I'd get upset over.
Basically it says- if you knew it was restricted, you should have known not to go there. So, given the original law, I'm not terribly upset by that change.
My problem, though, is with the original law. Congress should not get to limit my ability to protest "for redress of grievances" no matter how inconvenient they find it. The original 1971 Statute (it seems to me) is completely unconstitutional. Especially considering how broadly it was written.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:34 AM (8y9MW)
This has gotten to the point that I just don't give a shit. The perpetually grievanced are making more out of this than it is.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:34 AM (5KvzL)
We know what he says. We just don't believe him.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:35 AM (8y9MW)
Wisconsin booms:
Phantom Russian submarine?
Can you imagine if the libs nominally outnumbered conservatives two to one? We'd all be lampshades.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 23, 2012 04:36 AM (Ec6wH)
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 23, 2012 04:36 AM (dptRY)
The title is "Why I'd Repeal Obamacare" and it is written by Governor Romney.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 08:31 AM (GoIUi)
From that article:
But abolishing ObamaCare will only be half the battle. Just as important is the question of what to put in its place.
Sorry, but Mittens is asshole Number One. He's an idiot who can't stop himself. He's going to spend the first two years of his term looking for the perfect "replacement" for an un-Constitutional power grab by the feral government. Great.
I'm not worried about Mittens, though. I'm happy to vote him in and then rally for his impeachment once the Barky threat is actually history.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 23, 2012 04:36 AM (X3lox)
--
Those two certainly are poor representatives of Americans at large, and professional women in general.
Regarding who will select constructionist constitutional judges who will not legislate from the bench and SCOTUS Justices? Obviously, Republican Ron Paul is the only reliable candidate to do that, not simply to promise or hint to be a "real" conservative when appointing an Attorney General to lead the Justice Dept. Romney admitted he'll defer to his lawyers, the elitists' status quo breed, to determine what is constitutional. Romney's nominations will be as "moderate" as Reagan's (nominating Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and tanking Bork). One out of three constitutionally conservative decisions, not the odds I'd vote to bet on.
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 04:38 AM (lpWVn)
Congress should not get to limit my ability to protest "for redress of grievances" no matter how inconvenient they find it.
Did Harry Reid's stipulation that smelly summer tourists to the Capitol must bathe before entering make it into the final bill?
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 23, 2012 04:38 AM (4q5tP)
Posted by: Little Ricky S at March 23, 2012 04:38 AM (dAUOX)
What's stunning is that 43% don't approve of it. But don't people know that Oil Man Obama has approved enough pipeline to wrap around the entire earth and then some?
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 04:40 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2012 07:30 AM (DiqH3
Tell us something we don't know!
Posted by: Protocols of The Elders of Zion at March 23, 2012 04:40 AM (nEUpB)
So the profoundly stupid % has decreased somewhat from 52%.
Posted by: Protocols of The Elders of Zion at March 23, 2012 04:41 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 04:42 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 23, 2012 08:36 AM (Ec6wH)
But you would make such pretty lampshades!...why, I'd have you trimmed with beautiful lace and Austrian crystal, too!
Posted by: G Soros at March 23, 2012 04:42 AM (GsBJY)
1) I still don't believe him. He's not going to change that, so it's not worth arguing over.
2) He says most of the right things but (see 1, above) he's had plenty of time to craft this message. If he really believed it, he would have been saying something like it long before he started. He would not have started with "I want to repeal the bad parts and keep the good parts," or "I'll issue waivers to all 50 States."
3) I do take exception to this excerpt (actually the whole piece because this excerpt highlights my main problem with Romney's ideas on health care):
Thus, to take one much discussed problem, individuals with pre-existing conditions who have maintained continuous health insurance coverage should be guaranteed the ability to retain coverage.
It still assumes that health care- even health insurance- is somehow "a right." It proposes to tell insurance companies whether or not they can dissolve a voluntary contract.
Imagine going into business with someone, and finding out they were terrible at business. Through no fault of their own, they have no business acumen, and they're dragging your business venture down. Now imagine the government telling you that you cannot legally disassociate yourself with that partner- you're stuck in that failing business arrangement forever.
That's what Romney is saying there, best case. Worst case, he's talking about Guaranteed issue, which is at least as bad, and potentially far worse.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:42 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 07:42 AM (GoIUi)
I am I am'd it for you
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 04:42 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 04:43 AM (niZvt)
Tell us George, did you treat the queers and the gypsies the same way you treated your own kind?
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:44 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: Gen. Limbaugh at March 23, 2012 04:45 AM (j5CHE)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 08:35 AM (8y9MW)
^^^^^^
This!!
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 23, 2012 04:46 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: General Misogyny at March 23, 2012 04:46 AM (MMC8r)
#86 I am tired of this accusation about Romney. Either you aren't paying attention to what he said, or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Here is an article in USA Today this morning:
http://tinyurl.com/6t3ta5o
The title is "Why I'd Repeal Obamacare" and it is written by Governor Romney.
