Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As mentioned earlier, Michelle Malkin has reported that Pelosi stands to gain financially from high petroleum prices. Here is the link and an excerpt.

    As reported on dontgomovement.com, Mrs. Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Mr. Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

    "She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive."

    CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Mrs. Pelosi's home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives - namely, natural gas and wind.

    Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist's terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with the Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion-dollar wind farm investment: "A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset... he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

    And so, potentially, does the Democratic Speaker of the House - all the while wagging her finger at the financial motivation of others.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
      You cannot attribute the falling prices to just one factor. As price increased, producers sought ways to increase their output, in order to make more profits. Our decreasing demands have helped bring down prices, but the market is still "supply driven".
      Fair enough.

      I was under the impression that people believe that lifting the offshore was the major cause of decreasing prices. That is not how the commodities market works. The possibility of increased oil production on a minor scale by 2022 has zero affect upon pricing for oil available NOW and being purchased NOW. Even the futures market doesn't look that long-term when a relatively insignificant amount of oil is involved--7% of our domestic production by 2030 in the context of global oil production is literally a drop in the ocean.
      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
        Fair enough.

        I was under the impression that people believe that lifting the offshore was the major cause of decreasing prices. That is not how the commodities market works. The possibility of increased oil production on a minor scale by 2022 has zero affect upon pricing for oil available NOW and being purchased NOW. Even the futures market doesn't look that long-term when a relatively insignificant amount of oil is involved--7% of our domestic production by 2030 in the context of global oil production is literally a drop in the ocean.
        1. I'm not certain YOU understand how commodities markets work. It's why they call them FUTURES.
        2. The figures you are throwing out there are not backed by any fact. The fact is, there is no significant exploration necessary. Significant amounts of oil, by some accounts, could be drawn within 2 years of getting the go-ahead. Ezpecially if the Dems do not continue the quest to impose a punitive and confiscatory tax on the oil companies.
        3. The price of oil began to fall the day after the announcement by the Pres. You can try to spin this all you want, but facts are facts. I believe the announcement tanked the price and the decrease in demand is helping to sustain it. There are some projections of $80 bbl. by the end of the year. It is not a coincidence.
        PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

        Comment


        • Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

          Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
          As mentioned earlier, Michelle Malkin has reported that Pelosi stands to gain financially from high petroleum prices. .
          Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

          http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=72225


          Thursday, August 14, 2008

          T. Boone Pickens, Rep. Nancy Pelosi

          TV commercials touting a new clean energy strategy and an environmental ballot measure in California have one thing in common: If they succeed, they'll make investors - from "big oil" to the U.S. Capitol - a lot of money.

          The ads champion Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens' "Pickens Plan" to move the U.S. from foreign oil dependence to domestically produced wind power and natural gas fuel for automobiles. The plan is touted as a cleaner, more eco-friendly alternative to our current reliance on coal power and gasoline.

          The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money - $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times - to promote natural gas as an cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.

          Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

          CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

          While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

          According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

          Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

          In an L.A. Times editorial, Anthony Rubenstein was highly critical of Proposition 10, calling the measure billed as environmental altruism a "raid on California's general fund" to support "Pickens' self-serving national gas agenda."

          "The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources," Rubenstein wrote. "But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs. . Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology."

          Rubenstein also noted that Proposition 10 charges environmentally conscious Californians with the bill for an initiative that may not benefit California at all.

          "Even worse, private trucking and delivery companies could buy 5,000 natural gas trucks, collect California taxpayer-funded rebates of $200 million or more and immediately send those fleets out of state," he wrote. "It's like asking California voters to finance a new bridge with taxpayer dollars, without mentioning that the bridge could be in Ohio."

          As WND reported, Pickens touting of wind power is also tainted by his opportunity to profit. The Economist reports Pickens' oil company, Mesa Oil, has invested $2 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

          If the "Pickens Plan" calling for more wind power and natural gas fuel is implemented, it will further the billionaire's other ventures as well, including a major land and water investment in the Texas panhandle that would essentially enable Pickens' companies to control a water pipeline the way petroleum companies control oil supplies.

