This man has to be the sorriest example of a “professor” ever seen. Not only does he not understand the argument against his green energy push he also “mangles U.S., world History”
That is the headline at the very liberal, very leftist, blog known as Talking Points Memo
You know it’s bad when they are calling him out.
But let’s not even get into his ignorance in history. Let’s get into this statement:
“Now, here’s the sad thing. Lately, we have heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who were running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future. They want to be stuck in the past!” Obama exclaimed to cheers from the crowd. “If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not believe that the world was round!”
Leaving out the fact that the Columbus flat earth assertion is not historically accurate either he still fails to acknowledge what the real argument against his policies are. We all want alternatives to the traditional oil energy but conservatives understand that there is NO green energy alternative that is around today, or will be in the next decade, that can replace oil. So while we all want energy alternatives to be investigated and refined, we still need oil. And its better for our country to get it’s own oil rather than depend on other countries.
Newt asks a great question in response to Obama’s insulting speech:
“Why is Saudi drilling good and American drilling bad?”
“This is utter intellectual nonsense,” Newt taunted.
“If he wants to represent Saudi Oil and algae, I’ll be happy to represent American oil and American jobs and we’ll see this Fall who the American people want to elect.”
Additionally, why should the government subsidize obviously failed technology? Obama attempted to use Henry Ford’s innovation as an example. Well…did the government subsidize Ford?
No.
It was because of a businessman who wanted to become successful AND rich that we got the Model T and all the innovation that came with that.
But Obama wants to tax, tax, and tax some more, men and women like Henry Ford until they are forced out of business while doling out millions to his cronies in green energy. His policies stifle innovation. Stunts growth. And is ruining this country.
See author page
No, Greg… those are the simple talking points, handed down to you lib/prog O’faithful to repeat often enough that it might actually convince you.. if not those around you with a functioning ability of oversight.
2/3rs of the US debt is entitlements, Greg. Not wars, not tax cuts, and not the 2008 crash which was engineered by those dodo birds in the beltway to begin with.
Then again, those entitlement programs are engineered by those dodo birds in the beltway from circa 30s and 60s.
Now we’ve added a third entitlement program… O’healthcare.
Obviously not only do elected ones and WH occupants not learn from history, they’ve managed to create a stepford’esque following of those like Greg, who’ll be happy to point the finger at anything but entitlements for our unsustainable debt. You could seize 100% earnings of every working American for the next 10 years, and it will still not sustain the entitlement programs….
… but it would make the US economy and revenue stream implode.
Lawdy, Greg… Hollywood hyperbole now? Desperate… LOL
Few of us consider corporate raiding healthy capitalism, but nice try at your extreme fringe characterization. Personally, I don’t think someone’s views of a screenwriter’s fictional character is an accurate measure of their politics. However you’ve been at FA a long time. You are a big government, distribute the wealth, equal pay socialist/statist. And your record of such is firmly entrenched in the FA archives.
HANKSTER
YOU ARE SO ABLE TO FOCUS ON THE DIRTY SPOT AND SHOW ALL THE GREGS HOW TO CLEAN IT,
YOU KNOW THE WAY AND YOU ARE A REAL GOOD INSTRUCTOR, I CAN SEE YOU IN GOVERNMENT SHOVING THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF THE ROOM after THEY DENY THE REPUBLICAN to pass THE SMART PLAN THEY HAVE DONE AND READY TO PASS, ON AND ON REFUSED by those elected democrats,
we have to step up the tone, we are too tolerant for what they spit in vile attacks.
thank you for your good info.
bye
7.6 EARTHQUAKE in MEXICO
Sorry to say, but I reached all of those conclusions myself during the last term of Bush/Cheney. Nor was I the only one to do so. If they’ve become talking points, it’s because they’re common sense matters of great importance that are easily understood and easily communicated.
Reaching one’s own conclusions is a simple matter: Observe what’s happening, ask yourself why, and formulate a common-sense explanation. Common sense tells me that foreign wars always have to be paid for. Common sense tells me that cutting taxes when you’re already running rapidly growing deficits don’t make that deficit smaller. Common sense also tells me that revenue declines when you’re in a deep, prolonged recession. You don’t need specious FOX News charts, graphs, and chalkboard diagrams to figure this stuff out.
Republicans have denied every one of those fundamental points, both by word and deed. The economics they’ve actually practiced make no sense at all. Since the days of Reagan they’ve nearly ruined the nation. Deficits and debt have skyrocketed every time their wacky economic fantasies have been accepted as reality and put into practice. The reason they want to do it again should be obvious to anyone who has paid attention: While deficits and debt always go up as a result, those deficits and debts belong to the public as a whole. The benefits of the budgetary irresponsibility, however, are reaped and retained by a select few, in the form of an upward shift of wealth and income.