And on January 22nd, 2013 Romney will simply shake his etch-a-sketch.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 23, 2012 04:46 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 04:47 AM (5KvzL)
Czar Nicholas II @91-
If blacks are so conservative, why did 99% vote for Ubama? And AllenG, the AM station in ETEX took Rusty Humphreys off and put on Wall Street Review or such like. Gary McNamara would have been way better than Wall Street lackeys kissing Ubama's butt. But what really gets me, is when the newsbreak comes up, and they switch to ABC news, it's like being switched to Pravda or Isveztia. I suppose the AM stations who subscribe to ABC radio are obliged to broadcast their propaganda.
Posted by: EROWMER at March 23, 2012 04:48 AM (sIm3i)
I like Red-eye radio ... the hosts are mostly libetarian to conservative; Not GOP fanboys, but clearly right of center. And they're not wackos.
Posted by: Yip in Texas at March 23, 2012 04:48 AM (FLFli)
Posted by: Jean at March 23, 2012 04:50 AM (5HAgy)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 23, 2012 04:50 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 08:44 AM (5KvzL)
I gave the queers pretty things -- they were so pleased! As for the gypsies, I allowed them to serenade me with their charming string quartets -- often they played folk music from their past. It was all really quite lovely!
Posted by: G Soros at March 23, 2012 04:51 AM (GsBJY)
Yeah, I can't remember if WBAP (now, unfortunately, owned by Cumulus) subscribes to ABC or CBS. I don't pay that much attention, because I know that any of the national news is going to be lies. I just listen for the local stuff.
Gary was awesome in the afternoons. I almost wish I could stay up and listen to RER- but I get up at 4 AM, most days, to head to the gym. By the time I'm done there, the normal morning show is on.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 04:51 AM (8y9MW)
--
Speaking of which, Walesa's Union amalgam of man power provided Poland the means to break with the Soviets, blessed by John Paul for Poland's massive "moral majority" to break from tyranny.
Though corrupt in America and Western/Central Europe, unions yet provide organization that when led by leaders for Liberty accomplish miracles. Ironic, unions being communist (international), that the union would provide the means for national sovereignty in Poland.
Leadership -- all the difference. US Unions need to purge their leadership, a task as difficult politically as Poland breaking from the USSR. I'm not holding my breath. The Republican Party can't permit its ballots to be accurately counted; why would either the Democrats or Union Bosses?
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 04:52 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Count de Monet at March 23, 2012 04:52 AM (4q5tP)
Fluke is not your normal young college student. For one, she is a 30
year old experienced community activist, older and wiser than your
typical college student. Experienced in spades-she sits or has been a
part of no less than 6 different advisory boards to women's rights
groups, including the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on
Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State
coalitions. She is also a recipient of the 2010 Women Lawyers
Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant. The
foundation is a non-profit charitable corporation established by the
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles ("WLALA") to increase the
utility of the law as an instrument of social justice. The Grant is
given to law students for projects that make governmental and social
institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of
society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or
asserted. In short, this is a woman who knows all the ins and out of the
government and government aid systems, and a strong proponent of the
concept of 'social justice'.
Posted by: dagny at March 23, 2012 04:53 AM (u50z0)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 23, 2012 04:53 AM (gPDxp)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 04:53 AM (niZvt)
I have a couple of his early albums...he's pretty good in small doses.
But my nephew (when he was four) liked him and used to pronounce his name Wyle Wovett, so that's how I hear his name in my head whenever I see it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 04:54 AM (nEUpB)
http://tinyurl.com/8xufnm8
Republicans: Even their gaffes and silly arguments are good for the economy.
Posted by: a_feral_duck at March 23, 2012 04:55 AM (P7xkj)
Oil prices were in the upper $50 to low $70 through most of 2006.
Pislosi gets installed as speaker and they begin to creep up getting into the upper $70 up to $90's by the end of 2007.
They peak on July 4, 2008 just over $145.
Bush signs an executive order on July 14 that lifts the ban on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf. In 11 days the price falls by $22. It still stays above $100 because Congress hasn't acted to remove the ban. Then in September the worthless democrat congresscocksuckers don't want this to become an election issue with gas around $4 so they let the ban expire. On September 26 oil is around $107. By Christmas it is about $38.
February 11th O'Fuckstick reinstates the ban on drilling on the outer continental shelf. Oil prices start to climb again. February 13th oil is around $38. By the end of 2009 it's back to $80. Then the BP oil spill, the ban on drilling in the gulf and voila, back to over $100. Do these stupid fuckers not understand the cause and effect of their actions?
