It’s still a year out from the election, but Rasmussen’s most recent poll makes one start to wonder. It shows President Obama at 46% of the vote against GOP frontrunner Rick Perry’s 39%. That was a flip from the previous week’s Obama 41% vs. Perry’s 44%.
The Perry part of that poll is not really of consequence. President Obama tends to perform about the same against various other challengers and against the “generic” Republican candidate. The ebb and flow of a weekly news cycle has an impact on the fringes, but not so much on the core. And that core is the thing that one has to wonder.
It appears that about 40% of the country makes up a core of blue… people who are wedded to their leftist philosophy as if it were a religion… they believe it will succeed despite all evidence to the contrary. From the economic malaise it has inflicted on the United States to the economic meltdown that is playing itself out in Europe to the wholesale abandonment of the leftist policies by governments from Beijing to Delhi to Hanoi. Despite the complete lack of a single demonstrable example of a sustained success of the Marxist / Keynesian / Alinsky philosophy, they still believe and it appears that virtually nothing anyone in the red corner can say can change their minds.
Today the aspirations embodied by their messiah are no longer just theoretical solutions and aspirational promises. This is not 2008 when the press could blame all of America’s woes on a reviled Bush White House. It’s not 2008 when Barack Obama could tell stories about how he plans on putting America back to work by rebuilding our infrastructure and creating green jobs. It’s not 2008 where Barack Obama could promise to make America respected again in the eyes of the world by closing Guantanamo and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not 2008 where Barack Obama could rail against George Bush’s “years of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility.” On the contrary, in the summer of 2011 President Obama finds himself in the middle of a perfect storm of failure, yet it seems to have no effect on his followers.
The most recent issue is of course Solyndra. The solar panel company that was the poster child for the green jobs that were the key to fulfilling his campaign pledge to future generations that (his election) “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” In 2009 the Administration gave the company $535 million in loan guarantees and in March of 2010 the President toured the company, declaring “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith.” Today the company sits bankrupt and taxpayers are out half a billion dollars. What’s worse for President Obama’s green jobs agenda is the fact that apparently each of those touted green jobs costs $5 million…
On the jobs front the President has just gone back to Congress and requested that they give him an additional $500 billion for a second stimulus program… because his previous $1 Trillion stimulus plan worked so well. The President suggested that his stimulus program (circa 2009) would bring unemployment down to 7.1% by August of 2011. In reality, his stimulus program did pass yet unemployment stands at 9.1% today. Fully two million more Americans are unemployed today than were promised by the President.
On the single most important issue of the day, jobs, President Obama has demonstrated not only that he is out of ideas, but that he wants to double down on the same bad ideas didn’t work in the past… and he wants to pay for the whole thing by raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. Unfortunately for him, things don’t look any better anywhere else. Domestically, inflation is on the rise, the economy is on life support and federal deficits are larger than at any time in history. Internationally, America’s leadership is once again so strong that the Palestinians are heading to the UN to ask for recognition despite US opposition, the Arab spring threatens to put Islamists in charge across the region, Europe is crumbling and Asian allies wonder about America’s commitment to the region as Taiwan is left twisting in the wind by the administration’s decision not to sell the island nation 66 new F-16 fighter jets for fear of offending the Chinese. Politically, the President’s leftist policies have so pummeled the citizens of New York that last week the GOP captured a house seat that had been held by the Democrats since 1923.
While the nirvana that was to be ushered in by Hope and Change has not materialized, it’s not because the administration has demurred from putting its policies in place. On the contrary, they’ve done so in most cases either by legislation or executive action. Despite all of this failure, a solid 40% of the electorate still supports President Obama and the discredited policies of the left. One wonders how is it possible that seeing all of this they could still believe? Then again, maybe it’s not so difficult to understand. A sign of a religion after all, is believing in something despite all empirical data that suggest it might not be true, or perhaps more accurately, the lack of empirical data that suggest it is true. The difference between a religion and the leftist policies of President Obama is that the former typically promises nirvana in the afterlife while the latter is supposed to be focused on this one. Nothing can prove Heaven doesn’t exist and therefore believers continue to believe. It’s called faith. History on the other hand, from FDR right up to Barack Obama, demonstrates clearly that the socialist, redistributive policies of the left simply do not work. Yet, the believers still believe, and vote accordingly. That fits Einstein’s definition of insanity. In this case it might just be called stupidity.
See author page
Not only has Obama weakly sold our wealth, both physical and intellectual, to our enemies, but he has done so for CHEAP!
