Very interesting that in another post today you reminded us that "REAGAN and BUSH used PRESIDENTIAL POWER to make executive orders that benefited immigrants" and here you say "Repubs fundamentally disagree with the notion of allowing illegal immigrants the right to apply for citizenship".
Get your story straight...
giroux, I rarely reply directly to you because you are so off base.
For example, on one hand you say Hateful Repubs like "REAGAN and BUSH used PRESIDENTIAL POWER to make executive orders that benefited immigrants". May I also remind you that Obama himself has boasted that he has deported more illegal aliens than any other president? ...even though YOU say "Greedy Repubs want all illegals exported".
You are chasing your tail.
I have to agree with Rogere on this one, as you clearly insinuated that it really doesn't matter what man does at this point, as the CO2 levels are rising too fast for man to do really anything about it. I think Rogere was trying to argue long past that you were pretty much taking the attitude that like someone who smoked for 20 years, already would have done to much damage to themselves to matter much if they quit. Trying to go back and look at every one of your posts is a waste of Rogere's time. Just be aware that what Rogere said you inferred was certainly what I remember, but I am not going back and wasting time looking over the voluminous amounts of BS OT posts that you have put up.
Yeah... best of luck with that lame brain idea that Repubs won't continue to obstruct... now they will obstruct even more and are already posturing to shut down the governement (AGAIN!!!) over Obama's immigration executive order.. the FANATICAL REPUBS have short-term memory since REAGAN and BUSH used PRESIDENTIAL POWER to make executive orders that benefited immigrants but NOW... Hateful Repubs will try to not allow Obama to do the same. They think that you need to belong to the Repub party to make Executive Orders regarding immigrants apparently... why should the Dems get credit for doing anything on the issue right?... Seems to me that only the Dems give a care about the matter... Greedy Repubs want all illegals exported even though 95 percent of them are performing in jobs that the rest of the country does not want to do... should that change?... should we only hire TRUE AMERICANS to clean hotel rooms from now on?... how much is a hotel room these days?... a good clean one that you can trust sleeping in?... $120 on the low side I would say and that's with illegals cleaning it.... Should that price rise up to $200 because of your opinion?.... let them stay and let them work these jobs if they chose, if they chose college and higher profile jobs... more power to them... they were here before your greedy white but.
Repubs fundamentally disagree with the notion of allowing illegal immigrants the right to apply for citizenship... therefore, after witnessing the casting out of Eric Cantor, your opinion appears to be outside of your party's conventional wisdom... mind you that I just threw up in my mouth applying the word "wisdom" to a party that stands for nothing but for a bunch of Greedy Tyrants
Hi Mr. Giroux
From your post: "Gives the country a chance to really see what fanatical obstructionists they are"
Uhhhh! The republicans won't be obstructionists any longer. The democrats will be. The republicans will be able to pass whatever legislation they want in the house. In the senate, they will need a few democrats to get past that long speech thing used by the minority party to obstruct bills. If they can get past the democrat obstructionists in the senate, then the bills will land on the chief obstructionists desk.
The republicans have been the obstructionists for the last 4 years. Now it's the democrats turn to be the obstructionists.
Best of luck,
Gives the country a chance to really see what fanatical obstructionists they are... watch them completely try to cater to their base of BIG OIL, BIG BANK and BIG PHARMA... these guys are complete tools that want HUGE tax breaks for those who don't need them... yet cut money that goes to feeding poor children and their mothers to allow for those tax breaks to the ULTRA-WEALTHY.... I guess if you're poor, the Repubs feel that you should just hurry up and starve to death since you are some kind of burden on them... they may have gotten rich off this country but God forbid they should have to do anything for it's prosperity such as feed STARVING LITTLE CHILDREN and their MOTHERS. They got more yachts and mansions to buy so everything else is not a priority.
I feel that a president who is in touch with their emotions would be good for this country... don't forget that GWB admitted to crying multiple times while in office as president... too bad he was a douch though.
lakeed, when we talk about Government, we are talking about the Federal Government unless we say otherwise. Same for Taxes.
Hi Mr. Rogere,
Another item here. From your post, attributed to me: ""there is nothing man can do to stop or turn around Global warming"
I don't remember ever saying that. I don't believe I ever did make that statement. I don't think this was every my belief. If you have a link, perhaps you will prove my memory wrong.
What I do remember saying, is that in order to stop the increase in the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, we must reduce our generation of it back to the levels we generated around the year 1800. This, being quite consistent with the teachings of Mr. Gore. Mr. Gore insists that so long as carbon-dioxide levels are rising in the atmosphere due to man's combustion of fossil fuels, we shall continue to see the problems associated with global warming.
Mr. Gore goes on to show the hockey stick chart of carbon-dioxide concentration over time in our atmosphere, and insists that this is what is causing global warming.
This concept did not come from me. It is considered a fundamental component of global warming science. You might try reading Mr. Gore's book as I have.
What I have done, different than what Mr. Gore or the 97% of scientists have done, is actually go through the mathematics of that philosophy/science. And the end result, is that in order to return to man's generation rate of carbon-dioxide in the year 1800, in order to stop it from increasing, we would have to reduce our current generation by over 99.9%.
Several times on this board I have offered a plan to accomplish this task. So, your saying that I think: ""there is nothing man can do to stop or turn around Global warming"" , is inconsistent with my memory.
I never said we can't. I just said it is highly unlikely that we ever will.