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 23, 2012 04:56 AM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 23, 2012 04:57 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 04:58 AM (niZvt)
Georgetown is not innocent either, and ironically are creators of the
The mentors of the program include but are not
limited to:
Katherine Barton, Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Bridgette Kaiser, Staff Attorney, Office of General
Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Sarah Lichtman Spector, Staff Attorney, Family and
Children's Health Programs at U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
And of course,
Judith Scott, General Counsel, Service Employees
International Union, James and Hoffman..
These are the people that picked Sandra Fluke to get a scholarship to GTown.
Posted by: dagny at March 23, 2012 04:58 AM (u50z0)
Oil prices were in the upper $50 to low $70 through most of 2006.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 23, 2012 08:56 AM (3jGS1)
What are you complaining about? Oil is only $1.20-$1.25 a barrel now. Just ask Standard Oil Obama
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 04:58 AM (1Jaio)
Although I wouldn't wager my children on it, I'm pretty convinced he is the next president. I kinda agree with DeMint, we're stuck with him so now I've got his back. Although I will say this, I will hold my head up high voting for him without holding my nose like I did with McCain.
Posted by: Samuel L. Jackson at March 23, 2012 05:00 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 07:59 AM (WU3T3)
Huh? wtf? Are you a troll? I mean a real one living under a bridge?
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 05:00 AM (O3R/2)
government and government aid systems, and a strong proponent of the
concept of 'social justice'.
Posted by: dagny at March 23, 2012 08:53 AM (u50z0)
Don't forget that Fluke's alleged boyfriend's family are very big Dem donors and support all sorts of ultra left causes. All this about her being a poor innocent student is horseshit. She's a radical left wing activist. She is a female Obama.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 05:01 AM (1Jaio)
So he only stinks bad enough that you want to get a little further away from the smell, not so bad you want to block it out entirely?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:02 AM (8y9MW)
But revoked by Pope Paul III
Posted by: dagny at March 23, 2012 05:02 AM (u50z0)
+1
His statement proves that his motivations are venal.
Maybe an intrepid reporter will rephrase his comment and ask him point-blank. That would be a pleasure to hear.
I liked some of what he has said, though mightily put off by his big-government solutions to his private beliefs. But this latest buffoonery has pushed him firmly into the clown camp, along with RON PAUL!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:03 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 05:04 AM (niZvt)
So he gets elected and does what? KEEPS Obamacare, killing any chance of re-election? VETOES a repeal? Destroys the GOP on purpose? This is just incomprehensible thinking to me.
His position when he passed Romneycare was the exact same one as the Heritage Foundation, which supported his plan. The country, having seen what federal mandates, edicts, and one-size-fits-all Obamacare does wants no part of any of it. Romney AGREES with this position and PUTS IT IN WRITING, and you still don't believe him. Jim Demint is impressed with him and almost endorsed, and John Bolton DID endorse him, and yet you think he is lying to THEM?
I give up. The guy could do every single thing you want and you would still say" he didn't really mean it."
Pffft.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 05:04 AM (GoIUi)
Yeah, kind of like a dusty fart. Doesn't have that nasty methane smell, but is still unpleasant. Again, I did say that I have his back. ABO.
Posted by: Samuel L. Jackson at March 23, 2012 05:04 AM (5KvzL)
--
According to the scientific research of Folk Music by Bela Bartok, original ethnomusicologist, the gypsies stole everything from the regions traversed as nomads.
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 05:05 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Samuel L. Jackson at March 23, 2012 09:00 AM (5KvzL)
----------------
I agree with you here. McCain was a detestable candidate. Better than obastard, of course, in that McCain is not a traitor (at least not knowingly/willingly). I pulled the lever hoping that McCain would be elected, and that the good Lord would provide us with some circumstance that would make Palin president. And since I'm usually not a fan of women holding executive positions, that's saying something.
Romney, though far from optimal, is not so bad as McCain.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:06 AM (xUM1Q)
Words....just words!*
I don't think that Romney is a bad as some around here suggest, but he does have a reputation for keeping an eye on the windsock.
*extra credit for anyone who knows that movie line.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:07 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:07 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2012 05:08 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 05:08 AM (I2LwF)
Instead of the massive new taxes, trillions of dollars in new spending, and top-down bureaucratic decrees of ObamaCare, we need to limit Washington's control by spurring competition, creating maximum flexibility and enhancing consumer choice.
He goes on to detail suggestions like letting states decide, making insurance cross state lines to spur competition, giving tax credits to self-employed like businesses get, etc.
I suggest people take the time to go read the entire article and not depend on Romney opponent supporters to "interpret" what he wrote.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 05:09 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 23, 2012 05:09 AM (dptRY)
And since I'm usually not a fan of womenholding executive positions, that's saying something.
