Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

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

  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    Back to the topic of the thread...you know, the one where the Rethuglicans attempted to attach their energy nonsense to a bill concerning veterans. Gotta love how the idiots on the right booed the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Classy.

    My friend, the topic of this thread is how the folks in DC acted irresponsibly and just walked off the job. Just once I wish they would stop acting like children and work to solve our problems. Even I can see that the solution is to open up areas for drilling to increase the supply of oil. And at the same time they need to start encouraging the use of alternative sources. Screw the landscape or scenic view, put up the wind towers. Tap into the numerous sources of hydro electric. Dam up the grand canyon and place huge turbines at the bottom to produce all the energy we need (just kidding ). But there are numerous places that cold take advantage of this hydro. How many reservoirs have been built to provide water for cities? Why not put turbines in those to generate electricity? And find out why if I go to buy green power off the grid I have to pay more, not less for the electricity.

    The folks on the hill are so polarized that they are forgetting to do what is best for the country. I laugh when you hear the democrats crying about some initiative or bill George Bush wants. They tell us how bad it is and why it is wrong. And then the bill passes! What they are really saying is that the initiative or bill is a good one, we just have to make believe it is bad just so we appear to be the opposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Try again. Your graph shows GSP per capita. That means per resident of that state. When the total GSP is shown,CA is first with NY second at about 60% of CA. CT is 23rd, and DE is 40th. Los Angeles County has twice as many residents than both CT and DE combined. That's the largest county in the state. There are 55 others.


    What do you mean DID try? When you say government agencies are a burden on the economy, does that include the DoD, CIA, FBI, CDC, or Interstate Highway System? DoD personnel and resources have been used more than once to protect American business interests abroad. Can you point anyone to any significant infrastructure development (roads, sewers, water projects, etc) by the private sector enabling the more efficient transporting of goods and services? Given there are big business interests who survive at the trough is all the example I need of the incestuous relationship between the two. The business community rants and raves about the business climate but has no problem seeking a tarif, tax exemption, subsidy, or especially a nice no-bid contract from the very entity they claim is detrimental. And BTW. This is a firefighter forum. Would you care to claim the taxes used to fund those agencies are a burden to society or that society doesn't benefit?


    I never said it was a practical idea. And your example is one of the many reasons why it will never happen.
    NY, CA, and DE all have things that make their numbers skewed. De has a large number of corporations that are incorporated there simply because it is easy to do and less of a burden. NY has wall street and the financial district. CA has Hollywood. CA has the largest population and NY is 3rd in population. Texas is second. Looking at it on a per capita basis is more insightful and tells more of the story.

    And yes, government is a burden on business as well as individuals. 43% of my pay check comes right off the top for Federal, State, and SSI taxes. I then get taxed again on the remainder with an 8.25% sales tax, land taxes, and various other hidden taxes and fees (like the 70 cents a gallon at the pump). Unfortunately, our government has learned how to steal from the people. The economy would be far better if that money stayed in the private sector.

    And yes big business lines up for it's cut of the pie ( farm subsidies make me want to puke). But on the other side are the special interest groups, getting an equal cut of the pie. A great example of this is right here in NY state. We have what is known as the Adirondack Park. It is a 6 million acre park in which the state owns half the land. They have done this because the environmentalist want to preserve this area as forever wild. Keep in mind that the number of people who visit the park in it's forever wild areas is less than 0.1% of the population. Yet we pay heavily for this. I say put the money in the hands of the people. Then if the environmentalism want this "pristine" land they can afford it themselves and buy it. My guess is that only a few would feel strongly enough to actually put up.