          The venture, according to the Terrell Tribune, includes forming a fresh water district in Texas' western panhandle and spending over $100 million to acquire rights-of-way through as many as 12 counties to ship the water to water-needy Texas cities. Part of selling the plan to investors and thirsty municipalites, some of whom have balked at the idea of private water control, is coupling the water pipeline with power lines from Mesa Oil's massive wind farm.

          "It is hard to tell if the water scheme is the device being used to seize the land or if the wind turbine scheme is the means by which he will fund the water scheme," wrote William R. Collier Jr. in the #dontgo investigation that uncovered the link between Pickens and Pelosi.

          Collier further speculated Pelosi's investment partnership with Pickens will profit them both.

          "No matter what the case may be, Nancy Pelosi will personally profit from whatever [Pickens] does as an investor."

          Collier points out Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and that her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."

          Likewise, Collier pointed to potential benefits for Pickens to have Pelosi's support, not only for the legislation CLNE wants passed, but also for her help with touting his "Pickens Plan."

          "While the stock was initially offered at $14 and is now valued below that amount, the low of $10 in early July of this year is bouncing back," wrote Collier, "especially in light of ads by Pickens and growing consensus that the Pickens plan will gain support, especially if Pelosi is firmly behind it."
          01.20.13
          Change We Can Believe In.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
            Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

            http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=72225


            Thursday, August 14, 2008

            T. Boone Pickens, Rep. Nancy Pelosi

            TV commercials touting a new clean energy strategy and an environmental ballot measure in California have one thing in common: If they succeed, they'll make investors - from "big oil" to the U.S. Capitol - a lot of money.

            The ads champion Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens' "Pickens Plan" to move the U.S. from foreign oil dependence to domestically produced wind power and natural gas fuel for automobiles. The plan is touted as a cleaner, more eco-friendly alternative to our current reliance on coal power and gasoline.

            The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money - $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times - to promote natural gas as an cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.

            Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.

            CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.

            While Pickens touts a plan in the name of environmentalism that will also line his company's pockets, a #dontgo investigation has revealed that another environmental champion and backer of Proposition 10 has also invested in CLNE: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

            According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.

            Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels.

            In an L.A. Times editorial, Anthony Rubenstein was highly critical of Proposition 10, calling the measure billed as environmental altruism a "raid on California's general fund" to support "Pickens' self-serving national gas agenda."

            "The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources," Rubenstein wrote. "But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs. . Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology."

            Rubenstein also noted that Proposition 10 charges environmentally conscious Californians with the bill for an initiative that may not benefit California at all.

            "Even worse, private trucking and delivery companies could buy 5,000 natural gas trucks, collect California taxpayer-funded rebates of $200 million or more and immediately send those fleets out of state," he wrote. "It's like asking California voters to finance a new bridge with taxpayer dollars, without mentioning that the bridge could be in Ohio."

            As WND reported, Pickens touting of wind power is also tainted by his opportunity to profit. The Economist reports Pickens' oil company, Mesa Oil, has invested $2 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

            If the "Pickens Plan" calling for more wind power and natural gas fuel is implemented, it will further the billionaire's other ventures as well, including a major land and water investment in the Texas panhandle that would essentially enable Pickens' companies to control a water pipeline the way petroleum companies control oil supplies.

            The venture, according to the Terrell Tribune, includes forming a fresh water district in Texas' western panhandle and spending over $100 million to acquire rights-of-way through as many as 12 counties to ship the water to water-needy Texas cities. Part of selling the plan to investors and thirsty municipalites, some of whom have balked at the idea of private water control, is coupling the water pipeline with power lines from Mesa Oil's massive wind farm.

            "It is hard to tell if the water scheme is the device being used to seize the land or if the wind turbine scheme is the means by which he will fund the water scheme," wrote William R. Collier Jr. in the #dontgo investigation that uncovered the link between Pickens and Pelosi.

            Collier further speculated Pelosi's investment partnership with Pickens will profit them both.

            "No matter what the case may be, Nancy Pelosi will personally profit from whatever [Pickens] does as an investor."

            Collier points out Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and that her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."