Why? Legitimate question, I'm interested in your reasons and not so I can shriek womanhater! patriarch! help help I'm being oppressed! at you.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:10 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Truman North at March 23, 2012 05:10 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 05:10 AM (O3R/2)
So gypsies are the original mix tape?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 23, 2012 05:11 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 09:04 AM (niZvt)
----------------------
Exactly.
Actually this is another way in which the current queen has done her duty to the limited extent her position allows. As I understand it, she takes it more seriously than the goof balls serving as bishops these days. It's a shame that Charles probably will not regard it as anything other than an anachronism.
The decline of Christianity in Europe is, to me, proof enough that a State religion is a bad idea. It did more harm than good. Now - that doesn't mean I don't think some religions should be banned - I do think that. Islam, Kali-worship, etc., should be illegal and punished by deportation or death. But none should become mandatory or overly priveleged.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:12 AM (xUM1Q)
Probably just the last face-lift (at least the goatee)!
[just kidding!]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:13 AM (nEUpB)
Where I'm from, they're thieves. And they really like Suburbans.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 05:13 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 23, 2012 05:13 AM (dptRY)
Starting with Henry, the English Anglicans (not the worldwide Anglicans) and the American Episcopalians have watered down what was left of their Christianity until it was easily subsumed by the 'tards and the muslims. It's disgusting.
I was a proud Episcopalian until I realized that they had no intention of being guided by the Holy Spirit and were far more interested in being guided by the most prurient among them. You can't water down the faith and expect it to survive. That's why GTown (sorta catholic if you can still call Jesuits that) is authoring this embarrassment by scholarshipping a political marxist.
Posted by: dagny at March 23, 2012 05:13 AM (u50z0)
Posted by: nickless at March 23, 2012 05:14 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (dptRY)
This is qhy I hope the Queen lives to be 100 and then bypasses Charles and goes straight to William on the throne.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (GoIUi)
Koch Brothers.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (ZKzrr)
But it served its purpose admirably. A portion of the ignorant and detached voting public thinks that the Republicans want to ban contraception.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (nEUpB)
I have some very very good news, fellow citizens:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines.
http://tinyurl.com/7jspaop
It's for our own good, dontcha know.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2012 05:15 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at March 23, 2012 05:16 AM (WU3T3)
Posted by: Bob (Night Shift Supervisor - Halliburton Earthquake Division) at March 23, 2012 05:16 AM (TcY34)
Probably just the last face-lift (at least the goatee)!
[just kidding!]
Heh. I realized after I posted that I teed that one up quite nicely.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:17 AM (VtjlW)
Do you have an e-mail address I can send you a joke about the Jesuits?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:17 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 05:17 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2012 05:18 AM (Ho2rs)
do you care to explain why you don't want women in executive positions?
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2012 09:15 AM (Ho2rs)
His wife made him get his ass off the computer and go dust.
Posted by: Tami at March 23, 2012 05:18 AM (X6akg)
When I went to get coffee, the breakroom hostile work environment TV informed me Obama was "answering charges he hasn't done enough about gas prices, in lol! of all places Oklahoma, lol!"
I said, "Oh, he's already done enough."
I got the stink-eye from a black woman who works for our client-landlord.
I don't care anymore.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (ZKzrr)
http://tinyurl.com/dl468z
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (Ho2rs)
No. If he actually did the things he's claiming he'll do, I'll be quite happy (and more than a little surprised). The problem is that his words have been all over the map- and the "reset" comment from one of his "top advisers" the other day doesn't help.
He has a liberal record. He's on the record as saying (before he realized everyone hated it) that he hoped RomneyCare would be a pattern for the rest of the nation to follow. Even once it became clear that everyone hated ObamaCare (and more than a few residents of Massachusetts hate RomneyCare), he still said he wanted to "keep the good parts" of ObamaCare. Since the two primary things OCare and RCare have in common are an insurance mandate and guaranteed issue, I can only assume that those are "the good parts."
I tend to believe what people say first. It's normally a better indication of their real beliefs than what they say later- after they've had time to "craft their message." If what they say first lines up with what I know of their actions- even more so, then.
So, no, I don't believe this more recent Romney who is suddenly gung-ho to "abolish ObamaCare... root and branch." I won't even vote for him (again: if he actually needs my vote to win TX, we're so screwed that winning TX won't help), though I'll vote down ticket to make sure as many Conservatives as possible get elected. If I'm wrong and he really is fairly conservative, I'll be pleasantly surprised, and he will have my support in 2016.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (8y9MW)
Because they smell, nyahhh.
Posted by: Samuel Adams, President of the He-Man woman haters club at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (5KvzL)
February 11th O'Fuckstick reinstates the ban on drilling on the outer continental shelf. Oil prices start to climb again. February 13th oil is around $38. By the end of 2009 it's back to $80. Then the BP oil spill, the ban on drilling in the gulf and voila, back to over $100. Do these stupid fuckers not understand the cause and effect of their actions?