    By taxing me so heavily they are slowly eroding my personal freedom and forcing me to support things I don't want to support. And this is true for every American.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThNozzleman
    replied
    Back to the topic of the thread...you know, the one where the Rethuglicans attempted to attach their energy nonsense to a bill concerning veterans. Gotta love how the idiots on the right booed the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Classy.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by BryanLoader View Post
    Chief
    A couple of things I agree with you on, The US or even North America won't crumble, but we all better start taking our head out of the sand if we don't want to end up like some of the less enlightened Euro countries. We need to find energy solutions within our own borders, not necessarily more oil, because that is short term bandage at best. If a lot of the money that is being squandered on the stupid war in Iraq, the Canadian equal rights and immigration system, subsidies to big oil by both countries, and political correctness, we could put that money into finding more efficient energy sources. If we keep on like we are doing, we are going to be falling further and further behind in the world economy.
    Yes at this point China does need us because we are such big consumers, but, as more money flows to China as well as India and other Asian countries, they will become their own consumers and won't need us so much. Also as our economies get weaker, we won't have to money to consume so much, which may well be a good thing.
    Yes Regan did put the USSR under, but they are now coming on pretty damn strong under Putin and Medvedev. They have Siberia, which for all intents and purposes is virtually unexplored or unexploited and they are taking control of it again. Witness whats happening to BP and to Shell. They are still a world power and will continue to grow a lot faster than we are. North America needs to quit being the worlds policeman, the worlds dumping ground for refugees, the arbiter of political correctness. We need to be use the abilities that grew our countries into solving our problems, not the worlds. I use Canada and the US together here as we are going to be inextricably twined IMHO for a long time.
    I agree we need to find better sources for energy, but we also need to leverage what we already have. Hydro-electric as well as wind power seem to be the best alternatives right now. Problem with solar is that in the winter months there isn't much sunshine. Problem with hydro is the environmentalist. In fact, around here, the enviros object to wind towers. Is it any wonder the environmentalist are also referred to as anti-people?

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by Raughammer1 View Post
    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won’t even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: ‘I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.’ A lovely sentiment... There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don’t care. We come to save the planet! They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.” —Charles Krauthammer
    Isn't it funny how Save the Planet only applies to the U.S. How come they don't seem to care what happens in China and Mexico. How come it is OK to drill in Canada or Venezuela or Mexico? Aren't they part of the planet too? Ms. Pelosi needs to try again, he double speak doesn't fool me.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I'm sorry, i don't know what is so threatening about this... it merely creates a commission to study the problem. Here is the summary.

    Some radicals will merely post the ominous sounding title to a law, point to it, and give us the old "a ha!" and then intimate to some nefarious black helicopter sounding conspiracy.

    No smoking gun here though...

    10/23/2007Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
    Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
    Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
    Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.




    Once again, whoever is feeding you this information is wrong. READ THE LAW yourself and make sure you understand what you are reading. There is NO mention of any taking of DNA samples anywhere in the law.

    Unbelieveable.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1858
    You beat me too it. I did the same exact research and found the same exact thing coming to the same exact conclusion

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    Chief
    A couple of things I agree with you on, The US or even North America won't crumble, but we all better start taking our head out of the sand if we don't want to end up like some of the less enlightened Euro countries. We need to find energy solutions within our own borders, not necessarily more oil, because that is short term bandage at best. If a lot of the money that is being squandered on the stupid war in Iraq, the Canadian equal rights and immigration system, subsidies to big oil by both countries, and political correctness, we could put that money into finding more efficient energy sources. If we keep on like we are doing, we are going to be falling further and further behind in the world economy.
    Yes at this point China does need us because we are such big consumers, but, as more money flows to China as well as India and other Asian countries, they will become their own consumers and won't need us so much. Also as our economies get weaker, we won't have to money to consume so much, which may well be a good thing.
    Yes Regan did put the USSR under, but they are now coming on pretty damn strong under Putin and Medvedev. They have Siberia, which for all intents and purposes is virtually unexplored or unexploited and they are taking control of it again. Witness whats happening to BP and to Shell. They are still a world power and will continue to grow a lot faster than we are. North America needs to quit being the worlds policeman, the worlds dumping ground for refugees, the arbiter of political correctness. We need to be use the abilities that grew our countries into solving our problems, not the worlds. I use Canada and the US together here as we are going to be inextricably twined IMHO for a long time.



    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    These candidates don't exist in the two party system and the American people don't want them if they did.

    I think you are overly pessimistic, I don't think we will crumble. The country goes through cycles of growth and decline, but overwhelming growth over the long period.

    China is a concern, but China needs us more. We are the consumers of the world, and China is the producer of those goods.

