PDA

View Full Version : Obama: What did he do THIS time?


revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 08:09 AM
Two more...one was already covered. Second one is new...instead of recycling military ammo and reusing it, now Obama wants it destroyed. Hmmmm..wonder why that might be?

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/42253067.html

Make vets pay for injuries during service?
By J.R. Labbe
McClatchy Newspapers

Published on Wednesday, Apr 01, 2009
FORT WORTH, Texas: The bad ideas just keep Twittering out of the Obama administration, and some of them are so ridiculous that even the Democrats who rule the congressional roost are squawking back. Take the featherbrained idea to make military veterans pay for service-related injuries with their private insurance.

Surely Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, a four-star Army general who lost part of a foot when he stepped on a land mine while serving in Vietnam, almost choked on his words recently when he had to confirm that the controversial proposal was under consideration.
The White House, in what is becoming a pattern of deflecting responsibility, would neither confirm nor deny that the option was being discussed.

Veterans' groups were understandably outraged at what they viewed as a violation of a sacred trust. It's one thing to bill wounded vets' private insurance if they receive care from the VA for medical issues that aren't related to service injuries, like the flu. But to even think that it would be acceptable to foist health-care charges onto a soldier's tab for injuries suffered while wearing a uniform is unbelievable.

Good for Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., for uniting in saying no way would the idea get beyond a dustbin in a Senate committee room if one of their colleagues was stupid enough to carry this particular bucket of water.
OK, maybe they didn't say it just like that, but Murray did exclaim that the proposal would be ''dead on arrival.''

Then there was the recent move to end a long-established practice in the Defense Department of selling fired brass ammunition casings to companies that remanufacture them into ammo for sale to law enforcement and private gun owners. The new policy required the military cartridge brass to be destroyed. The Defense Logistics Agency, the Pentagon's largest combat support agency and the organization that helps dispose of materiel and equipment no longer needed by the military, classified small-arms cartridge cases as ''sensitive munitions'' as part of an overall effort to make sure national security is not jeopardized by the sale of any Defense property.

Given that this administration is all abuzz with going green, crushing a perfectly recyclable product runs afoul of the ''reduce, reuse, recycle'' mantra of environmentalists. It's difficult not to assume that someone new in Defense wanted to reduce the national supply of ammunition by removing the ability to reuse fired brass.

Gun owners across the country have been hard-pressed to find ammo — and that's not just survivalists who are into hoarding (although some of that is undoubtedly going on). Texas hunters and ranchers, for example, who use .223 and .308 ammo to rid their property of destructive feral hogs — trust me, you don't want to go after one of these with a .22 — were scrambling to find it and then, when they could locate some, the price was outrageous.

Hunters and sport shooters owe a big shout-out to Democratic Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus of Montana — men who represent a state with some of the best elk hunting in the contiguous United States — for intervening with the Defense Logistics Agency's director, Vice Adm. Alan S. Thompson. The senators, in a letter dated March 17, rightly pointed out that the ''use of firearms and reloading brass is a part of our outdoor heritage.''

''Prohibiting the sale of fired military brass would reduce the supply of ammunition — preventing individual gun owners from fully exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,'' they wrote. ''We urge you to address this situation promptly.''
Good on Thompson for doing so. Bad on the administration for changing the policy in the first place.
If anyone in the Obama administration wonders why so many veterans and gun owners don't trust the new commander in chief, there's your answer.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 08:42 AM
nothing.

...It's difficult not to assume...

just another panic article bassed on "coulds" "maybes" and assumptions.

:yawn:

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 08:51 AM
That's it?

That's your defense?

Wow...this guy is driving this country into the ground, and the lefts defense is "This is all just speculation based on if's and maybe's".

Okay, there, Officer Barbrady...I guess we should all just move along because the Hindenburg crashing right in front of us is "nothing to see here".

I guess it IS a step up from "But,but, but Bush...."

HometownGal
04-01-2009, 09:02 AM
Gee - who didn't see this one coming? :rolleyes:

If anyone in the Obama administration wonders why so many veterans and gun owners don't trust the new commander in chief, there's your answer.

I didn't trust him much before and this new brainstorm of his only adds to my strong belief that this dunderhead and his administration are well on their way to causing a upheaval in this country.

What's next - chucking the 2nd Amendment altogether and issuing a complete weapons ban across the board?

http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/images/nuns_with_guns.jpg

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 09:34 AM
That's it?

That's your defense?

defense? i dont need a defense. its all speculative bullshit and i'll call it as i see it.

gotta love the "transperancy" in his administration though, right?

this board really needs more Obama is a Muslim threads.

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 09:58 AM
Deflection.

Anyway, since we have no track record at all on this guy, we can't just sit back and hope that whatever he comes up with works.

Meanwhile, 3/4's of his plans and policies are either Bush retreads or just bad idea's altogether. I'm certainly not content to be one of the band members continuing to play while the Titanic sinks around me...

rbryan
04-01-2009, 10:00 AM
"You've got to learn to live with what you can't rise above"

Seems like Obama is well on his way to becoming just as despised as Bush. In the end it doesn't matter who the puppet is if the puppeteer remains the same.

Obama vs McCain, Bush vs Clinton, Rep/Dem, Conservative/liberal etc. etc.. etc.. Just a smokescreen to make the masses feel like they have a choice.

MACH1
04-01-2009, 10:39 AM
Wasn't there a blip in the news a week or two ago that obaaama want's to sell the used brass to China?