Remember cash-for-clunkers?
A $2000 rebate if you bought a new car and killed an old one?
Well, China has that beat.
They STEAL our GM Chevy Volt technology for FREE.
They build the Volt in China.
Then they, the Chinese gov’t, give their own people $19,000 in consumer incentives for buying the Volt.
Most of that $19,000 was once our money.
GM worked for decades to develop the Volt.
At least Obama could have insisted on the Volt’s technology costing China a proportion of our debt to them.
A BIG proportion.
But no.
This is what happens when a president has the media turning their heads to what he is really about..
A challenge to our liberal/progressive readers and posters;
Name for me the things Obama and the Democrats have done during his presidency that can be considered a success. Please show proof of that success (and NO, rhetoric won’t cut it). I am sure that ALL of us conservatives will be waiting patiently for your comments.
And maybe, after that, you can explain to us conservatives here how doing the same thing over and over, which didn’t work in the first place, will somehow change things. Again, we will be waiting patiently for your comments.
P.S. I don’t care to hear about your examples of Bush’s failings. I want only Obama and the Dems actions and why you see them as a success.
@johngalt:
Raises hand…. Oooh… Oooh… I know….
Osama was converted into fish food. Outside of that…I’ve got nothing.
Of course, if you view the actions of the Obamateur Hour to be intentional to get the results we are seeing…well, I could make you a list from that perspective.
Liberalism is the religion of ME, ME, ME!
Could the answer be: As long as larcency lives in the heart of humankind… there will be Democrats?
The numbers fit almost exactly the percentage of people that do not pay taxes.
Interesting point John. I wonder if any studies or polls have been done on that.
@Hard Right: Over at US Debt Clock . org are a couple of running tabs that list
how much each CITIZEN (312,264,730) owes toward the US debt: $47,231 (Includes children)
and also how much each person who files a Federal Income Tax Form (112,160,141) owes: $131,498 (Mostly adults)
BUT….Almost 21 million American families received more than $36 billion in payments through the Earned Income Tax Credit. (2004 number)
So, they did not PAY tax, they got taxpayer money.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/government-programs-kept-millions-out-of-poverty-in-2010/
Using different sources, we learn that 44.2 million Americans relying on government funding for day to day sustenance. (Includes children)
Nan G. I’d suggest the “insanity” resides among the far right deniers of evolution,global warming,BHO’s Hawaian birth etc.etc.
Ironically, believers in global warming, specifically man-made global warming, are adherents to an irrational faith at this point. After the Climategate e-mails, after the predicted disasters and temperature increases did not occur, after all the “green” conflicts of interest and get-rich-quick schemes, a majority of the public now doubts the story. Richard Wheeler casually casts aspersions on all of them, while ignoring the evidence that is right in front of him..
The Obama birth certificate was always a fringe issue. Doubting the SCOAMF’s natural born citizen status woud require somehow negarting the birth announcement that appeared in a Honolulu newspaper 50 years ago. Absent that, everything else is a waste of time. On the other hand, the way that Obama and his handlers threw a blanket over most of his past, including all of his college history, is very odd and people who do not find that a suspicious thing to do are almost as strange, credulous, and uninterested in facts as the worst of the birthers. Who is Obama? We don’t really know. That’s how he got elected – a gullible 52%, not knowing who he was, made him into whomever they needed him to be.
The proportion of people in this country with a literal belief in Genesis has not increased in the last hundred years – just the opposite. But they have been here all along. During this time the United States developed antibiotics, biotechnology, computers, space probes, jet aircraft, nuclear energy and so on — and the ongoing presence of these people does not appear to have held us back in all that time. In fact, many of them worked for these programs and played their part. On the other hand, there are irrational people who believe, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary, that Marxism will create a more just and pleasant world; they are at least as irrational and faith-based as creationists. And they do a lot more damage.
Sherman, liberalism means never having to examine one’s own beliefs. Just cling to the fantasy and tell themselves how wonderful they are and superior to those who disagree with them.
The thesis is that 40% of the country is out of its mind. There’s a huge difference between liberalism and Marxism. Blurring the distinction may allow you to turn someone with honest differences of opinion into an enemy of the state, but it’s destructive to the country.
The above quote is a Straw Man. I’m a liberal by F/A standards, but I certainly don’t adhere to either Marxist or Alinsky philosophies. Republicans have been every bit as Keynesian over the past 30 years as Democrats. Borrowing money to finance tax cuts to increase the money supply is no different than borrowing money to finance spending to increase the money supply. You delude yourselves by believing that these tax cuts pay for themselves — no, they don’t. Not even close. And they are an important part of the deficit problem.
