Honestly, that concerns me less than the 57% of Republicans who believe Obama is a muslim.

Wow that's a screwed-up situation, Greg. I appreciate the posts you've made now and in the past about your local school board, in part because I've recently been volunteering for my local district (the K-8 district) and it's great to get ideas about what's being done elsewhere.

You saw Ten Commandments, right? So you know how that went down. Charlton Heston gave us a great visual aid. :D

SI

Considering the frenzy some of the really unhinged were whipped into, I'm going to go with "first but definitely not last" in the pool.

Liberals would just move to Canada or get high, right? ;)

SI

Palin's Facebook page is charming. It has gun sights over districts that went to the GOP in 08 but have Dems in the House that voted for HCR.

Who had March 25th for the first act of retaliation from the other side?

House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Who's to say it's from the other side and not from a tea-partier upset about his comments yesterday that the violence and vitriol were unacceptable (he went futher than Boehner in condeming them).

Glad to finally see both sides of Congress admitting what a disaster the loan program has been thus far. Over a year ago, one economist after another mentioned how stupid it was to use the funds to make payments rather than reduce the principal on some of these underwater loans. Amazing that it takes a full year to finally start applying money to pricipal rather than the other backwards way they've been doing it that failed so drastically.

Surprised you didn't post this, MBBF, since you've been so keen to highlight congressional incumbents who find themselves in danger due to the current political climate:

Political Tide Could Wash Away Republican Utah Senator - NYTimes.com

Who had March 25th for the Republicans to take a non-story and try to make themselves the victims.

The Associated Press: Bullet that hit Va. congressman's office random

Not sure what's so surprising about that. The guy voted for the bank bailout bill. Not many Republicans are going to support a representative dumb enough to vote for that cow pattie of a bill. The party of the representative won't change in that race, but the person in that position likely will.

Interesting days ahead for Iraq. This would be a litmus test for "peaceful" (okay, there will probably be some violence) transfer of power.

Iraq: Challenger wins most seats - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

These are your Tea Party protesters - seems like many of them could use a little more "soshilist guvmint education"

Teabonics on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

When you don't want to attack the argument go attack the arguers.

:lol:

Yeah imagine if someone would have posted ghetto talk because some of Obama's supporters are uneducated. It would be an offense not known to mankind... but no problem picking on the uneducated whites. Forget that the overall message transcends both the Democratic and Republican parties and is about a bankrupt government that is out of control. Back to partisan bickering 101...

No mention of Obama's 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' policy? Another policy that I certainly agree with. Glad to see more oil fields opening up.

Obama's Offshore Drilling REACTIONS: Plan Brings Flood Of Responses (PHOTOS)

Yeah- I was surprised we didn't see anything here about it. I'm not all that keen on it. I don't think most of the areas opened up are that big of a deal as it's 125 miles out in the Atlantic and the "less fragile" parts of the Arctic. But, I hate the precedent that in 4 or 8 or however many years, there's going to be the line of thinking of "well, it's been opened up before, so we can open up a lot more areas". I think he actually took some care as to what was opened up but I don't think future decision makers will do that.

SI

Stopped clock principle at work, yadda yadda, etc etc.

:+1:

I have a feeling the point is to accomplish two things:

1. Makes it easier, in a few years, when the GOP and/or energy companies (but I repeat myself) want to open up more areas, to say "but we already did you greedy bastards!"

2. IIRC, they're working on a new energy bill. I'm going to assume it'll involve concessions from the energy industry. So it's probably a bit of "if you scratch my back..."

How come it can't just be because...it makes sense given the time to market for large scale alternative energy sources and we cannot allow ourselves no alternative if/when the (oil-producing) Middle East becomes a war zone?

I enjoy how utilizing our natural resources to reduce our reliance on other countries for energy is now termed 'greed'. If so, let there be greed throughout the land.

I was under the impression that the oil we can get from drilling in the arctic and gulf was like a year's supply for our over-consumptive society...has that changed?

Sure, it's probably that as well. I, however, was responding specifically about the political rationale of the decision.


Yeah, I'm sure the first thing on the mind of oil executives is how to make American less reliant on foreign oil. In your world, profits are somewhere around #10 on their priority list, AMIRITE?