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 23, 2012 08:56 AM (3jGS1)
------>
Yes, the Democracts, Progressives and Marxists (But, I repeat myself) understand precisely what they are doing. Once you wrap your head around the fact that these sh!t-stains hate the United States are actively working to cripple the industrial and energy-producing capacity of the U.S., everything they do makes complete sense.
Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at March 23, 2012 05:19 AM (M0NzJ)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy, feeling all extra curmudgeony today at March 23, 2012 05:21 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 09:10 AM (VtjlW)
------------
I have a couple main reasons. ------
First, while we are sometimes blessed with great female leaders (England has been especially lucky in this regard) those tend to be abberations. Those women are usually more hardened than normal, or otherwise just well suited to the temper of their time. The average woman makes moral and practical decisions primarily on emotion. Males are, in their natural and un-indoctrinated state - more likely to rely on abstract principles when making those kinds of decisions. A male is more likely to be impartially just, and also to be either merciful or brutal as is appropriate to the context. ------
Second, I think males have a responsibility to take the lead to the extent that they are able. It's our duty. When the males are not in charge, and a matriarchal situation comes to be, the males start to become problems. They run around acting more more savage as time passes. There have been attempts at matriarchal societies in the past, and usually the men made them collapse by not going along. You need men to rule other men, and to enforce order.-------
For what it's worth, this is not an endorsement of a harsh male tyranny, nor an assertion that male and female value, as human beings, is unequal. But I think they have different roles for which they are, as a rule, best suited. I often think of my uncle's description of the happy married couple. He said "The husband is the head of the family, but the wife turns the head." The man is "in charge" but the women shapes what he wants to lead them toward.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:22 AM (xUM1Q)
Why are all Romneybots so shrill, screechy and preachy?
Their annoyance factor is right up there with the Paulbots and it's quite off-putting. It's time they start taking chill pills.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 23, 2012 05:24 AM (7+pP9)
Not that kind of joke, but....
So a Dominican, a Franciscan and a Carmelite go on a tour of Jerusalem with the chief Rabbi.
As they gaze up at the Western Wall, the Rabbi explains that it is a tradition among Jews to slip notes of prayer and questions into the gaps between the stones, so that G-d may answer those prayers and questions.
The Catholics are fascinated by this, and after a brief chat they decide to try it. They write: Dear G-d, who among your faithful do you love the most?
They continue on their visit, but return the next day, excited to see the result.
They remove the slip of paper, and find written upon it:
Of course I love all the faithful equally and with all my heart.
Signed,
God, SJ
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:26 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 09:22 AM (xUM1Q)
So, similar to the Medvedev/PUTIN dynamic then?
Posted by: Tami at March 23, 2012 05:27 AM (X6akg)
Romney admitted on tape that he was a "progressive Republican" before he started pretending to be a conservative. That in itself should end any doubt on what his presidency would look like.
Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2012 05:27 AM (XGZYX)
Posted by: polynikes at March 23, 2012 05:28 AM (A2cTV)
I don't know, he's got it pretty much wrapped up. I have my issues with him, but like a good dutiful soldier, I am falling in line.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at March 23, 2012 05:29 AM (5KvzL)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 23, 2012 05:29 AM (i6RpT)
Their annoyance factor is right up there with the Paulbots and it's quite off-putting. It's time they start taking chill pills.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 23, 2012 09:24 AM (7+pP9) "
That's pretty rich coming from you Ed. Good grief do you have any self awareness at all?
Posted by: lowandslow at March 23, 2012 05:29 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 09:22 AM (xUM1Q)
Fair enough. I do think it's an excellent point that saying that men and women, in general, have different skill sets and different areas at which they excel and that pointing that out says nothing about the relative value, or lack thereof, of those sets. That's the huge problem I have about modern "feminism". It's not about equality. It's about female supremacy.
We've gone round and round here before about how making notations about the general (men are better at math, women are better at verbal) tells you nothing about the specific person standing in front of you. It may give you a starting point but it should not be the end point.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:30 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Lincolntf at March 23, 2012 05:32 AM (hiMsy)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 23, 2012 05:32 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 05:32 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: jjmurphy at March 23, 2012 05:33 AM (xjEAl)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at March 23, 2012 05:34 AM (SB0V2)
--
there's always the bigger picture south of the border.
http://tinyurl.com/7745prv
One thing can not be denied the Jesuits, they are great scholars and know history.
Another thing can not be denied the Roman Catholic Church, it's corruption via the Sword of Constantine.
panzer trout nailed the motivation uniting the attack on the Catholic Church. And you've nailed the Catholic participation in that demise, the church endorsing "social justice" rather than protecting the natural rights of humanity. The Catholic Church is a house divided, having undermined its entire purpose for existence being CHARITY by endorsing socialism and socialist governance. But then, authoritarians share something in common. And if nothing else, the Roman Catholic Church certainly knows how to perpetuate itself politically, regardless of Christian genocide in the regions where the religion began (certainly not in Rome).