Really, oh Mr. Independent Thinker? So did you base that revelation on inflated BS figures passed out by your party and liberal media? You know, that cost of war being “trillions”?
A demonstration of common sense would be to look at the US spending, see what makes up the largest chunk of it, evaluate it’s future sustainability, and come to the conclusion that the biggest chunk of spending is our biggest problem.
But not you. What demonstration of genius. I’m truly wow’ed by your thought processes that you claim included no outside influences. LOL
Ya know, Greg, using your logic, it would be like looking at your household budget where you are bringing in $2000 monthly, but you are spending $2000 for mortgage payment, and another $500 monthly payment for your tax payer subsidized VOLT, and conclude that your cable bill is your budgetary problem.
So here’s something for you to mull over…. if we did not have the entitlement debt strangling us, the wars would have easily been paid for many times over.
Good idea. Maybe we should give up perpetual warfare. All told, I would rather educate and provide medical care and old age security for Americans than bomb the crap out of foreign nations, which we’re subsequently responsible for defending and providing endless foreign aid to.
Still going for that cable bill, eh Greg? Apparently logic remains elusive to your particular DNA.
The defense budget, of which “perpetual warfare” is only a percentage of all defense spending, is still only 23-26% of the entire US spending. i.e., your cable bill.
I don’t care what *you* would rather do with the taxpayers’ cash, Greg. That’s your socialist/statist nature that most of us find highly offensive. The Constitution does not empower the central government to be a welfare entitlement provider, an insurance premium price fixer, or a pension plan provider.
On the flip side, the central government’s constitutional authorities mandate responsibility for the nation’s defense. Ergo, I’m happy to deal with defense budget as part of our national debt, but I’m not happy to be saddling the economy with unsustainable debt for unconstitutional welfare programs, concocted by statist progressive POTUS in the past.
That said, am I for all wars? Nope. But that’s a one on one battle. But I am against all government provided entitlement programs… and that’s the bulk of the spending. Get rid of those, and the defense budget isn’t a drain.
The resident Marxist says: “A demonstration of common sense would be to look at the US spending, see what makes up the largest chunk of it, evaluate it’s future sustainability, and come to the conclusion that the biggest chunk of spending is our biggest problem.”
I’m cool with such a contemplation , AS LONG as, you INCLUDE, a COMPLETE revue of ALL SPENDING, and REMOVE, ALL that is not SPECIFICALLY LISTED, as the Feds business, in the Constitution!! After all, Fair, AND Legal, IS fair, RIGHT??
You cool with THAT, Karl???
Technically, Hankster, I was the source of the “demonstration of common sense” quote above. It was to drive home that when you’re looking for budget solutions, you look first at the largest items chewing into your budget… entitlements.
You’re right, I probably neglected to spell it out overtly that Greg – worried about controlling his household budget by slashing his cable spending – entailed borrowing. But then, that’s why I chose the specific figures of $2000 income, vs $2000/mortgage and $500/VOLT payment. He was already way out of his comfort zone before even considering cutting his cable service.
But you can compound the real world analogy by saying he’s pulling the excess from credit cards with no limit; paying 25% interest, while only making interest only payments on that balance. With the exception of the interest number, that is exactly what the US is doing.
Mata said:
“Ya know, Greg, using your logic, it would be like looking at your household budget where you are bringing in $2000 monthly, but you are spending $2000 for mortgage payment, and another $500 monthly payment for your tax payer subsidized VOLT, and conclude that your cable bill is your budgetary problem.”
That’s good, BUT, you neglected to also include, he is BORROWING 42% of all he is current spending at the SAME TIME…. and still saying, doing THIS, will PAY OFF his indebtedness !! LOL!! 😉
@Greg: Why are you afraid to answer my question? I asked you a rather simple one, here.
Yet, you have studiously ignored it.
Do you not have facts to back up your assertions?
Hey, I mean if you are scared, we all understand. Just take heart in the fact that just like your Anointed One, you are woefully in over your head.
“Technically, Hankster, I was the source of…”
OOOPS!! I never claimed to be PERFECT!! LOL, with egg on face… It seesm to roll along with his insane ramblings, And i just quick scanned without reading EACH post, my bad. I am willing, at least, to ADMIT, when I step into a pile, or am wrong….. too bad the other side isn’t…. MAYBE, we COULD talk, if THAT were true!
As to the resident idjit, saying he’d rather spend it on EDUCATION… ok, but, as i have seen recently, “education”, without experience, is USELESS…. long story.. but trust me on it!!
No sweat, Hankster. I suppose, without reading it in the original context, it could be confusing. Then again, most conversations with Greg usually are. It’s like trying to hit a moving target… debunk one piece of idiocy, and another one gets interjected into the conversation.
Who Originally posted the below comment??? Anyone???
