Obama agenda: Talking energy

Jesse Martz, Ohio — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:27:43 GMT

So now we have a bill that guarantees more expensive energy, which will further erode the manufactuing base of America (to you liberals out there, that means less high paying jobs for the US and more jobs going to China and India). And now we have a protectionism element in the bill to also deal with.

Liberals must really hate this country.

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Jasmine, NYC — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:33:59 GMT

"Still, Gen. Ray Odierno told CNN yesterday that Iraq is ready for the transition."

Okay, but are we ready? Interesting argument in a NYT article about troop withdrawal: http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/06/are-the-iraqi-forces-ready.html

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Eric, Salinas, CA — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:35:17 GMT

If it takes a trade tariff to get other large polluting countries like China to buckle down and do their own climate change legislation then we should create new tariffs. It would be good for American workers to get our good paying manufacturing jobs back from China by leveling the playing field. President Obama needs to get rid of that ignorant outsourcing jobs tax credit.

President Obama needs to start drawing down our troops out of Iraq and bring them back home. We should not keep 130,000 or more troops in Iraq until January. We've seen just how grateful the Iraqis are with our occupation of their country. We've wasted a lot of money trying to rebuild their country and it's been a total waste of lives and money to allow Warmongers Bush and Cheney to have their little oil war.

In Obama We Trust!

Obama agenda: Talking energy

jawillie Philadelphia, PA — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:36:35 GMT

>>>The president...said ‘those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue,’” per The Hill. “They've got to run every two years, and I completely understand that.”
==========
Sorry, prez. I gotta call you on that one. It shouldn't be about saving their (or your) job. It should be about doing what's right. If the only thing you're worried about is saving a Democratic majority in 2010, or getting re-elected in 2012, then I seriously suggest you re-evaluate that position now. We didn't elect you so you can spend 4 years smiling in front of a camera and racking up feel-good moments. We elected you to do the right thing by this country. It's time you and the democratic congress stopped worrying about your political futures and start working for OUR present. I give no passes to any politician who votes based on whether or not he/she is up for election next cycle, that includes PRESIDENTS.

http://jawillie.blog.com

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Moon Dawg — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:51:48 GMT

Obama Screws America.

When will America screw back?

Obama agenda: Talking energy

cindy, las vegas, nv — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:59:34 GMT

Absolutely spot on jawillie! High fives to your post

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Jeff Gollin, Holmdel, NJ — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:01:31 GMT

The conventional model for Congressional voting typically has the Democrats winning large pluralities in the House while struggling to hit 60-votes in the Senate.

Climate-Energy may break this mold for the following reason:

Each house member represents a comparatively small more likely to be homogenius constituency with certain local quirks and economic interests magnified. Representatives representing coal states could support the Climate-Energy bill at their own political peril.

The Senate is different. Each Senator represents an entire state - whose votes would logically reflect much more diverse interests and follow national (and probably more moderate) voting trends.

This suggests that Republican Senators hailing from "greener" states would find it more to their political advantage to cross over and support the Climate-Energy bill.

Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but my gut tells me that this bill may clear the 60-vote threshhold in the Senate with more ease than we'd otherwise expect.

Obama agenda: Talking energy

no joe, no bo, nj — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:10:54 GMT

Jesse Martz-I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. I don't believe that liberals hate this country. If they did, they'd be easy to fight, because you could reason with them.

Unfortunately, the problem is that liberals believe in fairy tales. They do not accept that there are consequences for actions, nor do they believe that facts are immutable. They are also intellectually lazy.

George Orwell wrote of this in his work "1984". They can hold two disparate thoughts at the same time; memorize 'fact' today, tomorrow, memorize a new 'fact' in contradiction of the first, and then, a week later, forget the second 'fact' in favor of the first. They play 'follow the leader', and are mezmorized by labels.

If, by some stretch of the imagination, Barack Obama were a Republican, each and every one of them would decry and deride him as they do all republicans. He would be cast as immature, out of touch with reality, and they would find all manner of ways to make racist comments without resorting to actual namecalling. For examples of what I am talking about, see any comments made about Michael Steele, including by the moderators on this board.

If Obama told them that the sun was shining, even though they were standing in a downpour, they'd all have sunglasses on, and complain about the glare.

However, I don't think that means that they hate this country. To hate anything, you have to have articulate reasons, and reason is not one of their strong suits. They are like children who believe in the good fairy-that would be Obama-and monsters under the bed-that would be you, me, and anyone else who does not think that every word out of the mouth of Obama is a pearl of wisdom.

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Dave, Tn — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:25:23 GMT

"And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet." Paul Krugman

That's pretty funny coming from someone in New York, a city that's continues to lie and steal from the rest of the country.

Obama agenda: Talking energy

eagle1776 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:37:21 GMT

What we really need is a good arm twisting LBJ type in there to get the agenda passed. Blue dogs would have had a tough road with such a man as LBJ. Republicans would have, as they did decades ago, feared him, and everyone else would not have been particularly fond of him but respectful of his ability to get tough legislation through Congress for his signature.

Moon dawgs or LOCO Perros, maybe loonie pups. Loony comes from luna, a Latin word meaning moon. Read some of the posts here and know why we use loony from luna to describe someone not quite on this planet. (I want to say it gently so as not to insult anyone who worships the moon).

So now we have a bill that guarantees more expensive energy, which will further erode the manufactuing base of America (to you liberals out there, that means less high paying jobs for the US and more jobs going to China and India). And now we have a protectionism element in the bill to also deal with.

So you prefer cheap candles over electric lights? You prefer buggies over automobiles? You prefer that new fangled talking machine over TV? When each new invention or innovation came along it came with a slightly higher initial cost but eventually for what we accomplished in the long run the price was rather cheap. So it will be with clean, sustainable, home grown, renewable energy. The sky isn't falling.

Obama agenda: Talking energy

Robert Kerr,Tampa,Florida — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:46:13 GMT

Funny how MSNBC carries no story relating to the suppressed EPA report to accompany this.