Posted by: maverick muse at March 23, 2012 05:36 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: polynikes at March 23, 2012 05:36 AM (A2cTV)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 09:30 AM (VtjlW)
-------
Well said. And I'm open to exceptions. If we could have a government full of Margaret Thatchers I'd be a happy guy. Alas...
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:38 AM (xUM1Q)
Chalk up another point for me.
You're as bad as UndeadStates about trying to deflect once you realize you can't win on the facts.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:39 AM (8y9MW)
that's what I'm thinking for WI
It sounds like water hammer. I wonder if they've got a city water supply or if they're all on wells.
Posted by: Heorot at March 23, 2012 05:42 AM (Nq/UF)
Posted by: nevergiveup at March 23, 2012 05:42 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Tami at March 23, 2012 09:27 AM (X6akg)
Hopefully it's less coercive than that...
I sometimes think of how Puerto Rican relationships have been described to me. A family member of mine worked there for several years, and he found that the smart woman let her husband think he was in charge, and treated him like the "big man." But then she easily twisted him around her finger because he was so contented, and ultimately was the one in control.
Unhappy wife = unhappy life is probably universal, but the state of things is probably most agreable to all parties when everybody gets to feel good about it.
Of course, this is second hand info from a single man. Take it for what it's worth.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:45 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: lowandslow at March 23, 2012 05:45 AM (GZitp)
I love seeing women on top. Especially my wife.
The head of our Louisiana office is a woman and she is extremely tough, confident, intelligent and capable. I pity the deluded motherfucker that ever attempts to patronize or condescend to her because of her sex.
He'd be rubbing ointment on his new asshole for the rest of the week.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 23, 2012 05:46 AM (APmL9)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 05:46 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 23, 2012 05:47 AM (RD7QR)
The oldest Cardinal answers the phone and says "Hmm. OK. OK."
He turns to the conclave and announces "I have good news and bad news."
"The good news is that Jesus has returned."
"The bad news is that he called from Salt Lake City."
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 05:49 AM (O3R/2)
Anyone ever read The Descent? (not the movie one, the creepy book about deep caves)
That scared the hell out of me. Oh to whomever suggested The Rook, thank you, I just started that and I'm really really enjoying it so far.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at March 23, 2012 05:49 AM (VtjlW)
February 11th O'Fuckstick reinstates the ban on drilling on the outer continental shelf. Oil prices start to climb again. February 13th oil is around $38. By the end of 2009 it's back to $80. Then the BP oil spill, the ban on drilling in the gulf and voila, back to over $100. Do these stupid fuckers not understand the cause and effect of their actions?
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 23, 2012 08:56 AM (3jGS1
*Sigh*
It's not a supply problem; oil consumption is falling and we're actually exporting gasoline. The real problem is the debasement of the dollar caused by the crazy government spending to prevent the deflation that must occur to clear the bad debt from the economy. Until that happens we'll continue compounding the damage and if Washington doesn't stop voluntarily, cash flow will stop the excessive spending in an uncontrolled collapse.
Obama, Geithner and Bernanke are causing the ramp in gas and oil prices with their insane printing and spending. As long as we continue to emit excess dollars to purchase our own debt there will be no improvement and weÂ’ll continue our headlong rush into the abyss of DOOM and nothing Romney or any other Republican has proposed will stop this monetary collapse.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at March 23, 2012 05:50 AM (6BgmB)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 05:52 AM (niZvt)
That's all it is. Expect to see a ton of these articles during the arguments, till the decision is released. The media's way of trying to present their case to the court. It's pathetic.
Posted by: lowandslow at March 23, 2012 05:53 AM (GZitp)
Heh!
Me, I'm in a "use your hate, Luke" phase right now.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 23, 2012 05:54 AM (ZKzrr)
The idea that unless we get the One Perfect Conservative we should abandon the battlefield and let the Democrats wreck and loot America is more than just stupid, it's evil.
I am beginning to strongly suspect that some of these Romney-haters are getting checks from Media Matters.
Posted by: Trimegistus at March 23, 2012 05:54 AM (YqQbl)
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 05:54 AM (O3R/2)
Oh dear, they've been saying unfair things about him. Thomas More & John
Fisher weep at the thought of that. Along with everyone else that megalomaniac
had murdered. If Hank could have shot boy seed there wouldn't have been an
Anglican Church.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 05:54 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 05:55 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 09:46 AM (GoIUi)
LOL. Fair enough. But remember - this is a blog for politics-geeks, who get all fired up about this stuff. It's not a representative sample. That said, I think the majority of the males here don't go non-linear until pushed for a while. Also, those men usually have a fairly predictable response to different ideas - they still seem to operate based on principles, rather than on the emotional state of the moment. An attack on their principles excites an emotional response - they don't change principles based on how they feel.