The recession started in December, 2007. Go to the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org) to see the complete history of America�s recessions. What that history reveals is that before this last recession, since the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months.
When President Obama entered office in January, 2009, the recession was already in its 13th month. His responsibility was to manage a timely, robust recovery to get America back on track again. Based on the historical record, that recovery was imminent, within a couple of months or so. Despite widespread fear, nothing fundamental had changed to deprive America of the long term, world-leading prosperity it had enjoyed going back 300 years.
Supposedly a forward looking progressive, Obama proved to be America�s first backward looking regressive. His first act was to increase federal borrowing, the national debt and the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars to finance a supposed �stimulus� package, based on the discredited Keynesian theory left for dead 30 years ago holding that increased government spending, deficits and debt are what promote economic growth and recovery. That theory arose in the 1930s as the answer to the Great Depression, which, of course, never worked.
~~~~~
The National Bureau of Economic Research scored the recession as ending in June, 2009. Yet, today, in the 49th month since the recession started, there has still been no real recovery, like recoveries from previous recessions in America.
Unemployment actually rose after June, 2009, and did not fall back down below that level until 18 months later in December, 2010. Instead of a recovery, America has suffered the longest period of unemployment near 9% or above since the Great Depression, under President Obama�s public policy malpractice. Even today, 49 months after the recession started, the U6 unemployment rate counting the unemployed, underemployed and discouraged workers is still 15.2%. And that doesn�t include all the workers who have fled the workforce under Obama�s economic oppression. The unemployment rate with the full measure of discouraged workers is reported at http://www.shadowstats.com as about 23%, which is depression level unemployment.
Today, over 4 years since the recession started, there are still almost 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. That includes 5.6 million who are long-term unemployed for 27 weeks, or more than 6 months. Under President Obama, America has suffered the longest period with so many in such long-term unemployment since the Great Depression. �
@Hankster58: You asked:
‘Twas me, in comment #90, why?
@Hankster58:
Forbes?
Bloomberg?
The Wall Street Journal?
Has to be a financial outlet.
Where did you find that? like to use it, but need source.
@Hankster58: In comment #120 I linked to my original comment with that content, #90. If you go there, the source is at the bottom of the comment. I always include links to my sources. 🙂
@MataHarley:
Incidentally, I would certainly like to see the Wars Powers Act ended. Presidents of either party should not be allowed to commit troops to action against a foreign nation without the Constitutional proscribed permission from Congress. In this Day and age of jet air craft, there is no reason why Congress Critters can not be called into emergency sessions to expedite any such need. The ONLY exception to this should be if the United States Of America is itself invaded and emergency measures are needed to repel an invasion.
@Ditto: Jets? Nah! Now we got Go To Meeting. They could just stay home and away from DC permanently!
Go To Meeting
😛 😆
@ antics.. “Thank you! er, Thank you VERRY much!!” (think Elvis voice here,,LOL!) Sorry I didn’t see that, I’ve been too short on time as of late… major upheaval in “work” is coming my way….been short of time, and way too distracted on details as of late, thanks again.
Hank
@Ditto, I think you have the War Powers Resolution backwards in concept. It was passed to check the power of a POTUS to send in troops without Congressional authorization… not give the CiC enhanced power. Clinton and Obama have both ignored that law (Kosovo and Libya), and virtually every CiC in office has the impression that 1973 resolution unConstitutionally limits their authority.
It’s also been used by Congress to extend conflicts Lebanon and Iraq (Gulf War), as well as to force removal from troops in Somalia.
That law passed in the wake of Korea and Vietnam. Nixon vetoed it and it was easily overridden.
Personally, the only law I’d like to see passed right now is one that states for every new law that passes, five have to be removed from the code. Waaaaay too many laws. But in the case of the WPR, it’s actually there to force Congressional involvement, not free up a POTUS to send troops everywhere without justification.
Or perhaps I am reading your comment incorrectly?
Need to return, the the ORIGINAL Constitutional law on this.. CONGRESS declares war, period. Like Roosevelt had to do.. ASK Congress, to declare war on Japan!
Also, Mata is spot on, TOO MANY LAWS… Congress, in REALITY, needs to LAY OFF! The more they PASS, the MUDDIER original law, and Constitutional guidelines become!!
This is the effect, of allowing LAWYERS, to become Congressmen!!