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 10:46 AM
Wasn't there a blip in the news a week or two ago that obaaama want's to sell the used brass to China?no. i heard hes gonna erect a giant statue of his brass balls right next to the reflecting pool in washington. americans will then be directed to bow down to it 5 times a day and pray.

its true. he has already proposed it.

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 10:56 AM
classified small-arms cartridge cases as ''sensitive munitions'' as part of an overall effort to make sure national security is not jeopardized by the sale of any Defense property.


''Prohibiting the sale of fired military brass would reduce the supply of ammunition"

These aren't if's and maybe's. This is a proposal to destroy the brass currently being used to make ammo.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:00 AM
These aren't if's and maybe's. This is a proposal to destroy the brass currently being used to make ammo.yes they are cause it wont come to pass.

i bet obama has never even held a gun, let alone owned one.

MACH1
04-01-2009, 11:01 AM
no. i heard hes gonna erect a giant statue of his brass balls right next to the reflecting pool in washington. americans will then be directed to bow down to it 5 times a day and pray.

its true. he has already proposed it.

Wouldn't he have to find them first?

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 11:03 AM
So it's okay for him to propose insane things as long as saner people previal and prevent these idiotic initiatives from passing?

Really?

By the way, Harry Reid was overjoyed that we aren't going to use Yucca Mountain. I wonder what his super great idea for all the nuke waste is...dump it in Rush Limbaugh's front yard?

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:52 AM
By the way, Harry Reid was overjoyed that we aren't going to use Yucca Mountain. I wonder what his super great idea for all the nuke waste is...dump it in Rush Limbaugh's front yard?

what do they say about a million lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

WIPP site in carlsbad new mexico-

The nation’s first and only deep geologic repository for the disposal of defense-related transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste has safely operated for more than 10 years. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) began disposal operations March 26, 1999 and today serves as an international model for radioactive waste management.

yucca mountain is old hat. :hatsoff: nuclear waste buried half a mile deep in 250 million year old salt beds is much safer.

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 11:59 AM
what do they say about a million lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

WIPP site in carlsbad new mexico-



yucca mountain is old hat. :hatsoff: nuclear waste buried half a mile deep in 250 million year old salt beds is much safer.
Nope. Many problems with WIPP. This article points out that Yucca lies on a fault, but didn't they know that 25 years ago? And why did Obama vote to fund it twice? What about the 9 billion we already spent?

http://newmexicoindependent.com/23720/wipp-shouldnt-aspire-to-be-nations-nuclear-waste-dump

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 12:14 PM
Nope. Many problems with WIPP. This article points out that Yucca lies on a fault, but didn't they know that 25 years ago? And why did Obama vote to fund it twice? What about the 9 billion we already spent?

http://newmexicoindependent.com/23720/wipp-shouldnt-aspire-to-be-nations-nuclear-waste-dumpnope. try again. those "many" problems is really one big problem. the wipp site is surrounded by black gold, and the greed for oil is the real story here.


now c'mon, were talking about thousands of tons of deadly material that could wipe out the planet. there is gonna be "many problems" no matter WHERE we decide to ship it. and here people are nitpicking about aquafers?

instead lets just keep spent fuel rods in between grinding tectonic plates?

are you serious?

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 12:22 PM
Hello! Oil or no oil, this is dangerously close to an aquafier, water that people drink.

Regardless, if there is oil nearby, um, you know, oil that we NEED, find someplace else to bury the toxic waste...like the perfectly suitable place that has been 25 years in the making, and already sucked up 9 bil worth of resources, and has already been funded twice by the Chosen One.

I guarantee that wherever we go wth it, the tree huggers will find some excuse, so let's just go with Yucca.

Try harder.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 12:34 PM
actually you may wanna try harder (like maybe not gathering your info from the same tree huggers you scoff at). :chuckle:

what do you know about the aquafiers in my back yard?

heres a response to the bogus article you linked-

I love it. A poet and author is now an expert on Geology, Hydrology, and thermal effects on salt. Listen genius, where did you get your information? That idiot Don Hanprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterpr ofanityfilter in Albuquerque? Come on. Please label your article "science fiction" rather than "factual commentary." I place your article in the proper place, alongside the idiots against stem cell research, evolutionary science or any other science-based endeavor of humanity.

Perhaps you would be interested to know that the thermal effects on salt were already studied decades ago when the first EIS of the WIPP site was completed (I have read the report). The findings were very supportive of a high-heat laden radioactive waste repository at WIPP. More studies must be done with current technology, but you probably want to shut that down, because the science-based results might conflict with the nice fear-based world you live in.

Your descriptions of aquifers in the area is quite amusing and totally misleading. One of the reasons WIPP was chosen because of the inability of water to migrate through the salt over long periods (as in epochal) of time. At the UNC, biologists isolated 250 million year old DNA fragments and cellulose from tiny pockets of trapped water from the late-Permian Period! This water, left over from the ancient sea that covered much of what was the continent at the time.

Thanks to misinformed journalists and writers like you, we are still using coal. Hey buddy, want to pick a fuel source that is truely screwing up the environment? You don't really care, however. From your picture, you'll be dead soon and my generation will have to work even harder to clean up the atmosphere and water. Jane Fonda and her anti-nuke movie were good entertainment and demonstrated the obvious need for safety in the nuclear industry (kind of like "Jaws" warned people not to go swimming with great white sharks). Like "Jaws," however, her movie and those that idolize her anti-nuke cause have done untold and unintentional damage to components of our environment.