The 'ettes are an even less normal sampling of the population. Most of the smarter, more sensible women forget that they are abberant. Non-normal. When I ask such women I meet in real life to stop and think in a detached way about how most of the women they know behave and make decisions, 4 out of 5 times they suddenly see my point.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 05:56 AM (xUM1Q)
It ain't just Obamacare that's strangling the economy.
Posted by: lowandslow at March 23, 2012 05:57 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 05:58 AM (niZvt)
Um...it's reactionary. He is...special.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 23, 2012 05:58 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Jimbo at March 23, 2012 06:02 AM (O3R/2)
God, I wish that was possible.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 23, 2012 06:03 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 23, 2012 06:03 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 23, 2012 10:03 AM (RD7QR)
Good advice. Protestants and Catholics haven't burned each other at stakes for quite a while now. However, those who want to chop our heads off grow more numerous day by day, and so far we're doing exactly squat to secure long term victory over them.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 06:06 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 06:07 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 06:08 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 09:58 AM (niZvt)
Edward VI, Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell. The Crusades were initiated by the
Pope the help out the Byzantine Empire after the battle of Manzikert (1071) and
the subsequent loss of most of Anatolia to the Seljuq Turks but sold to western
royalty as a way to restore the Holy Land. But
don't let the facts get in the way of your anti-Catholicism
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 23, 2012 06:09 AM (1Jaio)
Instead of the massive new taxes, trillions of dollars in new spending,
and top-down bureaucratic decrees of ObamaCare, we need to limit
Washington's control by spurring competition, creating maximum
flexibility and enhancing consumer choice.
He goes on to detail suggestions like letting states decide, making insurance cross state lines to spur competition, giving tax credits to self-employed like businesses get, etc.
I suggest people take the time to go read the entire article and not depend on Romney opponent supporters to "interpret" what he wrote.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 23, 2012 09:09 AM (GoIUi)
The first ssentence was the operative one. The rest is bulolshit. Mittens has already spoken about how he'd like to use federal money to coerce every state to adopt an invidiual mandate on their own. That is what he wants and that is the only thing he hasn't backed down on or flip-flopped about. When he says,
"But abolishing ObamaCare will only be half the battle. Just as important is the question of what to put in its place. "
Do you understand how wrong-headed and fucked-up Mittens has to be to believe this. That it is just as imprtant to replace an un-Constit3utional federal power grab? WTF? It is ONLY important to repeal and kill ObamaCare. Period. end of story. Mittens wants to use weasel words because he is going to be a weasel about this. You'll see (although I suspect that deep down you know what I am saying is obviously true).
Like I said, I'll still be more than happy to play my part as hostage and vote for Mittens. Like I said, I think he'll be easy to impeach.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 23, 2012 06:10 AM (iOOXO)
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at March 23, 2012 09:50 AM (6BgmB)
------------------
With respect, rising global demand for a commodity with a supply that's "stable" at best, naturally drives up prices. The Indians and Chinese are driving in numbers once unthinkable. Both food and fuel have to go up in price, because demand is going up. The developing world is getting richer. We have to compete with them for raw materials and objects of normal human desires (like delicious MEAT, mmmm....). Price increases are not always the same thing as inflation. Increased demand, reduced supply, costs of new regulations - all of those can drive up costs without any change in the money supply.
Until the balance sheets in the US are repaired, inflation due to money "printing" is not a big issue. We still have a lot of open productive capactiy that is going unused. Unemployment is still pretty high. The government can consume a lot of stuff without generating any shortages.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 06:14 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 10:07 AM (niZvt)
Sorry. My spelling was wrong. Should be "aberrant." It means "deviating from the usual or natural type."
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 06:17 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: sauropod at March 23, 2012 06:18 AM (iAkDQ)
Posted by: akak at March 23, 2012 06:23 AM (vfQBi)
Posted by: Peter Lougheed at March 23, 2012 06:23 AM (9qxEF)
Posted by: John A. MacDonald at March 23, 2012 06:24 AM (9qxEF)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 06:26 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at March 23, 2012 06:37 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: steevy at March 23, 2012 06:47 AM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Museisluse at March 23, 2012 06:57 AM (q2H2p)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 23, 2012 07:12 AM (niZvt)
or
"I am for it while I am still against it."
Hmm, either way, it's a killer.
Posted by: Gulfkraken at March 23, 2012 07:20 AM (WBfjO)
Earlier today we got a spokesman saying Santorum will support Romney if he's the nominee... even though "Mitt Romney is a mirror image of Obama."
Nice.
Then we get Santorum himself, in a statement to Hot Air:
“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s. I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it’s easy to see why – Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It’s time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum – this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms.”
I'm speechless.
