danivon wrote:Basically, is it really worth your effort to argue against a position that we do not hold?
I didn't. All I said was I can't do it. Whether you do it or not is up to you to evaluate.
Well, as the Founders are dead, and were themselves by no meams perfext (many owned and/or traded slaves, for example), I'm not sure they can be insulted. Especially as they are just dead men, and not saints or icons to be venerated and never blasphemed against.
The problem is that he venerated Ho. Not surprising to me as he actually despises the US--it was his wife who famously said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”
Not against the man, but his policies and beliefs. He has always believed this country is heavily flawed; this statement just put another exclamation point on it.
Anyone who runs for President surely thinks the country is flawed, if not heavily then at least significantly, or they would just run on a slogan and policy platform of "Everything is ok as it is and there's no change or improvement to make".
NB: Obama said, “We are going to fundamentally change America.”
Few others have ever said that. He is trying to cripple our economy by forcing our energy sources to the most expensive options. He is using the EPA to punish suburbs. He is using the NLRB (or trying) to punish corporations. He excoriates his opponents constantly, then wonders why they resist his ideas. He decries "phony scandals" which he (and his Administration) had previously announced they would investigate and would cooperate fully with Congress.
He is a radical man bent on radical change.
And unless Obama was actually praising (or even referring to positively) Ho Chi Minh's Communism or violent leadership, I don't see the link is that obvious.
He was.
You, and the other pearl-clutchers, were looking for it and joining up dots - that is not mere observation, it is supposition.
Nope, just watching what he says, what he does and
the people he appoints. “Climate change will not be resolved overnight,” she told the 310-person audience. “But it will be engaged over the next three years. That I can promise you.”
McCarthy made a full-throated defense of her agency’s right to address greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, detailing how the air quality regulations and brownfield cleanup efforts have produced economic benefits in the United States. “Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?,” she asked, prompting loud applause.“We need to embrace cutting edge technology as a way to spark business innovation,” her Boston accent so evident in the hard “a” in spark, she then repeated, “And I said ‘spaahrk.’”
. . .
She identified climate change as the agency’s top priority, saying it would model its efforts on the stricter fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks the administration brokered with the auto industry during its first term.
“EPA cannot dictate solutions,” McCarthy said. “We have to engage.”
McCarthy has already been meeting with utility executives and coal industry officials, some of whom fear the administration’s plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing plants will shutter many plants.
Hal Quinn, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said during a March 26 meeting with McCarthy he “found her keenly interested in…our technical assessment of what will transpire because of the rulemaking at EPA” but remains worried the agency will press for an unrealistic carbon standards.
“The investments that have been made in utilities that could be jeopardized or stranded because of the [administration’s] rules on greenhouse gas emissions,” noting that the EPA’s 2011 mercury and air toxics rule had already forced utilities to retire at least 40,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity.
At the time, Quinn noted, EPA said the new rule would result in the retirement of 9,000 MW of capacity. “Clearly their forecast was off,” he said.
In an interview, McCarthy said the announced closings have come so far ahead of when utilities are required to comply with the new mercury limit, “It’s hard for me to think our rule is the driving factor behind these closures. This is about the abundance of low-cost natural gas. It’s about how utilities are making decisions, company-wide, about how to invest in the future the way they see it right now.”
During the speech, McCarthy said the agency would also look at matters including water quality and environmental justice, a hallmark issue for her predecessor, Lisa P. Jackson.
“I have no intention of leaving behind environmental justice communities,” she said, adding that they will bear the brunt of climate change. “We need to look at who is not winning in this equation.”
Yes, she will do everything she can to make energy prices soar and damage the economy. She is a true believer--which is why the President selected her. He consistently picks the most anti-business, anti-energy folks who do not have the capacity to run a balloon stand.
Lisa Jackson, the previous EPA Administrator, violated federal law. I eagerly await her prosecution.
Then again, Holder has violated the law and he's supposed to prosecute her . . . never mind.
Given that the gulf in policy terms between the Democrats and Republicans is about half an inch wide, even between a hardcore conservative like yourself and a President alleged to be a socialist ("my arse" as Jim Royle would say), I bet your figure is wildly out.
False--as demonstrated by your next comment.
As a thought exercise, can you work out what the 0.2% you do agree with is? I would be intersting to note what is and isn't there.
I left the 0.2% as wiggle room, in the unlikely event that I do agree with him on something. I think his foreign policy has been a disaster. Domestically, he's been a bit worse. Other than that, he's doing a fine job.
30 Jul 2013, 1:57 pm 
