Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[ScareCrow57]

I always laugh outrageously at comments like this.

You're truly naive to believe that public investment in the form of health, education, infrastructure, or security have not had a positive impact on development of the US as a superpower.

Not what I said. What I said is business made this country wealthy, government stands in the way of wealth. In fact, through environmental, safety, workers rights and NAFTA we are pushing jobs off shore. Not saying any of those things are bad, just that there are consequences.

[ScareCrow57]

Sorry Scarecrow, you're wrong a bit here. the arctic circle lays at 66 degrees 33 mins and there is no oil coming out of there by Canada. Some companies like HBOG, Dome Petroleum and PetroCanada drilled there and found oil alright, but its still there because its too hard and expensive to get south. The Noggies and the Cloggies are nowhere near drilling inside the arctic circle and while Russia has done a bit, its still in the ground too. Drilling in the wildlife refuge may make a difference in a long term outlook, but it would be 20 years before any appreciable difference would be felt in the lower 48. Plain and simple is there needs to be a lot more effort put into an alternative energy source and it sure as heck won't be wind or bio fuels.

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

Big Oil already has experience in the Arctic — the development of Alaska’s North Slope in the 1970s brought in such giants as BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips, all of which currently jointly own and operate the 800-mile long Alyeska Pipeline, which links the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez. Russian and Canadian companies have had similar success in exploiting onshore Arctic oil and gas assets in their countries.

[ScareCrow57]

Now, just how do you figure that?

It is posted at a lot of the staions around here

however The taxes behind a $4 gallon of gas: The Real Deal

Nearly 33 cents of every gallon you buy goes to Albany. And on a $4 gallon of gasoline, if there's no cap, the county gets 4 percent, or 15 cents.

Add it all up, and you’re paying just about 67 cents in taxes on one gallon of gas.
...
New Yorkers pay the most taxes on gasoline in the country, followed by Hawaiians and Californians who pay just over 60 cents a gallon

I wonder if it is a coincidence that the 2 most liberal states in the nation pay the highest taxes?

[ChiefKN]

I'm sure you'll be just as happy with the infringements of the 4th Ammendment (such as warrantless wiretapping) when a Dem is in the White House.

The program you refer to is the monitoring of communications from a known terrorist from outside the US with individuals inside the US.

I hope the monitoring continues.

General Hayden (Director of the NSA, and a member of our intelligence community) stressed the NSA respect for the Fourth Amendment, stating at the National Press Club on January 23, 2006 that, "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."


OH and Obama already said he wouldn't use this sort of program.

[ChiefKN]

No, officially, recess had not begun. Voices from BOTH sides of the aisle were demanding an electronic vote on whether to approve the motion to adjourn. Why was Nancy so afraid to allow it to continue? Why did she cut off the microphones and cameras? Why were the lights turned out? And, lastly, why were the reporters not only thrown out of the gallery, but out of the building entirely? What was she afraid of?

Or did she have to leave immediately to start her vacation, because she would lose time due to that pesky that fuel stop (because she was denied that 767 she wanted so that she could fly back home non-stop?)

Just how much ARE the greenies paying her to fook the american people?

Stop introducing facts!

You fail to address the chief argument, "it's all Bush's fault!".

[ChiefKN]

Wow. What a fact-filled response. You really knocked that one out of the park, didn't you? Was someone else setting policy for all those years? Surely George W. "I haven't heard anything about four dollar a gallon gas" Bush isn't to blame.
Can the righties get any dumber??

LOL, sorry I didn't take the time to contribute to this high brow, so important discussion..

Give me a break.

Just save us all the time, and in your replies simply put, "It's all Bush's Fault".

OH boy, if Obama wins... what on earth will you do??

[DaSharkie]

Now, just how do you figure that?

It is a novel subject called mathematics. A high figure I feel, but that is how he derived it.


Federal gas tax of 18 cents and state gas taxes vary significantly. Quite a chunk of change in reality, whiel our highways, roads, and bridges literally crumble away.

[DaSharkie]

I've nothing to hide. Go ahead. Look all you want. The ones who are afraid are the ones with something to hide.

The problem is that there is now a legal precedent. Yeah the current administration is looking at one group. But another administration can turn it right around and look at another group that they do not like - and you might be a member of.

Government, "controlled" by either political party in this country needs to be watched , because it will inevitably abuse its powers.

[Tomcat1066]

I'm sorry, but the moment you start picking and choosing when parts of the Consitution to follow and ignoring the rest, you begin the end of the nation.

Pelosi was out of line. Sorry, but when there are objections to a motion, you don't just do what you want anyways. That's not how our system works. I don't care what party someone is part of. Right is right, wrong is wrong. What is there to debate? Seriously?