Cutting spending first and then cutting taxes by a commensurate amount is what a true conservative would do. Cutting taxes in an environment where spending keeps increasing is what a Keynesian would do and it’s what the GOP has done, beginning with Reagan.
Policies espoused by Obama are to the Right of policies in place in Germany, which is, by any measure, a sustained economic success. Europe, Canada, Australia, and everywhere else have problems, but, with few exceptions, nations far more socialistic that anything contemplated by Obama have been more than able to surmount all of the challenges of the rapidly changing world to provide their citizens with prosperity and happiness.
There is vastly more which unites Americans than which divides us. We should focus more on our common values and respect the concept of the honest difference of opinion, with regard to political issues. Work for our candidates. Vote. Then try to work together to make the country work.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Like I said, clinging to fantasy…
@johngalt: Since no one has responded to your challenge, allow me. Here is my list:
Get all of that?
@ Larry
Reagan was a Keynesian? Wow. Supply-side economics is pretty deeply rooted in Austrian economics. I don’t think you can blame increased spending on Reagan when Tip O’Neal was Speaker of the House. Reagan increase defense spending, but he proposed cuts in other areas.
I won’t deny that the GOP during GWB’s term lost their way, and conservatives sat out the 2006 elections to show their displeasure.
I pretty much stay out of the debates about tax cuts vs tax increases and their effects because their are people on this blog way smarter than I am on the subject. I don’t know that the empirical data exists for reducing taxes and spending. There is a very good reason for this; the Congress has never, ever tried it. Congress has never reduced spending for anything, ever. If they sit around and do nothing, spending increases because of the baseline. And now we have Obama’s stimulus included in the baseline for perpetuity. Because once you enact a spending bill, democrats will claim someone is going to die if the spending gets cut. You say we can agree on more than we disagree, can we at least agree that this practice is ignorant?
@ Rich
First, global warming is a scam. Even if it truly exists, in its current state, it is a scam. Science is never settled. If it were so, Einstein’s theory of relativity would already be called Einstein’s law of relativity. To say the science is settled is to deny science.
I don’t know anyone that doesn’t believe in evolution. The evidence is pretty clear. I think what people confuse is the theory of Common Descent. Again, we get back to the word theory. So far, there is no missing link. Personally, my faith in God would not be shattered if this theory were true. But I don’t believe in Common Descent. I’ve looked at the evidence and as it stands right now, I don’t see it. Do I believe in creation as it is written in the Bible? No, but I will elaborate a little. God said, and I paraphrase, “My ways are not your ways.” I take that to mean His seven days are not our seven days. And if you would like to argue science, I’m your huckleberry.
Birth certificate, no comment. There a crazies everywhere. Seems to me I remember something about Dan Rather and GWB, what was that?
Hi Aqua: Let me repeat my point. A true conservative would not wish to take on unsustainable indebtedness. A true conservative would look at the history of the country and would see that Tip O’Neal (or whomever) was in office. A true conservative would realize that a vast expansion of the military budget would take a whole lot of money. A true conservative would realize that declaring and fighting a war would take a whole lot of money.
I don’t remember any vast new social programs under Tip O’Neal. I do recall a vast new defense build up under Reagan. In the past, whenever the government had important new challenges which required more money, taxes would be raised. Don’t you recall the derisive slogan aimed against Democrats…the “tax and spend” party?
Yes, that was true. The Democrats spent — but they also taxed. They taxed and spent, not borrowed and spent. And, lo and behold, the debt ratio was reduced by 75% between WWII and Reagan, despite all those government programs and the Vietnam War.
So Reagan massively increased spending on defense, while massively cutting taxes, and the debt ratio ballooned. And you want to blame Tip O’Neal for not taking the lead to cut spending to pay for Reagan’s defense build up? Would that have been a realistic expectation, at the time?