By the way, speaking of the anti-nuclear industry's favorite Jane Fonda flick, you should take a drive over to the San Onofree plant that was pictured in the movie. It sits on (absolutely on the edge) the Pacific Coast with millions living in close proximity. Do you know where the interim storage site for the used power rods are? They sit in a concrete building parallel to the shoreline and within litterally stone's throw of the water. My movie, a combination of "Deep Impact" and the "China Syndrome," would involve a rock hitting the largest body of water on the planet and the resulting tsunami scraping 100 or so high-rad, one-time used rods onto to the western continental shelf of North America. After the initial extinction events, the level of mutagenic activity in the Pacific ocean increases by a factor of 1000. The United States, reeling from the cost of the recovery effort and international lawsuits, becomes the next poster child for nuclear irresponsibility (as opposed to the nations like France and England).

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 12:39 PM
That was a bloggers response posted underneath! THAT is your defense? Why not post something from Tim Lumber on the subject while you're at it.

You're falling apart before our eyes here...the ultimate Obama apologist.

revefsreleets
04-01-2009, 12:45 PM
http://www.nuclearactive.org/wipp/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/wipp/

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 12:53 PM
That was a bloggers response posted underneath! THAT is your defense? Why not post something from Tim Lumber on the subject while you're at it.

You're falling apart before our eyes here...the ultimate Obama apologist.a blogger who happens to know more on the subject than you. after all youre just a messageboard poster who quoted a commentary piece by....







wait...







here it comes.....








A BLOGGER! :toofunny:

V.B. Price (b1940), is a poet, human rights and environmental columnist, editor, journalist, architectural critic and teacher. He is a member of the faculty at the University of New Mexico's University Honors Program where he teaches seminars on Greek and Roman literature in translation, urban issues, the U.S. Constitution, and world poetry. He is the series editor of the Mary Burritt Christensen Poetry Series at the University of New Mexico Press. He is also an adjunct associate professor at UNM's School of Architecture and Planning. you may wanna go play with timma now or check out some of vbprices poetry for scientific evidence in our next debate... cause you clearly fell to pieces on this one.

stlrtruck
04-01-2009, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry but you gotta love a political debate that throws in the local moron from baltimore!

Now that my friends, takes the cake!

fansince'76
04-01-2009, 01:23 PM
I'm sorry but you gotta love a political debate that throws in the local moron from baltimore!

He's not from Baltimore!!!!!!!! He's from Frederick!!!!!!!! Where the only punctuation that exists is the exclamation mark!!!!!!!! So consider yourself SKOOLED!!!!!!!! :toofunny:

HometownGal
04-01-2009, 01:42 PM
i heard hes gonna erect a giant statue of his brass balls right next to the reflecting pool in washington.

He doesn't have balls. They are in a jar on the mantel in the Presidential bedroom suite and the only time he can get 'em back is when he begs Michelle to give 'em back. :pin:

X-Terminator
04-01-2009, 02:12 PM
Spend money on research/development of fusion reactors, and the worries about where to bury nuclear waste disappears.

Nah, let's argue some more about where to bury deadly waste from our current fission reactors...as if it's going to make a damn bit of difference where we bury it. :doh:

Preacher
04-01-2009, 03:48 PM
Not even six months into this administration. . . and democrats are standing opposed. .. . and others are frothing at the mouth trying to defend him.

Dang, it took 6 years and numerous pushes by the press to get to that point with Bush.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-01-2009, 04:22 PM
a blogger who happens to know more on the subject than you. after all youre just a messageboard poster who quoted a commentary piece by....







wait...







here it comes.....








A BLOGGER! :toofunny:

you may wanna go play with timma now or check out some of vbprices poetry for scientific evidence in our next debate... cause you clearly fell to pieces on this one.
:popcorn:

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 06:46 PM
Spend money on research/development of fusion reactors, and the worries about where to bury nuclear waste disappears.

Nah, let's argue some more about where to bury deadly waste from our current fission reactors...as if it's going to make a damn bit of difference where we bury it. :doh:i agree w/you 100% on the first sentence. except you said 2 bad words- spend + money. you know what that research and development would be called? PORK. most likely alot of that money would go to sandia labs and los alamos. NM has been one of the major players in nuclear research since the manhattan project. who is the gov. of NM? yep. thats right... bill richardson, the former DOE secretary under clinton, and obamas initial appointee to secretary of commerce. the right would have a FIT.

now i gotta challenge your second sentence. you DONT bury it under or near a major metropolitan area. you dont flush it into the allegheny. you dont bury it in the rain forest, or in the polar ice caps, and you most certainly bury it inside a volcano. so why in the hell would burying it along an active fault line make sense?

now i certainly dont want that shit anywhere near me. ive driven by the tractor trailors hauling that crap to carlsbad. ive seen our poor narrow highways and driven in plenty of the windy mountain roads they travel on. we have 60 mph winds today and last week and will get up to 80 mph gusts til may-june. spring and wind is our only bad weather here. its s wreck waiting to happen. and thats just the dangers of getting it here. understandably new mexicans arent welcoming even more dangerous waste. (hell some dont even welcome great projects such as spaceport america).

BUT salt beds have long been regarded as the best solution for a screwed up problem

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/27/ap6221813.html

Roger Nelson, chief scientist for the DOE's Carlsbad field office, said if Yucca Mountain is to be replaced, the nation should consider disposal in salt.

Nelson said that doesn't mean WIPP.

"WIPP has a mission. It's been designed and legislated and authorized," he said. "If Congress or any other agency wanted to change WIPP, it would jeopardize this mission that is working so well."