I could care less about the oil executives, though I know it's a convinient way to demonize the topic for those opposed to it. I care about what's best for America and what's best is to supply as much oil as possible within our own borders. I'd rather our money be going to the oil execs in North America than the Arab oil execs overseas. At least we can collect 39.5% of that money on April 15th to pay for Obamacare if it stays here.

You're making the assumption that now that they'll have these drilling rights, they'll drill and add considerably to America's domestic oil supply.

An incorrect assumption, as it turns out.

No, I'm not making any assumption in that regard. The opportunity is there. Worst case, the lease rights are paid and the oil is still there. Best case, they take out oil. There's zero downside to opening up more land for leasing rights.

Worst case scenario is actually an increase in dependence on foreign oil.

Most of these leases won't be developed right away (if at all) because they're in deep water and the oil will be more costly to extract. So the oil companies will likely continue to import cheaper foreign oil.

But now added to that we have a guaranteed cushion of domestic oil availability should the price of oil get high enough to justify drilling in these new leases. Thus there's now less of an impetus to a) curb oil consumption and b) develop new and innovative alternative energy sources.

Given the vast number of leases that are proven but currently unused (as opposed to these new ones which are both unproven and obviously unused), opening up these leases is pretty pointless in all but the very long-term and mainly symbolic in nature (hence my original post about the likely political rationale).


On a related note, let's drop the red herring about dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. It's roughly 12% of our total oil consumption, and already dropping. You want to worry about a foreign oil producer, worry about Soviet Canuckistan.

flere wins again!

So in other words, you're upset with Obama that he's truly implement no change in this regard in contrast to his campaign promises and is turning to 'business as usual'?

Uh-oh, you're going full retard...

did one of the liberals hijack MBBF's account?

lmao

How did you come to that conclusion?

That's the wrong Palin for this context.

:eek:


:popcorn:

They call me "Classy Jeff".

Well, spending freezes and a growing economy would certainly make a dent.

If I was a psychologist though, I'd publih a paper discrediting these types of polls. I can't quite articulate why they're "off" - but I don't think you can come to meaningful conclusions about peoples' opinions on things by asking them seperate questions and then comparing the results. (And that's assuming that the same group of people were asked all of these questions).

When someone says something shouldn't be cut, but they want the federal government to run more efficiently, or that the deficit should be reduced, those things aren't necessarily inconsistent. And if they are, so what - it just shows us that the poll is flawed or people are stupid.

Instead, we see this type of poll show up here all the time, always posted by the huge government people, and I think their point is that the government doesn't need to be efficient, because we clearly all want this stuff. Which doesn't make sense to me as a premise. We might want all sorts of things, that doesn't mean we should buy everything.

Also, people are selfishly optimistic in hoping that federal cuts won't impact THEM. I think a lot of people (correctly) assume that the federal government could save billions simply if it was run more effectively.

Couldn't find an angry one and thought it best to avoid the path you so subtly suggested. :)

It appears that the health care honeymoon barely lasted two weeks. His numbers are trending down again. We noted this before and the public continues to pound it home. The health care bill isn't going to make much difference for Obama if he doesn't reverse the job and economy downward trends.

Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment - USATODAY.com

which apparently is happening.

March jobs jump could lift Obama - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com

We can only hope. It's badly needed. Much of it may be short-circuited by a problem that should have been reformed already.....oil speculation. It's causing problems again as gas prices continue to drive back up.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/0...ces-again.html

I do love how $3/gallon gas (saw my first in a long time the other day) doesn't merit nearly the news story it did when Bush was in office.

seriously. common sense.

The black helicopters are preventing the news orgs from running stories about gas prices.

Expensive gas is a good thing.

I think it is a story, but is not the story because we became desensitized to it the first time around. It will probably take a new, greater threshold ($5? $7.50?) before it becomes a headliner again.

I see the point, but I just remember 8 years of being slammed with info every time the prices started climbing in the summer. Now, not a peep.

Of course I may be sensitized to this since I'm dealing with a pretty blatant liberal media bias locally.

The glib answer is that it could be that less people care about gas when they have no job to go to.

But, really, c'mon, it's because we're not breaking record highs.

SI