AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

He opposes drilling.

You must learn the English language, okie, because you misinterpret words that you use. Your statement is not "conditional."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I agree that okie overstated the case here. However, it isn't yet clear what the administration will do about either the licenses pending for new nuclear power plants or the opening of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Moreover it appears that "promoting responsible domestic production of oil..." really means no new offshore drilling or no drilling on the North Slape of Alaska. The scientific case for the proposition that neither of these options is "responsible", given the worldwide record of successful, environmentally safe off shore production and our earlier experience on the north slope simply doesn't exist.

The claims the administration makes in these areas are evasive and likely duplicitous.

George, I made those statements pretty bold, maybe overstated, but the truth of the matter is the administration shows little inclination to encourage drilling, coal, or nuclear. Sure they are for marginally continuing them as they are, or on a reduced level, but they are not going to aggesssively push any of these, and that was my point. Philosophically, I think they oppose them. Obama is apparently in love with wind, solar, and geothermal, all great inasmuch as they can accomplish, which isn't that much anytime soon.

Liberals like Debra and ci just simply cannot face the truth of what is going on here. It is reality up against an emotional attachment to Obama and futuristic plans. Reality will win, it always does. And I am not against wind and solar, but reality must be accompanying the energy equation, or it is worthless. Simply loving Obama is not enough.

1 Reply

@okie,

The only truth is you lie and overstate the case.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, You're falling into the same trap as okie; making assumptions about what Obama will do or not do. How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball? He still has more than three years; give the guy a break. Do you know of any president who decided on all the issues during the first few months of their term?

You are dead wrong here. The situation is exactly as I described it above.

Obama has already made very clear his opposition to more offshore drilling and any drilling on the North Slope. He has carefully avoided any overt statement of opposition to Nuclear power, but he very carefully avoids mentioning it in any of his statements of things we need to do to achieve either energy independence or meet his greenhouse gas limitation goals. The silence on this issue is deafining.

Obama has already indicated support of a cap and trade system for this country and hinted fairly clearly that he seeks limits on coal production and the use of this relatively abundant fuel. The big uncertainty here is just how we will meet new energy needs, or even more significantly, replace imported petroleum, using only the "renewables" he so frequently touts. The prospects aren't good.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

To quote what I said:

"the truth of the matter is the administration shows little inclination to encourage drilling, coal, or nuclear."

Which essentially means Obama opposes drilling as a philosophy or solution to our energy problems. I believe that is a true statement. He does not oppose all drilling, but he opposes a large amount of it, enough that essentially means he is an anti-drilling politician.

This is not a complicated issue, and anyone that follows this issue knows this.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, "Opposes drilling" and "shows little inclination" have two different meanings.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Right on, George, everything you say is right. And as I pointed out in my original list, considering energy forms the foundation of a healthy economy, it is no wonder the economy will suffer when Obama is undermining the foundation of it. While claiming to replace traditional energy sources with wind, solar, and geothermal, there is absolutely no evidence that it can be done anytime soon, and even if it could be done, the assured higher cost does not bode well for the economy. The process of conversion to future energy technology will happen, but if forced extremely prematurely, it will not work to our advantage.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, "Opposes drilling" and "shows little inclination" have two different meanings.

Obama is not a "pro-drilling" politician. Just a fact, ci, get over it, you voted for him.

1 Reply

@okie,

Having voted for Obama has nothing to do with your inability to back up what you say. Your languages skills are lacking.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI, I noticed that when okie posted Obamas exact words, from the debate transcripts, you ignored that post.

Why is that?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

No, I didn't; I showed how he contradicted himself with the two statements.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

CI, I noticed that when okie posted Obamas exact words, from the debate transcripts, you ignored that post.

Why is that?

Please identify the post wherein okie posted Obama's exact words.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Probably much easier to find words created by okie (his imagination at work) that Obama supposedly said.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Please list all the legislation by ... Obama that you call "theft taxation?" ...

WHAT IS THEFT TAXATION?

THEFT TAXATION = Taxes collected from persons or organizations that lawfully earned them AND given to persons or organizations that did not lawfully earn them.

Obama's predecessors since 1913 have been guilty of THEFT TAXATION to various degrees. But none have committed THEFT TAXATION to the huge degree that Obama is now in the process of committing it.

The federal government cannot lawfully expend taxes for activities that it is not granted the power by the Constitution to perform. The federal government expending taxes for such activities is unlawful.

HOW SHALL WE STOP THEFT TAXATION?

The solution for how to save our Constitutional Republic is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama. He is leading the transfer of the wealth of those persons and organizations who lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.

Nowhere in the Constitution"not even in Article I. Section 8.--has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to make such wealth transfers. Any branch of the federal government that makes such wealth transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation to support this Constitution""Article VI. Making such wealth transfers is exercising "powers not delegated to the United States" and therefore violates the Constitution"Amendment X. Making such wealth transfers is an act of treason against the United States and is "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" "Article III. Section 3.