There are other places - the formation where WIPP lies covers thousands of square miles that are virtually contiguous into central Kansas, "so there's a lot of real estate for a salt repository in the U.S.," he said.
From the beginning of the nuclear age in the 1940s, scientists studied what to do with radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. Early ideas included sending it on a rock to the sun or burying it in deep sea subduction zones. :chuckle:

Eventually, they turned to salt beds.

"The safest way to isolate something that you don't want for a very, very long time is find an ancient salt formation and put your waste in the middle," Nelson said. "Salt is still there for a very good reason, it has not been eroded away. It's indicator of hydrological stability. The same hydrological barriers that protect the salt will protect the waste."

Still, some critics have argued for years the WIPP site is the wrong place.

Concerns over water leaching into the salt were raised in numerous hearings on the repository over the years; the DOE eventually dismissed them. But Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping scheduled a news conference in Albuquerque on WIPP's 10th anniversary Thursday to release a hydrological report that argues the conceptual groundwater model used to assess the WIPP site was fatally flawed.


now its understandable that a DOE scientist is gonna have a completely different agenda than a scientist hired by CARD.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 07:16 PM
hey revs, not only is your initial source a peudo-specialist in nuclear science, he also appears to be master of politics with a CLEAR CUT anti-nuclear agenda.

(im almost embarrassed for you having cited him to defend your stance.)

http://newmexicoindependent.com/181/president-sarah-palin-and-other-foolish-things

President Sarah Palin and other foolish things

Both John McCain and Darren White are trying their darnedest to sound like Democrats. They’re scampering away from the black hole of the Bush legacy as fast as their PR Machines can carry them.

But the selection of presumptive Vice President Sarah Palin, the 18-month governor of Alaska, leaves no doubt that Republicans are Republicans, no matter how much they suck up to the more marginal and muddled Democrats.

If Sarah Palin isn’t the clincher that causes every wavering voter to pull the Democratic lever this November, no one ever will be. She’s such a modern Republican, so holier than thou art, so tied to big oil, such a creature of PR spin, she fits right in with conservative commentators and spin meisters like George Will who can make up seem down and right look left at the scratch of a pen.

In a recent Will commentary about the Democrats’ “naive economics,” Will said it’s naive to focus on alternative energy, discounting nuclear power as a major factor in America’s new energy economy. But that’s exactly what PNM’s recent energy planners have done in New Mexico, forecasting the company will rely more and more on alternative energy to supplement coal and natural gas and deciding not pursue mega-expensive, glacially slow nuclear power start ups. Energy is all about incentives and subsidies. But more of that later.

Sarah Palin to the contrary, I expect we’ll see more Republicans trying to sound like Democrats over the next months, echoing Darren White at his victory speech on primary night, when the Republican candidate for the First Congressional District in New Mexico tore into President Bush and the last four years of economic disaster like a DNC TV spot.

But this is all par for the course in the madcap, surreal elections of 2008. The only person around who seems to espouse the straight Republican line is a person hardly anyone outside of Alaska has heard of.

Sarah Palin admits to not knowing much about Iraq, or all that much about what a vice president might actually do. But the heartbeat-away-from-the-hot-seat hockey mom knows she doesn’t believe in global warming, knows she doesn’t believe in women’s reproductive rights, knows she thinks the Endangered Species Act is for sissies, knows she’s a Rush Limbaugh-like advocate of Big Bad Oil and is not a supporter of home-grown renewable energy independence.

Palin is what John McCain and Darren White are really like. They are Republicans. As hard as they try not to seem like Sarah Palin, they all belong to modern Republicanism, the party of Karl Rove and Pat Robertson, and no amount of spin can make it any different.

Should McCain’s health falter and Palin become the president, everything that every environmentalist, every alternative energy advocate, every women’s rights activist, every religious person of ecumenical leanings, and every Bill of Rights champion could go right down the drain. And they all know it. Perhaps Palin has galvanized the Republican base, but she’s galvanized everyone else as well, spunky and charming though she may be.

It would be like having Sean Hannity for president.

Like all Bush apologists, from Pete Domenici to Darren White to Steve Pearce, George Will, Sarah Palin, and John McCain deny change even when it’s snapping at their heels. They look at the defunct past and see a glorious future, and propose to do exactly the same things that caused the ruination that discredits their point of view.

Will and many other Republicans, along with some rightish Democrats, believe in the l950s view of atoms of peace, harnessing nuclear energy for industrial purposes to assuage the guilt of the nuclear industrial complex and science-for-hires who, at one time, helped to put some 70,000 nuclear warheads around the world, from Russia to North Dakota.

Will thinks it’s naive to suppose that America can wean itself from foreign oil without using nuclear energy in large quantities. He thinks that alternative energy sources, and cars that run on something other than petroleum, are also naive without nuclear power. He discounts the dangers of uranium mining, the arms proliferation implications in reprocessing spent fuel rods, and even the sound strategy of storing spent fuel on site in hardened containers, rather than waiting for decades for a subterranean repository to become politically viable, and then trucking the stuff all over the country to get its immense tonnage underground.

He doesn’t want to tell us that Big Nuke and Big Oil are the nation’s most heavily subsidized energy industries. The nuclear industry, alone, is protected from collapse by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, a no-fault insurance program. Any claim against a nuclear power company over $10 billion is covered by the taxpayer, and anything less is covered by an industry supported indemnity fund, backed by the federal government. It’s been estimated that a Chernobyl-like accident in the United States would cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Unlike Will, scientists advising the British government on nuclear power in 2005 concluded that not only weren’t nuclear reactors a solution to global warming, but that nuclear power is “a limited, inflexible, expensive, and potentially dangerous energy source which creates unique problems.” They argued for alternative energy subsidies rather than a new generation of reactors, according to SourceWatch.