            Likewise, Collier pointed to potential benefits for Pickens to have Pelosi's support, not only for the legislation CLNE wants passed, but also for her help with touting his "Pickens Plan."

            "While the stock was initially offered at $14 and is now valued below that amount, the low of $10 in early July of this year is bouncing back," wrote Collier, "especially in light of ads by Pickens and growing consensus that the Pickens plan will gain support, especially if Pelosi is firmly behind it."
            Watch. Later today, someone will post that the GOP is making this up, that it is not really a financial gain for Pelosi, that GOP members of Congress also own the stock, that a GOP rep did this in the past or some other ninsense to try to negate this story.

            Imagine if one of the GOP Congress members was doing the same thing? Do you think that the mainstream media would ignore it? Or call for an impeachment?
            PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
              In related news, the Energy Information Administration this week announced that U.S. oil demand fell by an average 800,000 barrels per day during the first half of 2008, constituting the biggest volume decline in 26 years. The EIA predicts that U.S. oil demand will average just over 20 million barrels per day in 2009, which would be the lowest level of consumption since 2003. And for those paying attention, since President George W. Bush rescinded the Executive Order banning offshore drilling on 14 July, oil has dropped from $147 a barrel to $113. That’s not a coincidence.
              I did find it amusing that once the talk of increased production hit the air the price dropped. In fact, one station nearby here went from $4.29 to $4.05 a gallon overnight. The folks buying futures do so on the hunch that the price will go up, for whatever reason. This is impacted by things like economic conditions, supply, demand, regulation, hurricanes, wars, political unrest in other countries, as well as a few others.

              What I find funny is the liberals tend to sway things there direction for arguments sake. For instance, they make the claim that it would take 10 years to see oil from any new rigs. I would be willing to bet that since private industry is building the rigs and not government that time will be far less. There are also the claims that 20% of the worlds oil reserves lie north of the arctic circle. Is is stated that there is enough oil there to support the world for around 5 years. If that is the case then there is only enough oil in the world to last 25 years.

              I do laugh at Pelosi though; she sounds like an idiot when she makes statements like "I want to save the Planet". Then again, every time she opens her mouth she sounds like an idiot. At any rate, stopping drilling off-shore or in ANWR will not save the planet. In fact I question why it is OK to drill off shore in Canada but not next door in the US. The only thing she is doing is pushing an ill advised agenda.

              I do see wind power as an excellent alternative. While the wind doesn't always blow, it does blow day and night, making it superior to solar. However, wind mills meet with objections from environmentalist as it destroys scenic landscapes. WHoopy doo!!! Can't have it both ways there boys and girls.

              Hydro is a great alternative as well; one which the US does not fully leverage to it's fullest capability. Again, this meets with environmental objections.

              The one place Solar would be an excellent choice is in warmer climates. The day time sun could be used to power photo voltaic cells which in turn could power air conditioning.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                3. The price of oil began to fall the day after the announcement by the Pres. You can try to spin this all you want, but facts are facts. I believe the announcement tanked the price and the decrease in demand is helping to sustain it. There are some projections of $80 bbl. by the end of the year. It is not a coincidence.
                You base your claim on what exactly? Even if the two year figure were true, the amount being extracted would have minimal if any impact on supply.

                That said, nobody has yet produced a shred of evidence that talk of opening the OCS is directly responsible for the global drop in the price of oil.

                What we have been told by those who watch oil is that the price spike caused reduced demand in Asia, the US and Europe, which led to increased supply, and thus a drop in price.

                That is supply and demand. What is available to sell NOW, what the demand is NOW, and how those two factors interplay. Not the maybe and perhaps of supplies which might become available and be in the global supply 10-20 years from now.
                Last edited by scfire86; 08-17-2008, 10:43 AM.
                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                  Pelosi, Pickens plan to pick your pocket

                  http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=72225
                  If you get to cite the WND as a legitimate source I get to start citing Democratic Underground. WND is the source of a video trying to make the claim that Obama is a muslim.