We have to convince those in the House of Representatives, who do not violate their oaths to support the Constitution, to make a motion to impeach President Obama. Failure--or excessive delay--to take this necessary first step will guarantee the transformation of our country from a Constitutional Republic to a dictatorship.

LIST OF OBAMA'S BILLION DOLLAR THEFT TAXATIONS (SPECIFIED IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS):

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
February 17, 2009 Getting to $787 Billion
After a month of wrangling, 246 House Democrats, 57 Senate Democrats and three Senate Republicans voted late last week to pass a compromise economic recovery package of spending provisions, tax cuts and aid to laid-off workers and their families. The 1,073-page bill, signed into law Monday by President Obama, contains hundreds of provisions. This is how they add up (listed in order of decreasing expenditures).

Healthcare Federal aid to states for Medicaid spending $90,044

Aid to states to balance education budgets, prevent cutbacks and modernize schools $40,600

Individual aid Extension of jobless benefits for up to 33 weeks $26,960

Individual aid 65% subsidy for laid-off workers to continue paying premiums for former employer's health plan for nine months $24,749

Aid Food 13% increase in food stamp payments $19,991

Aid Healthcare Incentive payments to hospitals and physicians who computerize medical-records systems $17,559

Aid Education Increase in Pell Grant to $5,350 in 2009 and to $5,550 in 2010, and other increases to student aid $17,114

Spending Education Funding for 'Title I' education programs for disadvantaged children $13,000

Spending Education Grants for special education programs $12,200

Individual aid Increase in weekly unemployment benefits by $25 $8,800

Aid to states for public safety and critical services $8,000

Spending Outdoors Loans for communities to upgrade wastewater treatment systems and drinking water infrastructure $6,400

Spending Energy Energy efficiency grants to states and local governments $6,300

Aid to states in form of bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education $5,000

Spending Energy Home weatherization grants to low and middle-income families $5,000

Spending Commerce Grants to provide wireless and broadband infrastructure to communities, including public computer centers and sustainable adoption of broadband service $4,350

Spending Housing Repairs and modernization of public housing projects $4,000

Spending Energy Loan guarantees for standard renewables $4,000

Individual aid Grants for states modernizing unemployment compensation coverage among low-wage, part-time and other workers $2,975

Individual aid Aid to states for temporary assistance to needy families payments (TANF) $2,418

Spending Housing Funds for building and rehabilitating low-income housing using green technology $2,250

Spending Housing Energy efficiency retrogrades to low-income housing, including new insulation, windows and furnaces $2,250

Spending Justice Grants to state and local law enforcement $2,225

Spending Housing Funds for communities to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed and vacant properties $2,000

Spending Health and Services Grants to states for childcare services for low-income working parents $2,000

Spending Health and Services Renovation and health IT purchases for community health centers $2,000

Spending Energy Advanced batteries manufacturing grants $2,000

Individual aid Two-year extension of program providing income support and training benefits for workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing overseas $1,600

Aid Housing Grants for short-term help with rent and housing relocation for homeless families $1,500

Spending Farming Grants for rural waste and waste disposal $1,380

Spending Labor Grants to states for dislocated worker employment and training activities $1,250

Spending Labor Grants to states for youth training, including summer jobs $1,200

Individual aid Waiver on interest payments and accrual in interest on loans held by state unemployment trust funds $1,100

Spending Health and Services "Early Head Start" programs for low-income infants $1,100

Spending Health and Services Funding for research comparing effectiveness of treatments funded by Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP $1,100

Individual aid Extra funding for child support enforcement $1,000

Spending Housing Grants for community and economic development projects $1,000

Spending Veterans Renovations and energy efficiency improvements to veterans medical facilities $1,000

Spending Health and Services Funding for community preventative health campaigns, vaccination programs, healthcare-associated infection reduction strategies $1,000

Spending Health and Services Grants for community employment, food, housing and healthcare projects $1,000

Spending Health and Services "Head Start" programs for low-income preschoolers $1,000

Spending Justice Grants to state and local law enforcement to hire extra police officers $1,000

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You haven't answered the question; exactly which legislation does that? All you've done is spew garbage. You must explain why they are "theft taxation" by the laws established by our Constitution. Your opinion is worth less than .01c.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

ican is proof that we need to spend more money for education.

1 Reply

@parados,

okie belongs in that group too!

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

I wrote: "It is not moral and just for one person to be forced to help pay for the charity given to other persons."

Debra, you wrote: "It is moral and just to require you--as a citizen/resident of this nation--to pay taxes. The taxes that you pay, along with the taxes that I pay, go into a general fund. Our elected representatives make policy decisions that influence how federal money is spent."

It is not moral and just to violate the rule of law in the USA. In particular, it is not moral and just to violate the "supreme law of the land", the Constitution of the USA. It is not moral and just for our elected representatives to make policy decisions that force the expenditure of federal money that they are not granted the power by our Constitution to make. It is not moral and just for our federal representatives to spend our money they collect in taxes, any whichaway they want. As Benjamin Franklin among others argued: "We [members of Congress] do not have the power to give away money that is not ours [members of Congress] to give."