But Republicans in Congress have been foot dragging on extending tax credits for renewable energy companies past the Dec. 31 deadline. The loss of those tax credits, according to The Associated Press, could cause operations like Schott Solar in Albuquerque to lose perhaps 1,500 jobs and a half a billion dollars in investments.

Watching the tax credit debate will give us all a clue about what might happen in a Palin presidency in which all the incentives go to dottering Big Nuke and Big Oil with nothing left over for the future.


:sofunny: wow. kinda all over the place there. i'd love to hear his take on the roswell aliens.

now i appreciate him standing up for our state in terms of WIPP. they dont call NM the "land of enchantmnet" for nothing and its kind of a slap in the face that the govt wants to use it to test/drop the first a-bomb and use it as a toxic waste dump, etc. (no offense to you but i would suggest ohio or baltimore)

PisnNapalm
04-01-2009, 07:27 PM
I haven't read through all the posts so forgive me if this has been addressed already.

The DoD is going to allow once fired brass to be sold just as it has been forever now. Gun owners and several senators jumped on them in a hurry and had the new policy changed.

It only took a few days to get it changed.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/03/18/dod-brass-ban-lifted/

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 07:51 PM
I haven't read through all the posts so forgive me if this has been addressed already.

The DoD is going to allow once fired brass to be sold just as it has been forever now. Gun owners and several senators jumped on them in a hurry and had the new policy changed.

It only took a few days to get it changed.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/03/18/dod-brass-ban-lifted/

yes it has (and there was nothing to change)-

yes they are cause it wont come to pass.

i bet obama has never even held a gun, let alone owned one.

another panic article laid to rest...

...just as predicted. :coffee:

in this era of transperancy, it seems the obama admin is going through EVERYTHING with a fine toothed comb. some call it throwing shit against a wall to see what sticks.

this is what politicians do. people act like the previous admin never held conversations whether we should attack n. korea or iran (that werent made public to the media). just like no big deal was made about the bush admin cutting funding to yucca mountain for several years now.

stlrtruck
04-01-2009, 07:54 PM
He's not from Baltimore!!!!!!!! He's from Frederick!!!!!!!! Where the only punctuation that exists is the exclamation mark!!!!!!!! So consider yourself SKOOLED!!!!!!!! :toofunny:

Oh contrare my friend - he blogs for the Frederick News Post but lives in close proximity of Baltimore!!

fansince'76
04-01-2009, 08:00 PM
Oh contrare my friend - he blogs for the Frederick News Post but lives in close proximity of Baltimore!!

OK! So I was dead wrong just like Timmah is about pretty much everything! :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Preacher
04-01-2009, 08:36 PM
i agree w/you 100% on the first sentence. except you said 2 bad words- spend + money. you know what that research and development would be called? PORK. most likely alot of that money would go to sandia labs and los alamos. NM has been one of the major players in nuclear research since the manhattan project. who is the gov. of NM? yep. thats right... bill richardson, the former DOE secretary under clinton, and obamas initial appointee to secretary of commerce. the right would have a FIT.
.


See, this is where your obamania completely blinds you.

If it:

1. was part of an overall energy program

2. was driven by sound scientific research and financial forethought

3. was vetted through congress in the normal proceedings, instead of tacked on to the end of a completely unrelated bill (which is what PORK is)

Then the right wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

What the "right" has a problem with, is undiscussed, sweetheart deals.

Hey, if Richardson were to put something together and take it to congress... and it made sense, I would be ALL for it.

Don't let your political blindfolds get in the way of reality. Sound policy is sound policy.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Hey, if Richardson were to put something together and take it to congress... and it made sense, I would be ALL for it.

Don't let your political blindfolds get in the way of reality. Sound policy is sound policy.yes. but you live in utopia. :wink02:

thats fine for you, but how can you speak for EVERYONE else on the right? im talking about the MAJORITY right.

deny their reaction all you want. even the majority on this board wouldve called spending money on development and research "pork".

Preacher
04-01-2009, 10:33 PM
yes. but you live in utopia. :wink02:

thats fine for you, but how can you speak for EVERYONE else on the right? im talking about the MAJORITY right.

deny their reaction all you want. even the majority on this board wouldve called spending money on development and research "pork".

Wow. . . for someone who thinks the right is finding demons behind every move of Obama (my phrase), you sure do the same when the tables are turned.

No, The ENTIRE problem with PORK is the fact that it is NOT vetted properly. It is tacked on to other bills which have NO relation to the pork amendment.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 10:40 PM
so you are absolutely denying that a spending bill on nuclear fusion woulda been called "pork" by the majority of "your peeps"?

maybe it just depends on what the definition of 'vetted properly" is.

from your side of view, i sure hope the "vetting" of sarah palin isnt the epitome of that definition.

Preacher
04-01-2009, 10:49 PM
Once again, your letting your politics cloud your view. I don't care about what you think about Sarah Palin, how you project all your childhood fantasies on her, or how you project all the rejection you feel on her. . . Watching her run her state vs. Obama the U.S., I will pick her any day of the week to be the president over him.

I also love how you continually pick parts of a statement and ignore the rest of the statement. Someday, you should try engaging the entire statement.

What I said was, if an ENTIRE ENERGY PROGRAM was presented, hammered out, and presented in congress with fusion as part of the deal... It would be great. What WOULD be yelled and screamed about. . . is the 9000 amendments for spending money on issues such as rebuilding the lilly-toad blue-back house in backwater Ohio.