So what Reagan did was anything but conservative economics. It was a radical experiment, to test a radical theory (supply side economics — termed “voodoo economics” at the time, by George HW Bush). So what Reagan really did was a classic Keynesian stimulus. Cut taxes to increase the money supply, while borrowing more money to make up for the revenue shortfall caused by the tax cuts.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@another vet:
I didn’t expect any of our liberal friends to take up the challenge. From day 1 of Obama’s ascendency to the top of the liberal/progressive trashpile, it’s always been about placing blame on everyone else, not only for what they have done, but also what Obama and his party have done.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
If one is talking pure economics, you would be correct. However, part of the conservative philosophy is adherence to the Constitution, and having the federal government do their duties as outlined within it. Because of that philosophy, Reagan’s actions regarding building up our defense, in direct opposition to the perceived communist threat from the USSR, was conservative in nature. What’s more, those actions are completely separate of his economic actions regarding the tax cuts and the economy.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE ECONOMY! Did you get that, Larry? It is one thing to discuss taxes and spending in regards to the financial state of the federal government. It is wrong, though, to discuss that financial state of the federal government as somehow being an indicator of the country’s economy.
Again larry deliberately ignores that it wasn’t the tax cut that was the problem, but spending. Larry, you are incapable of debating honestly.
Tax cuts weren’t the problem — spending was the problem. O.K. I get that. But why did Reagan cut taxes at the same time he was increasing spending? The big spending increases in the Reagan years were the result of the defense build up and not from Tip O’Neal foisting new social programs on the nation.
In the past, whenever we had a national crisis which required spending more money, we raised taxes (e.g. as Lyndon Johnson did for the Vietnam War) and we therefore continued to pay down the debt ratio. But Reagan introduced the radical idea that you could increase spending while cutting taxes and that this would not be harmful to the debt. Bush doubled down on this when he actually declared a major land war in Asia, while proceeding to cut taxes. The debt ratio ballooned because of the increased spending in the face of the tax cuts.
I think I made it clear that my point is that Reagan was NOT an economic conservative. I never said anything about social conservatism, constitutional conservatism, etc. Those weren’t part of the discussion. I said that Reagan was not an economic conservative but a Keynesian and I stand by that assertion.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
My point, Larry, is that both of those things you are concentrating on, the tax cuts and the defense spending, were both the actions of conservativism. Combined, it may well be that they appear similar to Keynesian economic philosophy, but Reagan himself never claimed what you stated about introducing the “idea” that you could increase spending and cut taxes and it not be harmful to the debt. You are taking two entirely separate ideas of conservatism and combining them, as liberal/progressive politicians are wont to do, and making an inaccurate assertion because of it.
Hi John, I think that you are parsing words here. What I’m claiming is not that complicated.
Do you remember “Reaganomics” (called voodoo economics by GHWB)? Reaganomics was based on the “supply side” theories of Laffer et al. This posited that there was a sweet spot for tax rates and that, if you cut taxes, this could generate sufficiently increased economic growth to offset revenue losses owing to the cut in tax rates.
So what Reagan did (for whatever reasons) was to simultaneously increase spending and cut taxes. Both of these actions flooded the economy with dollars, but both created a worsened imbalance between spending and revenues, which had to be plugged by borrowing more money and increasing the debt. This is pure Keynesian economics. End a recession by putting more money into the economy through what is supposed to be short term borrowing. The problem was that the Reagan tax cuts outlived the Carter recession (if you want to call it that), and Bush’s tax cuts outlived the Clinton recession (if you want to call it that).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, you’re sorta throwing all your apples into an orange bin here, and declaring it a full barrel of apples.
When Reagan picked up the mantle after the Carter recession, inflation, interest rates and unemployment were high. Additionally the Cold War, accurately predicted by Gen Patton – and ignored by the top brass – late in the WWII years was coming to fruition. The central government is empowered with very limited tasks by the Constitution… not that they’ve adhered to that, mind you. However the nation’s defense is one of those enumerated powers. Since the military was gutted, it was appropriate to beef it up.
This doesn’t mean that Constitutional spending increases, within the fed’s primary authority, shouldn’t be offset with spending cuts in other arenas of government. And in the notion that spending cuts should happen before tax cuts, I have no disagreement. Altho I don’t see why they cannot tag team quite closely behind and remain deficit neutral. It’s not an impossible task.
Oh yes… here’s something that I’m sure you’ll claim is a piece from The Onion. There’s a large contingent of Democrats… obviously not the ones in leadership position, or you’d hear more about it… that are advocating a return to Reagan’s successful tax policies. gasp! LOL
ouch… that’s gotta hurt for all the Reagan tax bashing you do so love to engage in.
Wyden and Coats also tried this last year… but of course it fell on Harry Reids turned off hearing aid.
This is also tag teaming with the growing bipartisan and business “Go Big” movement. A group of 36 GOP and Dems, along with 60 business entities, who are hounding the SuperCommittee to go well beyond the $1.5 tril mandate in cuts.