Hankster58
hi
you hit on a word so important to my mind,
it’s the word ; “ORIGINAL”
THE REAL DEAL AT 100/CENT,,NO HALF , NO CLOSE TO, ALMOST ORIGINAL BUT,
THAT’S THE WAY OBAMA TREAT THE CONSTITUTION AND ANY OF HIS WAR
AND IT ONLY BROKEN PIECES OF THE CONSTTUTION WHICH ARE LEFT HANGING, HE TOOK THE CORE OF IT,
SAME WAY WITH THE WAR, ONLY PART OF THE NAME MIX WITH THE ROE AGAINST THE WAR,
AND IN THE MEAN TIME HOW MANY AMERICANS FAMILIES HEARTH BROKEN FOREVER
WITH THE LOST, WITH THE RETURN SOLDIER WOUNDED SO TRAGICLY, BECAUSE OF THE KIND OF WAR THE LEADER IN CHIEF ASK THEM,
FIGHT BUT DON’T HURT THEM , DON’T FINISH THAT WAR, HANG ON AND COME BACK FOR A WHILE
AND YOU ARE RECALLED AND MAYBE YOU WILL RETURN FOR A WHILE OKAY TO BE RECALLED AGAIN UNTILL YOUR PERCENTAGE OF LUCK LEAVE YOU, THEN YOU’LL COME BACK , AS THE WOUNDED VET, AND WAIT FOR YOUR HELP, WE ARE TOO BUSY TO PROMPTLY GIVE YOU THAT HELP,
WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL STANDARD HELP,
MATA
THE RALLY IS TO SUPPORT OBAMA CAMPAIGN WILL HAVE 2 MILLIONS marching to WACHINGTON AND ALONG THE OCCUPIERS THEY CLAIMED DECLARE WAR ON THE POLICE
IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, ASKING OBAMA TO TAKE ON WALL STREET,
THEY HAVE HATE PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE CANDIDATES AGAINST THE BANK AND FOR THE UNIONS
BYE
You’re welcome Hankster.
I would just settle for an amendment to the Constitution that says Congress has to follow all the laws they pass and not be exempt from any of them. I’m thinking Obamacare might not have been passed if that were the case.
But that won’t happen anytime soon.
anticsrocks
thank you that was great, I JUST TOLD ANDREW THAT HE MUST CORRECT HIS ERROR, WHICH
HE SAID THAT I MENTIONED FAITH IN MY LINE;
THEY MUST EMBRACE ONLY ONE NAME AND ONE TONGUE, THAT IS I AM AN AMERICAN
NOWHERE IS FAITH IN THAT LINE
BYE
@MataHarley:
The problem I see Mata is not in how the Wars Power Act of 1973 was written but in how has been interpreted by some CiC’s and many other Washington politicos. If it was strictly used as it was written, it would be one thing. But I’ve run across too many people from both parties, who interpret the act as saying that the President can, (in certain situations and emergencies,) send the troops in for up to 60 days, (plus an additional 30 days for withdrawal actions,) without having gotten Congressional approval.
I find that extremely troubling, as with such an interpretation, a Machiavellian President could send our military into a foreign nation, creating via this action an “Act of War” situation (remember Pakistan & the Bin Laden Raid?) that could put us in a state of war without Congress having any say in the matter. Even if Congress disapproves of the use of the military, what’s done is done, and the foreign nation may still recognize a state of war as existing between them and the US. I think Nixon was correct to veto this Act.
1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.
2011: President Obama’s White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities. Obama also sends the Navy Seals into Pakistan in a raid to capture or Kill Osama Bin Laden, but does not inform the Pakistani government until the raid is underway having entered Pakistan airspace.
As has Obama, Presidents will continue to push the limits, taking more and more power if allowed to go on unchecked. That is why I say the War Power’s Act should be ended, with a return to ONLY Congress having the authorization power to send us to war.
@Ditto… The problem with the “Left” interpreting things, is they take the words OUT OF SEQUENCE (twist them) to try to suit THEIR desired outcome, and NOT the INTENDED outcome…. War Power of 73, says what the Potus cannot do, then, he skips to a SUB-clause, and uses this, as the “intended MAIN clause”!!
They do this also, with the Second Amendment…. The Constitution, is to be READ, in the ORDER written, and INTERPRETED the SAME WAY. NOT read sideways, backwards looking for LOOPHOLES or whatever.
“All men, are CREATED equal”… that’s the ORDER it was written in..we all START OFF the same, and our destiny is ours to find… just what all the men, who FOUNDED America, did.
LIBERAL READ??? …All men are created EQUAL.. and if they don’t end UP that way, Uncle Sugar daddy, will MAKE IT SO….. BASS ACKWARDS, from the Founders meanings, and THEIR own action/lives….
And THAT, is why America, is FLOUNDERING today….. Liberals, do not WANT things, the way they are SUPPOSED to be!!
Hankster
very well said, and also THRUTHER SOUND LIKE I heard that word before, and good of you to pin down the meaning, and on your other comment it remind me of the one who is debating
with the meaning of details of the CONSTITUTION, AND TEBOW CHRISTIANITY,
BYE
Hankster
I have a good one for you;
CHET ATKINS IN SLEEPWALK
ALSO JEFF BECK SLEEPWALK
BYE