If you don't have a link to substantiate somebody's quote, you probably shouldn't quote anybody. You really suck/kcus at it. I searched forthat quote. It's not there.
"WalMart claims it will be 100% renewable by 2020."
No it doesn't.
What WalMart claims is that it plans to generate or purchase 7 billion kwh of renewable energy by the end of 2020. There is NO statement about what percent of their TOTAL power use will derived from renewable sources.
But we can calculate an approximate percentage.
Starting with recent EPA numbers for the biggest "Green" retailers, WMT consumed 650,716,703 kwh of "green" power.
Again, per the EPA, that was 3% of WMT's total power use. Which would mean that WMT consumed 21,690,556,767 kwh of power.
As you can see, 7 billion kwh would mean that WMT is targeting ONLY 33% apx of it's total power use to be generated from renewable.
It is true that they also hope to cut power use by 20% through conservation efforts. Which would mean that total power use - if no new stores, offices, or warehouse operations are opened - would be 17,352,445,413 kwh.
Which would mean their 7 billion renewable target would be 40% of expected power usage in 2020.
Compared to most states' RPS, 40% is a very good number.
But it is not 100%
As usual, you have your "facts" wrong. But be feel free to "bank" on your mistaken understanding.
why-do-democrats-look-down-on-voters? The answer is really simple. The democrat party thinks that their socialist/communist agenda is great for America. It comes from really smart people. Like Harry Reid and Nanci Pelosi. When they find that the majority of voters disagree, they justify the intelligence of their leaders by claiming that the voters are stupid/diputs. Democrats only respect voters that agree with them. If they disagree, they consider them stupid/diputs. All one needs do is review the responses from the far left on this board regarding the recent election to understand this.
A quote from the article, which is actually true for both parties: "The party, without a doubt, is its own worst enemy."
Also from the article: "Politics is about selling." This depends upon the political system. In a communist country, such as Cuba, there is no selling required. In a particracy such as America, In my mind, it should read: "Successful politics is about successful selling". Because, the real definition of politics is about groups of people wrestling the political power out of the hands of the citizens so they can further their personal/ideological/and party agenda. If the republican or democrat party can sell an idea, and get a majority of voters to follow it, both the selling and the politicks will be successful. Unlike in communism where a handful decide the agenda, then the party supports it, and it is then forced on the people with little or no concern for their will.
Politics is about selling. In between brutal honesty about the full consequences of any particular policy and bald-faced lies about what's intended is a wide zone of permissible salesmanship. As it happens, I think it would be good practice -- and good tactics as well -- for politicians to be more forthright thaBut the fact remains, all
Hillary is a perennial candidate, always running for something......the Harold Stassen of the democratic party.
To boot she cries easily, not presidential stuff. It destroyed Ed Muskie when he blubbered in '68.
blubber, blubber, blubber.
The DOE tapped GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to lead a research and development project aimed at supporting advanced reactor technology development. Advanced reactor designs have existed for decades, but few (or none, depending on your definition of "advanced") have been licensed and commercialized.
The most important part of the DOE deal in the near term is the multimillion-dollar investment from Uncle Sam that will be used to provide an updated safety assessment of PRISM with Argonne National Laboratory. Why does it need to be updated? Two reasons:
The last safety assessment was conducted in the early 1990s during the unofficial moratorium on nuclear technology in the United States following the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Of course, a lot has changed since then in terms of global energy demand and new risk characterizations.
For PRISM, there are no "modern next-generation probabilistic risk assessment methodologies," which consider how complex systems work together to quantify and characterize risk factors. In other words, it's a good idea to take a deeper look into the design limits and process metrics for the new reactor now that it's 2014.
While providing an updated safety assessment might trigger little more than a shoulder shrug from investors, this is actually pretty big news.
Again BS is BSing everyone.
Why it not his view ,he just post the views of others.
You are nothing but a joke.
SCS,all Americans pay taxes.You do know about sales tax,FICA,property tax,and a whole list of others ,like Gosoline Tax,don't you?
Hi Mr. Rogere,
From your post: "Mr. BS you are truly amazing at how you form your logic pattern. Upside down to say the least.
You state how the 97% figure came into being as if you know and in truth you do not know.
Wow, you are really going overboard on this one.
Did you actually even read what I wrote?
As a reminder, here's the first line: "I had to think about this article awhile. Finally, I think I see what it is saying."
I am responding with my perception of the meaning and intent of the "author".
I understand that is probably way too deep for you.
But I am responding to the article. Those points you erroneously say are from me, are actually from the author of the article.
I had to read and reread this article a few times to catch on to what he was saying.
I finally got it.
If you are capable of removing the colored lenses over your eyes, have an open mind, and read the article a couple of times, maybe, just maybe, you will get it too.
Also from your post: "Know one knows the exact % who believe on way or the other about global warming or for that matter what % of believers has now changed or altered their ideas. "
I get your point. I even agree with you. However, Mr. Obama doesn't agree with us. Mr. Obama uses the 97% number to support his actions.
So, to clarify "my" point, The current administration uses bogus numbers from bogus sources to further their ideological and party agenda.
It sounds to me like you and I are in agreement on this point, No?
Best of luck,
I agree with you keembo, the republicans need to address immigration reform soon - not just because of the 2016 election but because it is the right thing to do. The republicans also need to show real leadership and results if they expect any success in 2016. First, I wish they would broadcast some near term goals and challenge Obama to work with them.