Now, for the record, conservatives have been supportive, and offered, IRS reform as a way to do revenue increases… much as Reagan did in his turnaround of the economy. While you may not figure that out, I’m actually pleasantly surprised to hear uber-liberal Ron Wyden from Oregon actually publically admit the success of the policies and effects on the nation’s struggling economy.
The spending is a separate issue.
The problem with the talking points always used is that the conservatives or GOP are portrayed as refusing to put tax increases on the table. That’s a pretty generic argument, since IRS reform does, in effect, constitution a tax increase for businesses but lowered taxes rates for individual incomes… including the CEOs. Shareholders may make less profit on their investments, but they will keep more of what they do earn for personal choice of consumption spending.
Instead the “tax hikes” argument from the lib/progs always revolve around the Bush tax policies sunsetting. Before it was only for the $80 bil approx for those evil wealthy. Now the clamor is to let it all sunset so the $450 bil approx from everyone else is also ripped out of the taxpayers pockets.
The simply reality is, this ain’t Bill Clintons dot com bubble era anymore. Therefore those tax hikes are simply not sustainable and will worsen the nation’s consumption decline further.
While not perfect, and I haven’t finished reading the entire bill (have some disagreements with some), I have to say that Wyden-Coats 2nd attempt to re implement the Reagan tax policies to jump start the economy via their Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2011 is a good starting point for common ground for both parties.
Yet the leadership of both parties seem to be burying it deep in committees. Looks like the underlings in Congress are going to have to rebel against their own leadership. Something that wouldn’t bother me in the least.
Hi Mata, Of course there was strong economic growth following the Reagan tax cuts. The economy grew for a lot of reasons (among which is that economies always grow, following recovery from recessions, no matter what the tax rates have been). Under Obama, taxes are lower than they were under Reagan and the so-called negative impact of ObamaCare has yet to be felt. The “stimulus” may or may not have helped, but you can’t make the case that it contributed to the continuance of the current recession (a recession in all but technical terms). Taxes are lower than they’ve been for the past 50 years, right now.
So where is the magic of low tax rates? In Obama’s “Stimulus Two,” a big chunk of the program is extension of certain tax holidays and, I think, additional tax cuts, parenthetically.
Anyway, one of the reasons the economy grew under Reagan was because of the Keynesian stimulus of increased spending and lower taxes, financed by increased borrowing. Wyden is a good politician. His main goals are tax code simplification (a good thing) and increased revenues (also a good thing). So he’s trying to sell his plan to conservatives by dredging up the ghost of Ronald Reagan. It’s good politicking.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, Larry, I’m not “parsing” words here. I’m simply making a clear point that you are missing entirely, either by your own obstinance, or my inability to get the point across. Either way, you’re missing it.
I’ll try and state this again, in simple terms. Reagan enacted tax cuts. A conservative action. Reagan also started building up Defense, by increasing it’s spending. Also a conservative action. Taken separately, which they should be, Reagan acted on conservative principles. You, however, are mixing the two points and implying that Reagan’s actions together show a tendency towards Keynesian economic principles. The problem is, that neither action was done because the other was done. In order for your assertion to be correct, Reagan would have had to claim that increased defense spending was implemented along with the idea of tax cuts, all in an effort to help the economy. He never did, that I know of. The increase in defense spending was purely from the standpoint of defeating the USSR and communism. Show me he said differently than that and I might agree with you, otherwise, you are wrong to combine both and claim something that is not.
Hi John. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I don’t disagree at all with what your wrote. I never did. I never claimed that Reagan ever consciously embraced Keynesianism. He increased defense spending for the reasons you stated. But cutting taxes without cutting spending is not conservative, because it increases debt. The household analogy would be me adding a swimming pool to my house while shifting from full time to part time work. If I want to go part time, I should cut back my spending. Reagan didn’t do this. He increased spending, while cutting taxes, both financed by increased borrowing and increased debt. This is Keynesian, no matter what rationale or motives behind it.
So tax cutting, in a vacuum, is not conservative. Reagan justified this on the basis of supply side (Laffer curve) theory. This was a radical theory which had never been tested and Reagan’s pilot project was the biggest economy in the world. This was also not a conservative action.