Posted by: lael at March 23, 2012 07:50 AM (jvEwI)
With respect, rising global demand for a commodity with a supply that's "stable" at best,naturally drives up prices. The Indians andChinese are drivingin numbers once unthinkable. Both food and fuel have to go up in price, because demand is going up. Thedeveloping world is getting richer. We have to compete with them for raw materials andobjects of normal human desires (like delicious MEAT, mmmm....). Price increases are not always the same thing as inflation. Increased demand, reduced supply, costs of new regulations - all of those can drive up costs without any change in the money supply.
Until the balance sheets in the US are repaired,inflationdue to money "printing" is not a bigissue. Westill have a lot of open productive capactiy that is going unused.
1. Supply is not "stable". New fields are being discovered.
2. The Indians and the Chinese are not driving up the numbers; Chinese imports are collapsing almost as fast as their GDP.
3. The developing world isn't getting richer, they're piling on massive debt trying to maintain their own ponzis.
4. Price increases aren't inflation without a corresponding increase in wages. Wages are shrinking; the price increases are the result of currency debasement. You do know that they have emitted 5 trillion new dollars in the last 3.5 years don't you? Are you really trying to say that doesn't have an effect, especially when dollars are used to trade oil? Do really think the government can "print" all the money they want without wrecking the currency?
If you really believe that why hasn't Bernanke just fixed everything by issuing all the money the government needs to pay off the debt?
You should demand your money be refunded if that nonsense was taught in a college course you took.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at March 23, 2012 07:52 AM (6BgmB)
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at March 23, 2012 11:52 AM (6BgmB)
---------
New sources of oil are indeed being discovered. Just as old ones are being depleted. The cheaply accessed, easy oil is not so plentiful. Extraction costs matter. There is plenty more that COULD be tapped, but in case you've not noticed, the federal government is putting it off limits. To further strain the supply situation, many refineries in the northeastern US are closing down - they can't make a profit. The loss of gasoline refining capacity is equal to something like the consumption of Argentina.
Worries about international tensions aren't helping. First the wars, then the Libya debacle, and now Iran. It's just one disruption after another. There's no stability.
To contend that the massive shift of manufacturing production to the developing world is not making them richer is absurd. May as well say the industrial revolution did nothing for the West. Rice prices are going up as farm land is diverted to meat production. This doesn't happen in subsistence situations. Their governments are, no doubt, piling up debt, just as ours is, but that doesn't mean they have no increase in prosperity.
Wages are going down in the US because they must - this is the inevitable end result of a trade imbalance as severe as ours. Prices are balancing out, as we race for the bottom.
I have not asserted that increasing the supply of currency has no effect on its value. Hardly anyone has (certainly not those who subscribe to MMT). However, you have to look at where that money is going and what it is doing, and you must consider the velocity of money. Money velocity right now is still very low. Private sector debt is high and must be liquidated. Local governments are cutting back in all the responsible states, which further drives down demand. High unemployment curbs consumption. Housing is in the tank still due to oversupply - last year my entire county had zero requests for building permits. All these factors mitigate the effects of government over-spending.
Further, in modern history there has not been a single hyperinflationary event that was not caused by either having massive civil unrest, or debt denominated in a foreign currency. We have neither of those problems right now. We may end up having "high" inflation, but we will not have Weimar's problems.
BTW - Bernanke doesn't give the government an allowance to spend. Money comes into existence as it is spent, and destroyed as it is collected in tax. Period. The fed can't tell the congress how much they can spend. They can try to control overnight bank rates, and can do asset swaps to keep the banking sector liquid. They're not the purse holder.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 23, 2012 10:02 AM (xUM1Q)
“We have subsidized oil companies for a century. We want to encourage production of oil and gas, and make sure that wherever we’ve got American resources, we are tapping into them. But they don’t need an additional incentive when gas is $3.75 a gallon, when oil is $1.20 a barrel, $1.25 a barrel. They don’t need additional incentives. They are doing fine.”
Ed Morrissey responds: “First, oil is not $1.20 or $1.25 a barrel. Today it was trading at $107 per barrel, or around 86 times what the President quoted here. Besides, this is about as big a non-sequitur as one can possibly create on the cost of gasoline. To the extent that this is coherent at all, it sounds as if Obama is claiming that the difference between the price of a gallon of gasoline and the price of a barrel of oil equals profit. That’s about as ignorant a claim on energy costs as I’ve ever heard.” Good thing that dumb cowboy Bush isn’t President, or the media would be making a big deal about this.
Posted by: Prezit Jug Ears on 3/22/12 at March 23, 2012 02:35 PM (baL2B)
Posted by: burt at March 26, 2012 06:04 AM (OzqQM)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
61 queries taking 0.1338 seconds, 386 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Red in Maine at March 23, 2012 03:01 AM (UryaP)