    Idealogy will change as more money goes to china and more information, which they will struggle to control. The internet may do to China what Reagan did to the USSR.
    Last edited by BryanLoader; 08-05-2008, 03:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raughammer1
    replied
    drill-there-not-here

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes lifting the moratorium on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and on the Outer Continental Shelf. She won’t even allow it to come to a vote. With $4 gas having massively shifted public opinion in favor of domestic production, she wants to protect her Democratic members from having to cast an anti-drilling election-year vote. Moreover, given the public mood, she might even lose. This cannot be permitted. Why? Because as she explained to Politico: ‘I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet.’ A lovely sentiment... There are a dizzying number of economic and national security arguments for drilling at home: a $700 billion oil balance-of-payment deficit, a gas tax (equivalent) levied on the paychecks of American workers and poured into the treasuries of enemy and terror-supporting regimes, growing dependence on unstable states of the Persian Gulf and Caspian basin. Pelosi and the Democrats stand athwart shouting: We don’t care. We come to save the planet! They seem blissfully unaware that the argument for their drill-there-not-here policy collapses on its own environmental terms.” —Charles Krauthammer

    Leave a comment:


  • BryanLoader
    replied
    You are definitely right on the Prudhoe Bay terminal but I do know that while Canada and Russia have both confirmed oil and gas strikes north of the circle. its still in the ground. Canada is still working on the Mackensie River Valley pipeline but its tied up with environmental and native land claims and still is a long way from carrying anything. If the NW Passage does open up, it'll be a big difference as they could tanker it out, but there will be a long gap between now and when the first million bbls of oil comes floating down. Plain and simple, we have to utilise a different technology for a lot of our energy needs.


    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Had to dig for this one. It came out a few weeks ago
    Oil in the Arctic — The New Northwest Passage? from the article

    Leave a comment:


  • jsin925
    replied
    ChiefKN:
    the articles were by rep. ron paul and quotes rep. dennis kucinich, did you read them? if congressmen think that the act is unconstitutional, i don't think that it is a conspiracy theory. a quote from rep. dennis kucinich, “If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest,” Kucinich said. “This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.” rep. ron paul states "There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course." i didn't make up the title, congress did. the act defines:
    `(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

    `(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

    `(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

    `(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologicallybased violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

    see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1955

    the act differentiates between force and violence. force is defined by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as (1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power (2)capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale b: moral or mental strength c: capacity to persuade or convince . the civil rights movement was a force, women's sufferage movement was a force, the workers' rights movement was a force. as defined by this act those movements would be deemed dangerous. law is big on semantics.

    S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 is a way of warehousing dna. the Citizens' Council on Health Care states "The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research. Already, in Minnesota, the state health department reports that 42,210 children of the 780,000 whose DNA is housed in the Minnesota "DNA warehouse" have been subjected to genetic research without their parent's knowledge or consent." see
    http://www.cchconline.org/pr/pr040908.php the Citizens' Council on Health Care is a non-profit, independent free-market health care policy organization that supports patient and doctor freedom, medical innovation, and the right to a confidential patient-doctor relationship.

    i don't offer up conspiracy theories, just the facts about what is going on. if that makes me a radical, then so be it. there's no need for black helicopters when the public is uneducated and misinformed.
    Last edited by jsin925; 08-05-2008, 12:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ECCMac
    replied
    Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
    Yes, Americans only started driving gas guzzling SUVs in the last 7 years, before Bush took office they weren't even invented yet.
    Chevrolet Blazers (Tahoes) 1960's
    Chevrolet Suburban was in some form or another since the Depression
    Ford Bronco (Fullsize and II) 1960's
    Ford Explorer (replaced the Bronco II) in the Early 90's...during Slick Willies reign
    International Travel-all Prior to the 60's IIRC

    Sorry, bro...the rest of your post was spot on. The Mantra of US Automakers has always been...if they want it, we will build it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by jsin925 View Post
    H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed by a majority democrat house will be the nail in the coffin for free speech and any kind of dissent in this country. all but 6 representatives (3 dems and 3 reps) voted for it.
    I'm sorry, i don't know what is so threatening about this... it merely creates a commission to study the problem. Here is the summary.

    Some radicals will merely post the ominous sounding title to a law, point to it, and give us the old "a ha!" and then intimate to some nefarious black helicopter sounding conspiracy.

    No smoking gun here though...

    10/23/2007Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
    Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
    Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
    Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.