Do all you need to in order to keep viewing conservatives as the devil... your mental gyrations are clinically fascinating at best.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:03 PM
I don't care about what you think about Sarah Palin, how you project all your childhood fantasies on her, or how you project all the rejection you feel on her. . . .

wow. personal attacks from a Preacher. thats gotta be a steelerfever 1st. :jawdrop:

ive been infracted for much less (but dont worry, youre safe) :wink02:

i dont think you got your finger on the pulse of the board when you say what will be 'yelled and screamed" about.

just see this thread for instance.... or the 400+ other-anti obama/democrat threads in the locker room.

incase you havent been following along, obama IS the devil. :noidea:

fansince'76
04-01-2009, 11:06 PM
wow. personal attacks from a Preacher. thats gotta be a steelerfever 1st. :jawdrop:

ive been infracted for much less (but dont worry, youre safe) :wink02:

How is what Preacher said even close to calling someone a "racist?" Besides, you weren't infracted, you were warned. The insinuations that HTG and I moderate based on party lines are getting really old. Did you realize I deleted a post earlier today insulting Democrats as all being "stupid?" No, I guess you didn't.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:19 PM
How is what Preacher said even close to calling someone a "racist?" Besides, you weren't infracted, you were warned. The insinuations that HTG and I moderate based on party lines are getting really old. Did you realize I deleted a post earlier today insulting Democrats as all being "stupid?" No, I guess you didn't.



psssst- take a look under my avitar where it says infractions. :hunch: ive never noticed anyone else with that under their avy and i notice alot. is this a new feature?

but hell no, i didnt notice where any of you may have deleted a post insulting democrats. it goes on all day every day. how could i keep up? (let alone anybody else) :noidea:

please clarify for me... are personal attack rules different in here than in the blast furnace? or does it all depend if you are a democrat or ravenfan?

:confused:

fansince'76
04-01-2009, 11:33 PM
psssst- take a look under my avitar where it says infractions. :hunch: ive never noticed anyone else with that under their avy and i notice alot. is this a new feature?

Psst, guess what the "zero" means in the "1/0 (0)" designation? It means zero points were assessed, therefore, it was a warning only. You are only able to see your own warnings and infractions and nobody else's, and the same goes for anybody else on this board who isn't a moderator or the owner.

but hell no, i didnt notice where any of you may have deleted a post insulting democrats. it goes on all day every day. how could i keep up? (let alone anybody else) :noidea:

You mean like your constant insults of "Rublickins," "Ribs," "Sarah Palin and the Wasilla hillbillies," and the like which are also let go without warning or infraction?

please clarify for me... are personal attack rules different in here than in the blast furnace? or does it all depend if you are a democrat or ravenfan?
:confused:

Yes, the personal attack rules are different in the BF - I would think as self-appointed "BF Mod" and the fact that you've been a member here for damn near four years now you would know that. We let more go in the BF and we've stated as much numerous times.

MACH1
04-01-2009, 11:43 PM
The ENTIRE problem with PORK is the fact that it is NOT vetted properly. It is tacked on to other bills which have NO relation to the pork amendment.

Wasn't there a pork amendment to study how smelly pork is. :doh:

We all know pig farms stink to high heaven, no need spending millions to study it.

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:49 PM
You mean like your constant insults of "Rublickins," "Ribs," "Sarah Palin and the Wasilla hillbillies," and the like which are also let go without warning or infraction?
.

:toofunny:

are those personal insults? if youre gonna toss that out against me, i guess you will have plenty of non-obama voters to keep your hands full, too.

BTW "rib" isnt an insult. its shorthand.

go ahead... do a search and see how many times "ribs" has been posted compared to "libs".

lets keep it real here....

"rublickans"??? :sofunny: i pretty much stricktly adhered to the guidelines you and HTG have set and it has been made clear to me that "democRATS" nor "rublicans" is a frowned upon term around here.

and i guess if we cant say sarah palin sucks, we cant say roger goodell sucks either, right?

:coffee:

Preacher
04-01-2009, 11:56 PM
wow. personal attacks from a Preacher. thats gotta be a steelerfever 1st. :jawdrop:

ive been infracted for much less (but dont worry, youre safe) :wink02:

i dont think you got your finger on the pulse of the board when you say what will be 'yelled and screamed" about.

just see this thread for instance.... or the 400+ other-anti obama/democrat threads in the locker room.

incase you havent been following along, obama IS the devil. :noidea:

Personal attacks?

Tony, personal attacks would be if I called you a stupid idiot. I didn't, because you are not. I simply re-stated what you have been putting out there for the last 8 months. I too have been infracted--not warned, but actually infracted on this board... when I was JOKING with a personal attack (about two years ago). So again, please lay off the woe-is-me line.

If you stopped belittling everyone else's viewpoints, maybe your own would be respected in the political threads a bit more.

fansince'76
04-01-2009, 11:57 PM
:toofunny:

are those personal insults? if youre gonna toss that out against me, i guess you will have plenty of non-obama voters to keep your hands full, too.

BTW "rib" isnt an insult. its shorthand.

go ahead... do a search and see how many times "ribs" has been posted compared to "libs".

lets keep it real here....

"rublickans"??? :sofunny: i pretty much stricktly adhered to the guidelines you and HTG have set and it has been made clear to me that "democRATS" nor "rublicans" is a frowned upon term around here.

and i guess if we cant say sarah palin sucks, we cant say roger goodell sucks either, right?