[txgp17]

txgp17

You seem to take issue with my statement that I am a conservative.

Many people have trouble with the distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican. I don't.

I don't have any trouble discerning a conservative from a Republican. And I didn't say that you weren't conservative. There's a difference between being "conservative" and being "the most conservative one on here," which is how you described yourself.

[DaSharkie]

I'm sure you'll be just as happy with the infringements of the 4th Ammendment (such as warrantless wiretapping) when a Dem is in the White House.

Would this be the same Democrat (Barack Obama) who voted to renew teh Patriot Act?

Those facts can be pesky things. Many Democrats voted to renew it, in its entirety.

As for the 4th adn 5th amendment infringments, I am appaled by them as much as any attempt on the other 18 active amendments (being that 12 was repeales.) However, iyou shallenge them in court, the same court that ruled that the phrase "the People" means the same thing in the seconds as it does in many other amendments.

Convenient that you forgot about the legal challenges brought against the holding of people in Gitmo - and the same 9 justices ruling on them.......and that the President could/would not act on their listening without the culpability of Congress as well.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

txgp17

You seem to take issue with my statement that I am a conservative. I am fairly certain that if you took a poll of some the posters here that have been around longer than a week, you would find almost unanimous agreement on the subject. What bothers you so much?

If I state that the Republican controlled Congress and the Republican Administration completely squandered the opportunity to advance their agenda and continue the prosperity begun in the Reagan Administration, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

If I state that the President has performed admirably in many situations, but has been a complete embarrasment in terms of illegal immigration, taking years to formulate a cogent policy on the war in Iraq and in developing energy polciy, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

If I state that I fully and completely support the constitutional right the keep and bear arms, yet I believe two important things; certain people should not have weapons and people shouldn't have certain weapons, that doesn't make me any less of a conservative.

Many people have trouble with the distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican. I don't.

[1835Wayne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1835Wayne
YOUR rights have been trampled on!!

Excuse me????

Have you been paying any attention whatsoever to whats been happening to our "rights" since GWB and his morality police have been in charge? And I guess you also missed the fact that your government of the people, by the people and for the people can now spy on you and detain you without just cause.

Talk about mindless...

Well Dave, I am not talking about the current adminstration. I am as appaled at some of the things they have done as you are. I am talking about what just happened. I am discussing THAT issue, not everything else under the sun.

I disdain a good bit of the "Patriot" act. I also disdain the actions of Nancy Pelosi. Do you have anything to say about her??

I can not call what she has done an "adjournment". It was a hijacking.

[FyredUp]

I like this idea alot but I can't see this working in the real world. We will use 15 years "must serve all time" as the punishment for using a firearm in the act of a crime. Say the criminal can plea down the crime to a one year sentence. So if the criminal pleas the crime he will get 16 years, but if he fights it he may be found not guilty or if found guilty he will serve say 18 years (I have no idea how much time crimes actually will give you, it's just an example.). I figure given that choice many criminals would risk those 2 extra years to take the case to court to attempt to avoid the mandatory 15 year period. This will result in much more work for our court system, bogging it down even more. With this mandatory sentence our prisons and jails will fill and become overcrowded, where are we going to put all the inmates that we simply can't let out for 15 years?

I think it would lower gun crimes but we would need the resources to make it work for a longer period of time.

Okay, you say my idea won't work because of prison space. Let me hear your plan. I would love to see something actually be done to penalize criminals while leaving me and my legally owned and used firearms alone.

If it was up to me I would elimnate plea bargains and set mandatory sentencing that NO ONE not even federal agencies can supercede. Crime does pay in this country and every day proves it more and more.

[edge1317]

If we were serious about ending gun crime here is what we would do, anytime a gun was used in a crime additional time is added that can't be plea bargained away. So even if the criminal gets a slap on the wrist for robbing the 7-11 he still gets 10 or 20 years for using a gun. No parole for that part of the sentence. You serve it all.

I like this idea alot but I can't see this working in the real world. We will use 15 years "must serve all time" as the punishment for using a firearm in the act of a crime. Say the criminal can plea down the crime to a one year sentence. So if the criminal pleas the crime he will get 16 years, but if he fights it he may be found not guilty or if found guilty he will serve say 18 years (I have no idea how much time crimes actually will give you, it's just an example.). I figure given that choice many criminals would risk those 2 extra years to take the case to court to attempt to avoid the mandatory 15 year period. This will result in much more work for our court system, bogging it down even more. With this mandatory sentence our prisons and jails will fill and become overcrowded, where are we going to put all the inmates that we simply can't let out for 15 years?

I think it would lower gun crimes but we would need the resources to make it work for a longer period of time.