    Originally posted by jsin925 View Post
    S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 makes it legal for the government to take a sample of your child's dna when he/she is born without your consent or knowledge. also passed by a democrat majority.
    Once again, whoever is feeding you this information is wrong. READ THE LAW yourself and make sure you understand what you are reading. There is NO mention of any taking of DNA samples anywhere in the law.

    Unbelieveable.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1858

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Way too easy
    Bureau of Economic Analysis - Regional Economic Accounts List by state per capita. NY is 3rd, CA is 6th. Delaware and CT top the list.
    Try again. Your graph shows GSP per capita. That means per resident of that state. When the total GSP is shown,CA is first with NY second at about 60% of CA. CT is 23rd, and DE is 40th. Los Angeles County has twice as many residents than both CT and DE combined. That's the largest county in the state. There are 55 others.

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    And yes, business did try to screw people. But it is business who makes the money and brings the money in. Government and it's agencies are without a doubt a burden on the economy, you might say, government taxes the economy.
    What do you mean DID try? When you say government agencies are a burden on the economy, does that include the DoD, CIA, FBI, CDC, or Interstate Highway System? DoD personnel and resources have been used more than once to protect American business interests abroad. Can you point anyone to any significant infrastructure development (roads, sewers, water projects, etc) by the private sector enabling the more efficient transporting of goods and services? Given there are big business interests who survive at the trough is all the example I need of the incestuous relationship between the two. The business community rants and raves about the business climate but has no problem seeking a tarif, tax exemption, subsidy, or especially a nice no-bid contract from the very entity they claim is detrimental. And BTW. This is a firefighter forum. Would you care to claim the taxes used to fund those agencies are a burden to society or that society doesn't benefit?

    Originally posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Great idea, just try to make it happen. Want proof, go watch people shop at WalMart. Heck watch them shop anywhere. Ever see someone go to several car dealers just to get the best deal. How many times have you seen someone go back and forth between two dealers to save a couple hundred dollars. Bottom line is, the American people don't really care about ethics and morals when they spend their money. All they want is what is cheapest. I used to work in retail and I pushed made in the USA goods. Many still want for the cheaper Chinese junk. Funny part, the Chinese junk got replaced on an annual basis. The good stuff lasted years.
    I never said it was a practical idea. And your example is one of the many reasons why it will never happen.
    Last edited by scfire86; 08-04-2008, 11:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jsin925
    replied
    H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed by a majority democrat house will be the nail in the coffin for free speech and any kind of dissent in this country. all but 6 representatives (3 dems and 3 reps) voted for it. here's a couple articles about it: http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/0...ch-on-hr-1955/
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul428.html

    and S. 1858: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 makes it legal for the government to take a sample of your child's dna when he/she is born without your consent or knowledge. also passed by a democrat majority.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScareCrow57
    replied
    Originally posted by jlcooke3 View Post
    You've have only considered one dimension you are either ignoring or ignorant of the possible consquences to U.S. citizens. I'm well aware of what constitutes a foreign country, uh that would be like Canada right? And just so that you know living by our laws does not mean that our Constitution would apply. You not only be an American citizen you must be an American citizen on American soil.

    I'll try this again. For your consideration. An American citizen is charged with carrying out a terroistic act. Should he be prosecuted in a civilian court of law with all the protections that the Constitution allows or should he be charged as an enemy combatant go through military courts.
    It's very simple. As a citizen you are protected by our constitution on our soil. Like you said, if one goes to Canada you are no longer protected, nor are you bound by our laws. Think about the draft dodgers. They were able to go to Canada to escape their obligation and could not be prosecuted until they came back.

    You are either one of us (American) or one of them. As one of them, you live by a different, less liberal, set of laws. It's bad enough when one of our own commits a crime. But to have visitors come here and commit crime is even worse. If an American citizen commits a terrorist act on US soil then he is afforded the rights of the constitution. If said American commits said act on foreign soil he is at the mercy of the foreign land to do as they wish. When a non-US citizen commits an act of terrorism (aka act of aggression) towards the US, they are then at the mercy of the military as foreign combatants.

    Our world has changed. No longer do nations declare war on one another. Now we have individual groups declaring war. The folks at Gitmo were captured in Iraq, not in America. As such, they are prisoners of war and are covered by the Geneva Convention.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X