:coffee:

That's just it, you can say "Sarah Palin sucks" all you want. Just like anyone else around here can say "Obama sucks" as well. And since when is "Lib" an insult?

:coffee:

tony hipchest
04-01-2009, 11:59 PM
Personal attacks?

Tony, personal attacks would be if I called you a stupid idiot. I didn't, because you are not. I simply re-stated what you have been putting out there for the last 8 months. I too have been infracted--not warned, but actually infracted on this board... when I was JOKING with a personal attack (about two years ago). So again, please lay off the woe-is-me line.

If you stopped belittling everyone else's viewpoints, maybe your own would be respected in the political threads a bit more.i guess you go by the undisclosed definition of what a personal attack is, then. :noidea:

tony hipchest
04-02-2009, 12:01 AM
That's just it, you can say "Sarah Palin sucks" all you want. Just like anyone else around here can say "Obama sucks" as well. And since when is "Lib" an insult?

:coffee:

you tell me.

since when is "rib" an insult.

:coffee: (your words... not mine)




You mean like your constant insults of "Rublickins," "Ribs," "Sarah Palin and the Wasilla hillbillies," and the like which are also let go without warning or infraction?



.

fansince'76
04-02-2009, 12:03 AM
you tell me.

since when is "rib" an insult.

:coffee: (your words... not mine)

Since you tossed out "Lib" as an insult (and you've expressed your displeasure with the term before now).

BTW, for the record, I went and checked your "infraction history." Before you got the warning recently, the last time you had been warned was September 9 of last year, which I promptly REVERSED as I took a statement you made to Revs out of context (and I also apologized for it). Before that, your previous infraction occurred on January 26, 2007 and was doled out by a certain British wanker who had a personal agenda against you and Suit.

You've been treated fairly here, IMO.

Preacher
04-02-2009, 12:08 AM
Tony . . .

You were infracted by LITP?

Man, that is a badge of honor!! :rofl:

tony hipchest
04-02-2009, 12:29 AM
Tony . . .

You were infracted by LITP?

Man, that is a badge of honor!! :rofl:
how bout 3X (1 was a defacto litp infracto)

how bout the time i was infracted defending you?

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?p=206335#post206335

i was also infracted for this-

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?p=182945#post182945 :hunch:

im now beginning to wonder if defending obama is infraction worthy.

mods? assistance please. (you both know i am more than happy to oblige by any clear cut rules you set out.)

Preacher
04-02-2009, 12:47 AM
Hilarious Tony.

You know... those were the days....

revefsreleets
04-02-2009, 08:16 AM
Um...Sarah Palin? How did we once again get diverted to that piece of irrelevent history?

"My source" was the first thing I found on the net. The guy obviously read up and did due diligence. Since when can you only post articles from experts? Which Op/Ed writer is an expert on every subject? AP/UPI Journailists all need to be experts on the subjects they writre on? More importantly, the fact that I will use a liberal as a source, along with government web sites, and any other available material to support my arguments should show that "my agenda" is not a polictical one, but one of common sense.

Anyway, back to first principles: I'm posting about Obama's idea's amd proposed policies. They are so horrible they don't even pass the muster of his own rubber stamp congress. I'm increasingly concerned about the competence of this man and his ability to govern. The transparency of his administration is a double edged sword: It's nice to knock down the 5th wall, scary as Hell to have it reveal we have an extremely amateurish President bumping into every tree in the forest.

MACH1
04-02-2009, 11:17 AM
Um...Sarah Palin? How did we once again get diverted to that piece of irrelevent history?


Thats the obama magic!
Quick, look over there, while I take another freedom away over there.

tony hipchest
04-02-2009, 05:00 PM
Um...Sarah Palin? How did we once again get diverted to that piece of irrelevent history?

"My source" was the first thing I found on the net. The guy obviously read up and did due diligence. Since when can you only post articles from experts? Which Op/Ed writer is an expert on every subject? AP/UPI Journailists all need to be experts on the subjects they writre on?


you mean diverted from the fact that you got bit in the ass by your own source?

i guess you didnt actually read the article that proved the dude is on a vehement anti nuke/ anti waste being deposited in NM agenda. perhaps you shoulda done your own due diligence because if i woulda posted this article when it came out you woulda been offended he slammed Will/republicans and played him as a complete moron who knew absolutely nothing. funny how that works with you. whatever serves your purpose, right?

its like you mistakenly stepped in dog doo, inadvertantly drawing on him as your source of info and now you are subtly trying to wipe the doo of the bottom of your shoe w/o anyone noticeing or smelling it.

sorry, but i aint buying it.

More importantly, the fact that I will use a liberal as a source, along with government web sites, and any other available material to support my arguments should show that "my agenda" is not a polictical one, but one of common sense.
:toofunny: i get it! "late april fools" right?

or is playing "joe vs. the volcano" with barrels of nuclear waste is the common sense thing to do? :noidea:

c'mon admit it....

you had no idea whatsoever whether he was a liberal or conservative after reading that 1st article you posted.

revefsreleets
04-03-2009, 08:05 AM
Just my point. I cited a source. I didn't care what his politics were, or what his slant was, I simply cited a source that backed up my particular argument.

I've conceded the Yucca thing. You are free to bring it back up (ala "But but but Bush") all you like, but there are probably 100 other Obamistakes for me to move on to.

I will.

TeeJay
04-03-2009, 05:03 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30025192

I was going to have a little moan at your man there for the 'He said Europe should not expect America to shoulder the burden of sending in combat troops by itself.