Now, you are focusing on Reagan’s motives and not on what he actually did, divorced from his personal motivations. I’m focusing what he actually did, not on the motives behind what he did.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Here’s the ugly reality for you, Larry. The House of Representatives was held by a Dem majority for Reagan’s entire two terms. Spending originates in the House. Now get this… the smallest majority number of Dem House members was 242. The largest was 269 Dem members. There was nothing to prevent House Dem majorities from cutting other government spending, while increasing the needed defense spending, having those hefty majorities. They didn’t.
Additionally, the GOP only held the Senate for three out of Reagan’s eight years. Two years they had a slim majority at 53, and one year they had 54. Not exactly much power in that majority, is there?
Really? Economies “always grow, following recovery from recessions” The length of non-recovery from this recession is historic. Instead it is going retrograde.
Now there’s two ways to look at this… none favorable to the actions this admin has taken. Either we were “recovering” during 2009’s “recovery summer”, and double dip is upon us. Or it really never recovered at all.
The admin likes to say the ARRA brought us to a lack luster recovery summer, which of course means this recession is all Obama. But that “recovery” was nothing more than federal tax dollars, attempting to keep bubbles from deflating, providing a fiscal and temporary lean to for banks, housing, etc. Bogus all the way thru.
If it’s the same recession, which this admin will still try to push upon Bush, then in Obama’s almost three years, he’s done nothing but make it worse, in tandem with Geithner and Bernanke.
Either way, deplorable leadership and fiscal policies by both Obama and the Dem majority Congress.
Assuming you are referring to that POS Jobs Bill Obama’s desperately peddling to no one who likes it, I don’t suppose you’ve read the bill. What tax breaks he’s giving in payroll taxes demand an equal amount is transferred into the SS piggy bank from the general funds. But the general funds are from direct revenues from taxpayers… so we’re paying for it anyway. Just thru the derriere instead of the nose. But on the surface, it looks deficient neutral… at least to those who are fans of the Magic Castle.
In other words, you are saying that Wyden, who’s trying the same tact this year as last, really doesn’t believe that mimicking the Reagan approach to tax policies works and it’s all lip service merely for politics? That’s quite an assumption on your part, Larry.
Strange, since his approach resembles not only Reagan’s tax policy, but GOP proposed reforms as well, but with some slight differences.
Like I said, it ain’t perfect, but it’s definitely a good starting point for debate in Congress… assuming, of course, we can furlough Pelosi, Reid and all their progressive cronies for the duration.
BTW, Obama’s spending increase in his under one term years is only $100 billion less than Reagan did for his entire two terms. So I have to say if you want to talk about spending, you sure are barking up the wrong shrub. Here’s the bottom line… for Reagan’s spending, there was economic growth and results. For Obama’s spending, we have only a worsening situation to show for it, and no end in sight.
I’ll opt for the spending choices of Reagan any day. Results matter.
Hi Mata. I read your replies, but I’m not going to respond to further — you get the last word. Debating with you is a full time job, and I’ve got too many other debates simultaneously going on.
Until next time…
– Larry
@Richard Wheeler:
So tell me, what flavor is Obama’s koolaid today?
Mind numbed leftist, Global warming is incontrovertibly a scam being used for power and profit by the like’s of Al Gore and a host of unethical “climate researchers.” I speak from professional knowledge, as a Chemical Engineer who’s studied enough physics, chemistry, heat transfer, statistical modeling and process controls to know that the science does not begin to support the theory of catastrophic manmade global warming.
…and I really don’t care where Obamsky was born, he’s as much an American as Benedict Arnold.
Hi Kalash: While being impressed by your credentials, the American Physical Society disagrees with you. The vast majority of their members (I think 48,000) are as well qualified as you and don’t depend on government grants to support their own climate research (in other words, no funding without a cause doesn’t apply). This doesn’t make them right, but your assertions don’t make you right, either.
You might have a little less certitude, as your science is clearly subject to influence by your underlying politics, and therefore, underlying biases.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
kalashnikat With the vast majority of the members of The American Physical Society disagreeing with you, I’d suggest ODS is clouding your vision. Thoughts on creationism vs. evolution?
Semper Fi
I’m not buying into the assumption base on a presidential poll that 40% of America is “true-blue” Democrat. I would put it closer to 20-25%, with a similar amount solid Republican. IMO Polls rarely are reflective of the views of “all Americans.”
Polls are mainly reflective of those persons who are home, and who are willing to participate in political polls, and political party individuals are more willing to state their political views than independants. Now, if you want to talk about registered voters who participate in most elections, I’ll accept higher numbers, as the increased polarization of parties and corruption of politicians has driven many people to believe that the government no longer represents them, and have stopped voting at all.