                  Amongst much extreme conservative bias.
                  They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                  I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by doughesson View Post
                    No,imagine if before a law could be voted on,the sponsor had to recite all previous laws voted and passed.They wouldn't want to name so many laws if that were the case.
                    Or,how about if they couldn't use a staff to do their paperwork but had to do it all themselves?Again,that much work would impinge on their free time and they'd have to be more aware of what laws we already have before adding another one just to get their names in the papers back home.
                    Are you suggesting they actually do their JOBS?!! What a novel concept??

                    I will tell you that I find it alarming that they are talking about getting more relief for low income families for heat this winter. Why not just once get relief for ALL Americans? It has gotten to the point where it is better to be poor and unemployed in this country rather than make $50,000 a year.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
                      What I find funny is the liberals tend to sway things there direction for arguments sake. For instance, they make the claim that it would take 10 years to see oil from any new rigs. I would be willing to bet that since private industry is building the rigs and not government that time will be far less. There are also the claims that 20% of the worlds oil reserves lie north of the arctic circle. Is is stated that there is enough oil there to support the world for around 5 years. If that is the case then there is only enough oil in the world to last 25 years.
                      I love an argument based on hypotheticals.

                      If the moratorium was lifted today, the DoE estimates that production would begin around 2017 and that full-scale extraction wouldn't occur until 2030, at which time the additional 200,000 bbl/day, would be an increase of approximately 7%.

                      Money quote from the DoE:
                      Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
                      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
                        Although I am undoubtedly the most intelligent person most of you will ever encounter
                        Not trying to start a fight...but I'm curious as to what you base that on?
                        Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

                        IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

                        "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
                        RUSH-Tom Sawyer

                        Success is when skill meets opportunity
                        Failure is when fantasy meets reality

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                          If you get to cite the WND as a legitimate source I get to start citing Democratic Underground. WND is the source of a video trying to make the claim that Obama is a muslim.

                          Amongst much extreme conservative bias.
                          SC, attack the facts, disprove the information... Attacking the source while ignoring the data comes across as a weak attempt at deflecting the seriousness of the allegations.

                          Lets not forget, it was the much maligned rag of ill repute: National Inquirer that busted your Democratic not long ago presidential hopeful; John Edwards, just last week.



                          Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
                          01.20.13
                          Change We Can Believe In.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                            SC, attack the facts, disprove the information... Attacking the source while ignoring the data comes across as a weak attempt at deflecting the seriousness of the allegations.
                            I really don't have the time or inclination. I'll just do what conservatives do when confronted with similar writings they view coming from a liberal source. Dismiss it as being slanted and therefore unreliable.

                            Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                            Lets not forget, it was the much maligned rag of ill repute: National Inquirer that busted your Democratic not long ago presidential hopeful; John Edwards, just last week.
                            Can you point me to where I have ever supported John Edwards?
                            Last edited by scfire86; 08-17-2008, 11:52 AM.
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
                              Although I am undoubtedly the most intelligent person most of you will ever encounter


                              Originally posted by Dave1983 View Post
                              Not trying to start a fight...but I'm curious as to what you base that on?
                              (ah geeez...) Liberals have no sense of humor - Raughammer

                              ---------------------

                              Are conservatives harder workers that feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less and even hug their children more than liberals? According to research by Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, the answer is a resounding yes.

                              In his new book Makers and Takers, Schweizer demonstrates through new data and research that the common liberal stereotype painting conservatives as self-centered, angry, cheating, money-grubbing authoritarians are myth. In fact, Schweizer claims that these negative traits more often apply to liberals, and that his book exposes how: “Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives. Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals. Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives. Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying. Liberals are more angry than conservatives. Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals. Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.” Certainly, Schweizer has discovered nothing we didn’t already know, but this is one book we will be adding to our summer reading list. -The Patriot (Via Email)
                              01.20.13
                              Change We Can Believe In.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
                                Are conservatives harder workers that feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less and even hug their children more than liberals? According to research by Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution, the answer is a resounding yes.
                                What another surprise. A conservative author from a conservative think tank claiming all of the above.

                                Here's a link claiming Believers are happier than Atheists. I especially liked this quote:

                                Believers, for example, were less likely to look for a new job if they were out of work.

                                I can conclude that while believers are happier they are also lazier.
                                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X