BUT, is it moral and just to lawfully amend the Constitution to make it lawful for one person to be forced to help pay for the charity the federal government gives to other persons?

The question then worth debating is whether such a lawful amendment itself would be moral and just?

I say such an amendment would not be moral and just.

I assume you would say such an amendment would be moral and just.

I say it would not be moral and just, because granting Congress the power to force us by legislation to give away some of our money to a federal government managed charity to help people in need, will lead to a majority of the receivers of such charity not to being held accountable for their own self-improvement, but to become permanently dependent receivers of such charity.

The voluntary givers and managers of charity, on the otherhand, are usually highly motivated to make sure the receivers are motivated to grow more self-reliant and independent, and ultimately no longer needful of such charity. The receivers of such charity are held accountable by the voluntary charities to improve themselves, because the givers and managers of such charity are highly motivated to make sure the receivers are held accountable.

Examine the results of federal government legislated charity versus the results of voluntary charity!

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Quote:

"I agree that okie overstated the case here. However, it isn't yet clear what the administration will do about either the licenses pending for new nuclear power plants or the opening of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Moreover it appears that "promoting responsible domestic production of oil..." really means no new offshore drilling or no drilling on the North Slape of Alaska. The scientific case for the proposition that neither of these options is "responsible", given the worldwide record of successful, environmentally safe off shore production and our earlier experience on the north slope simply doesn't exist.

The claims the administration makes in these areas are evasive and likely duplicitous. "

Your last sentence might just as well, in my opinion, be applied not only to the President's campaign rhetoric but also his Admin's overall MO. The former is understandable and has become acceptable during such events (not by me however; John McCain was much clearer in relating his policies, when he understood them fully). However, good leaders obtain the best info and analysis Re problems and crises then implement a decision they feel will be, overall, in the best interests for those they lead. This president uses obfuscation, feel good phraseology, and finger in the wind tests to avoid actual responsibility and voter ire for past and future decisions. Obama said, or implied, or led us (and more importantly John McCain) to believe he would nobly participate in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. When it became clear the terms of that law would actually restrict his allowable campaign spending relative to the amounts he was actually raising, that inconvenient nobility was quickly jettisoned.

Further, we have this Admin's so called tough talk of GM 's Bankruptcy in the near future. We might ask: What type shall it be, Chapter 7, 13, or 11? Since old habits die hard Obama’s response yields not a type but a qualifier: "Surgical"! This, of course, is just our government picking winners and losers. The losers here ,in addition to the nation, is Rick Wagoner and GM stockholders and the winners are going to be Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW, and the Dems (who get access to the UAW's dues filled treasury via campaign contributions and UAW propaganda). It has to be 'Surgical' because the Admin was not going to let some judge in Delaware interfere with its monetary relationship with the UAW. The phraseology here was ‘Save the American Auto Industry'. We all know that if GM and Chrysler disappeared tomorrow we would still, not only have an American Auto Industry employing American auto workers, but that it would be even more productive and profitable than ever. Then the only question would be: How much would the government have to help the industry's suppliers?

The real irony here is that the one original 'American Auto industry' member, that made the correct and hard business decisions years ago so that it is still viable and without need for government charity today, has to now compete with GSEs (think Fannie and Freddie ) GM and Chrysler. The former selling cars built with taxpayer money, that same money further allowing GM to compete against Ford by offering 0% / 60 mos interest rate term loans (and Obama's Bumper to Bumper warranty). The latter's survivability depending on whether or not an Italian auto firm will agree to take Obama's 6 billion (USD) bri ...err ... loan. If I was Fiat I would demand a better deal simply because they would probably get it. You know, there was a time when American auto workers took sledgehammers to foreign made cars and cursed their creators. But times have changed.

JM

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicer, I listed exactly that legislation costing taxpayers a billion dollars or more, "which legislation does that," in the very post you are condemning as "garbage." Again, the source should you want to study the entire list objectively will be found at:

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
February 17, 2009 Getting to $787 Billion
After a month of wrangling, 246 House Democrats, 57 Senate Democrats and three Senate Republicans voted late last week to pass a compromise economic recovery package of spending provisions, tax cuts and aid to laid-off workers and their families. The 1,073-page bill, signed into law Monday by President Obama, contains hundreds of provisions. This is how they add up (listed in order of decreasing expenditures).
...

I did explain many times "why they are "theft taxation" by the laws established by our Constitution." They are THEFT TAXATION because neither Congress or the President are empowered by the Constitution to exercise powers not granted by the Constitution to Congress or to the President. As the 10th Amendment points out, powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states or to the people, AND NOT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE RELEVANT POWERS GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF TAXES

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
The Constitution of the United States of America
Article I
...
Section 8.
...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
The Bill of Rights (1791)
...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Your problem, cicer, is you do not hold yourself to the same standard of evidence you hold those with whom you disagree. Of course, that makes your opinion worth less than $0.01, since your standards of evidence are so arbitrary.

To help you improve your knowledge on this subject, I recommend you thoroughly read Federalist papers Nos. 36, 41, and 45:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know