• comment on a post Structural Factors over 3 years ago

    They knew their jobs had been shipped offshore by NAFTA, and also weren't pleased with other faux Republican moves from the Democrats.

    They stayed home.

    Funny how history repeats itself, same Rahm this year.

  • Sorry and self-loathing they may be, but the Log Cabin Republicans have been instrumental in fighting for and winning one of Obama's campaign promises, for which he hasn't even bothered to put up much of a fight for (except as Kabuki theater.)

    Apparently, we have to take our "fierce advocates" where we can find them, and God help the Democratic Party if they continue to distain their own voter base.

     

  • I've never claimed "that the Obama administration is now allowing 27 new rigs into the gulf."

    I qouted from the piece about the 27 waivers, and okay, I'll take your word on the inside baseball view of what seemed in March, to those of us not as well-informed, as Obama's support of new off-shore drilling.

    I'll also believe, based on what you've written, that the Obama administration won't push for more off-shore drilling.

    Based on my experience on the issues I am familiar with, it seemed Obama was backtracking -- yet again -- on being the fierce advocate of whatever he'd claimed to support.

    However, I doubt that I'm alone in that perception, if we go by the enthusiasm gap between Democratic and Republican voters.

    So perhaps you can answer this question: why the hell would Obama want to give the impression that he was advocating more offshore drilling in March?

  • I offer facts, with links to those facts.

    "President Obama has packed the Debt Commission (also known as the cat food commission) with members who have an overwhelming history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security.

    The “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” is operating in secret over the objections of both parties."

    And you respond with "half-cocked" instead of responding with, for instance, a viable refutation that the members of this commission have a history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security --and yes, to be taken seriously you must show your work, the links, etc.

    Members of Congress -- from both parties --protest the secrecy of the Commission, and you respond with only "half-cocked."

    If you have evidence otherwise that the Commission isn't secret, we'd need to see it. Or, if you were you referring to the penis size of the Congressmen protesting the secrecy, we'd also love to see that evidence.

    This has been a basic lesson in reasoned argument, wasted, I'm sure, on an Obamabot.

  • Where are your links, of some evidence, any evidence that Obama is working for the repeal of DADT, other than empty words in a speech.

    Something? Anything? I'm waiting..........................

    About right now, I suppose you want to ask me again about my dating life with some complete stranger.

  • I'll bet the fisherman and tourist industry of several states wish this were just a game.

    Few baseball games make major dents in the economy (of two, three? Do we even have a clue how many?) states, or for that matter, create environmental disasters of this magnitude.

    As for the "game not starting yet," this game has been afoot my lad long before Obama did his aboutface.

    Long enough that if you read the Pdf of the organization you claim to belong to, you'll see they detailed the environmental problems of off-shore drilling, long before the current disaster.

    3,700 or so off shore drilling rigs in the Gulf alone, 2 million barrels a day of oil exported from the United States -- so tell me, how does increasing those numbers benefit the American people, or the environment?

    They don't! But they could be of benefit to the oil companies, of whom the former fierce advocate of the environment of is apparently more concerned.

    And it's that kind of aboutface (or call it a lie) that eats away at the Democratic base, who also aren't enthused by the danger to the environment and economy.

     

     

  • I beg you, any evidence, please.

    Other than what he said five months ago.

    Any evidence whatsoever that he's working for, and toward, repeal of DADT since then.

    I'd love to believe, also.

  • Let me be clear: I'd love to believe in your fantasy that Obama will make a repeal of DADT happen this year.

    Love it, but then again, everybody loves fairy tales because they always have a happy ending.

    But nobody actually believes in fairy tales beyond a certain age.

    Because after childhood, we're better off assessing the evidence, and there's much evidence Obama makes noises to loop in voters, and then backs off acting on what he's said, or actively works against what he's promised.

    I'm grateful his lies elected a Democratic President and helped elect a Democratic majority in Congress -- although I would have been much happier if they'd been the truth, not the least because following through would have improved the lives of the American people and because those lies are losing major segments the Democratic base in the midterms.

     

  • Let me get this straight: you're making a "kill the messenger argument"? HA HA HA HA!

    Really? You're that clean out of anything resembling a reasonable argument?

    Well, I certainly don't believe you, there's no basis for that, and you are on the internet.

    But a multiplicity of polls, done by established, reliable pollsters, which happen to have been reported on the internet (as well as in print, tv, radio, etc.)

    Yeah, sure, they've got my attention.

    Whereas your weak ploy has simply earned my contempt, on the internet.

    As for fantasies, yeah you've got 'em, and nothing upon nothing to back 'em up, so yeah, I'm going to go with the facts.

  • Like I said, no facts, no reasonable argument, nothing concrete to link to, just slur.

     

  • No sure who Kent is, but like I said elsewhere, Obamabots without facts or a reasonable argument on their side, substitute with what they believe to be a slur.

    Especially, if that slur can be directed to a woman.

  • Not even particularly effective, either.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/kuttner-wants-obama-to-teach-but-obama.html

  • Why no answer to my question: how many off-shore oil drilling rigs are already up and running? Too many to count?

    Also: Obama's about face for opening up new drilling: oops, not popular with the voters now either. (Way to dispirit the base, Mr. President!)

    "A new poll (pdf), commissioned by Clean Energy Works, and conducted by President Obama's chief pollster, Joel Benenson, finds strong public support for a strong new energy bill. As broken down by Greg Sargent:

  • * Overall, 61% of 2010 voters support and just 31% oppose a bill "that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like oil."
  • * 54% would be more likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted for the bill (just 30% would be less likely to re-elect).
  • * 51% would be less likely to re-elect their Senator if he or she voted against the bill (just 30% would be more likely).
  • * 39% of voters now say they are more likely to support it in the wake of the oil spill.
  • http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/poll_gulf_spill_has_created_bi.html

    Offshore Drilling Myths

    1. New technologies will prevent oil spills.

    Try telling the Australians that. In August 2009 a state-of-the-art rig using “new technology” spilled 2000 barrels of oil a day for 10 weeks into the fragile East Timor Sea.

    2. Offshore drilling is good for the economy and will create jobs!

    Our beaches are economic engines. One oil spill would devastate the local coastal tourism industry and the livelihood of people working in the fishing industry.

    3. We won’t be reliant on foreign oil.

    We’ll still have to import at least 40% of our oil to meet our daily consumption needs.

    4. We’ll have a long-term supply of oil.

    It won’t be enough. Offshore drilling will only give us about 18 months of supply at our current rate of consumption."

    Not only that, but the U.S. currently exports 2 million barrels of oil per day.

    http://www.surfrider.org/nottheanswer/factsheet.pdf

    So we're endangering our coastlines, ruining the fishing and tourist industries, killing off wildlife, contanimating the ocean and a thousand other evils so the oil companies can make a profit by selling that oil in other countries?

    Yes, more of that, please, Mr. Obama! Just what the Democrat base wants!

  • "Limited and regulated"?

    How many off-shore drilling rigs now off how many coastlines?

    As for regulation, let's see how well <i>that's</i> worked out:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/10/865175/-Nelson:-BP-not-waiving-liability-cap

  • Ooops, typo.

    Again, although I made it clear waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up the thread, I never supported Hillary for the Presidency (although, more and more, it appears there was nothing wrong with that.)

    However, it's apparently what Obamabots consider a slur to be applied to any woman with an opinion above a certain age.

     

Diaries

Advertise Blogads