"This is a joint problem," Obama said on the eve of NATO's 60th anniversary summit. "And it requires a joint effort." '

8000 British Troops may only be a small percentage in comparison to the US presence, but at least they are out there. And you're not on your own.

Like I said, I was going to have a moan at your man for that, but then I realised I'm not European! ....I'm bloody British. :wink02: So that's ok then. :thumbsup:

Preacher
04-03-2009, 05:13 PM
I guess Obama is learning that foreign policy is not the same as classroom discussion.

TeeJay
04-03-2009, 06:52 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30025192

I was going to have a little moan at your man there for the 'He said Europe should not expect America to shoulder the burden of sending in combat troops by itself.




No point in reading the above link to see that sentence right now, as the page has been changed in the last hour, and altered to reflect 'most US Allies' - Steelers Fever got a mole in the ranks?? :wink02: (Or did someone from MSN actually read what they had been printed?)

But what they replaced it with, is almost as priceless.

The summit's co-hosts, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, both were quick to offer support for Obama's new Afghan strategy of sending American reinforcements and bolstering Afghan forces. But they went no further.

"We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan," Sarkozy said a joint news conference with Obama after they met.

What's that word again? Oh yeah.....Allies. But no mention of when the German or French Troops will joining them then? Must be soon though surely?





Bueller............Bueller..............Bueller... .......

SteelersinCA
04-04-2009, 12:09 AM
NATO & the UN = US armed forces and 3 other people.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-04-2009, 03:42 PM
Thats the obama magic!
Quick, look over there, while I take another freedom away over there.

We lost more freedoms under the Bush regime than we'll ever lose under a president who is a former civil rights attorney.

HometownGal
04-04-2009, 03:47 PM
We lost more freedoms under the Bush regime than we'll ever lose under a president who is a former civil rights attorney.


But, but, but, but ......Bush! :coffee:


http://uk.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/broken_record.jpg

SteelersinCA
04-04-2009, 05:20 PM
We lost more freedoms under the Bush regime than we'll ever lose under a president who is a former civil rights attorney.

You mean like the explicit right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? Or just those implicit rights not clearly delineated in the United States Constitution?

Preacher
04-04-2009, 07:01 PM
We lost more freedoms under the Bush regime than we'll ever lose under a president who is a former civil rights attorney.

really? LIke what?

Under Bush, I personally have had to wait in line longer to fly on an airplane, I have been searched a bit more thoroughly to fly on an airplane, and I have had to well, arrive a bit earlier to fly on an airplane.


Wow. Such civil rights abuse!

Sorry, but Obama's fascist threats of taken over companies, taking over the health care system, cutting down on 2nd amendment rights, etc. affect a THOUSAND times more than anything Bush did.

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-05-2009, 07:44 AM
May I suggest a reading of the"Patriot" Acts

Cape Cod Steel Head
04-05-2009, 07:52 AM
You mean like the explicit right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? Or just those implicit rights not clearly delineated in the United States Constitution?I suggest you too read the Patriot Acts if your so concerned about losing rights guaranteed by the US Const.

Preacher
04-05-2009, 09:39 AM
May I suggest a reading of the"Patriot" Acts

:rofl:

Wow... this belongs with Tony's panic articles...

I have not had ONE freedom infringed upon in 8 years with Bush. However, I am quickly getting threatened in many ways by Obama... from my 2nd amendment rights to companies I (may, don't know what is in my 403B mutuals right now) have stock in disappearing into govt. ownership. Sorry, that FEAR BUSH idiocy died the day Obama's policies ACTUALLY started affecting me.

fansince'76
04-05-2009, 09:40 AM
May I suggest a reading of the"Patriot" Acts

The same Patriot Act that Obama voted to extend and whose new Attorney General seems to support?

Senate Vote on Conference Report: H.R. 3199 [109th]: USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005

Ilinois

Yea IL Obama, Barack [D]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-29


President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers.

Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/17/MNH515C1KK.DTL

:coffee:

Preacher
04-05-2009, 10:06 AM
The same Patriot Act that Obama voted to extend and whose new Attorney General seems to support?



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-29




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/17/MNH515C1KK.DTL

:coffee:

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/6/15/heshootshesc128580643991220895.jpg

SteelersinCA
04-05-2009, 11:00 AM
I suggest you too read the Patriot Acts if your so concerned about losing rights guaranteed by the US Const.

I never said I was concerned about losing rights, you are the one who made the statement about losing rights. My statement was more of the "prove it" variety.

Now that you brought it up though, what rights do you see that we lost in the Patriot Act that both Bush and Obama endorsed?

SteelersinCA
04-05-2009, 11:07 AM
By the way, Obama was a junior associate at a firm that handled civil rights suits. Let's not make it sound like he was an Oliver W. Hill or something.

revefsreleets
04-05-2009, 06:59 PM
EVERY single "Freedom" that was stripped by Bush has continued to be stripped by Obama. He has not reversed a single policy put in place by Bush in this regard.

Obama has adopted so many "Failed Bush policies" it boggles the mind, yet the left STILL has the audacity to "Just Blame Bush".

Seriously, it's weak. Please come up with something else. It's not even a remotely valid argument outside of a 5th grade playground.

Fire Haley
04-06-2009, 10:38 AM
Obama=Bush? Skull&Bones?

Ch-ch-changes?

Following Bush lead, Obama moves to block challenge to wiretapping program

President Barack Obama invoked "state secrets" to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency's warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed.

The move -- which holds that information surrounding the massive eavesdropping program should be kept from the public because of its sensitivity

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_follows_Bush_policy_on_wiretapping_0406.html