Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

Stop! I live in the American Southwest

It is a pleasure to have another person from my part of the world on the board. I would be curious to know which Southwestern state if you'd feel comfortable sharing that information with us.

I'm going to preface the rest of my remarks with the following:

I did not intend for my little joke about oil shale (it's better to laugh than to cry) to become a springboard for a discussion which must encompass the fields of geology, climatology, plant physiology, mining and Western history to name only a few.

I once worked at a college library that had a 500,000 volume collection on these very subjects. And even at that, I managed to read only 499,999 of them.

Never mind the length a proper reply would entail, I don't feel the Cellar -as great as it is and as intelligent as its members are - is the appropriate forum for what would constitute a highly technical and scientific discussion. Therefore, I am only to make a few remarks in response to your post. OK, a COUPLE of few.

Originally Posted by Adak

fracking also allows access to oil that is in shale - it's not just natural gas (although there is a lot of that gas, as well, and natural gas burns VERY clean).

A number of methods are used to extract oil shale - a sort of fracking is one of them, true. However, what most people know about fracking is in relation to natural gas extraction. There are significant differences between "fracking" oil shale versus fracking natural gas. In addition, given our current technology, strip mining and extraction of petroleum via a high temperature process remains the preferred technique. This is called "retorting." You are correct in stating that natural gas is a clean fuel to burn. However, it is not always a clean fuel to extract.

Originally Posted by Adak

Your "burning water" was investigated (that was in Pennsylvania, btw), and found to be a contamination by above ground mishandling and contamination -- had NOTHING to do with fracking. You can't contaminate with fracking because they're working FAR deeper than ground water, UNLESS your well casings and pipes BOTH crack and leak, AND are passing through an area with groundwater.

PA shares the dubious honor along with Colorado and a number of other states of having regions where the inhabitants can perform the burning water trick. Youtube has endless videos of people from all over the US burning their tap water.

Whatever source you found that states fracking has nothing to do with methane in the near-by area water supply is either out-of-date, or dismissive of science in the manner of many right wing outfits, or both.

In April of 2011, the peer reviewed publication of the American Academy of Science included a research paper describing “a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.”

Even the scientists who conducted the research were surprised at the strength of correlation.

Originally Posted by Adak

The gov't has checked this out, (they wanted to stop it), and found that they could not, because there was NO evidence it contaminated ANYTHING.

As Tonto would say,"They who, white boy?" From the Bush administration to the present, the Federal government, far from attempting to prohibit fracking, has gone out of its way to encourage it.

By contrast, research conducted at the behest of state and local governments has shown definate evidence of contamination and a host of other problems that result from fracking. See for example, the report issued by Garfield County containing an exhaustive examination of the methane problem on Colorado's Western Slope:

"It challenges the view that natural gas, and the suite of hydrocarbons that exist around it, is isolated from water supplies by its extreme depth," said Judith Jordan, the oil and gas liaison for Garfield County who has worked as a hydrogeologist with DuPont and as a lawyer with Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. "It is highly unlikely that methane would have migrated through natural faults and fractures and coincidentally arrived in domestic wells at the same time oil and gas development started, after having been down there ...for over 65 million years."

*pause to go out and breathe a little clean night air while I still can*

Originally Posted by Adak

I will add that there is of course, SOME risk in doing ANYTHING - in the environment, or just crossing the street.

I agree, but I might also add that a wise pedestrian looks both ways and makes sure the street is clear of traffic. Only a fool steps out in front of a speeding truck. We, as a society, have hopped right in front of an oncoming environmental freight train.

Originally Posted by Adak

So now companies are to blame because costs are rising in the marketplace, for a scarce supply of water?

I cringe at your lack of understanding of supply and demand. Do you believe these companies can help that? They would LOVE to pay low prices for the water they need.

Oh, come on. Ignoring common sense is not the way to win a debate. One hundred people demand a commodity in scarce supply offered by the market place. Suddenly, ten huge corporations step in and up the bidding. The corporations would love to pay less, but they determine that procurring the commodity even at a high price will help result in a fantastic profit. They up the bidding, secure the commodity for themselves and make a killing. Yes, the companies have helped up the price of water. Don't tell me you're a Republican who can't figure out the free market.

Originally Posted by Adak

You CAN and SHOULD insist that the area be returned to something akin to it's former state though, when they are done.

Sure, and I also could insist that I be given the ability to turn straw into gold for all the good that would do for me.

I honestly appreciate your final comments here, Adak - I really do. You seem to have done a little reading and you don't come across as wanting an environmental wasteland any more than I do.

However - and here about 49,000 volumes from that library above beg to be read. It is not that easy. Let's say the mining companies actually agreed to pay the astronomical cost that restoring even just one strip mined mountain would entail. Never mind that in the entire history of mining in the American West, no mineral extraction outfit has ever paid anything near the cost of the damage to the environment it has incurred. Never mind any of the past terrible mining related damage that even a casual observer will notice in amost any river drainage around here. Let's write costs off completely and give every single energy company CEO a PhD in ecology and an attitude of deep contrition for the havoc he has helped wreck on the land. Let's make all those highly unlikely things be true.

Colorado and the rest of the Inter mountain West will still never recover from what will amount to decade after decade of strip mining and other types of energy exploitation.

Remember those beautiful aspen in my first pic a way back? Well, those trees along with the spruce and the pinyon and the Doug fir and all the others are already dead. They just don't know it yet.

Notice how dry it's been out here? And it's been dry for quite a while now, come to think of it. And hasn't this been one of the warmest summers and falls ever? Sure has in MY part of the Southwest, anyhow.

Forests in the Inter Mountain West are already suffering from an ecological three strikes and out - climate change, fire suppression carried out like a slap in the face to all known forestry and ecological science, and an incredible outbreak - epidemic, really - of pine beetle and other destructive insects.

Even the pinyon trees are dying and the pinyon has got to be one of the toughest, hardiest tree species out here. I never thought I'd see acre after acre of dead pinyon pines. But all I have to do is drive about 40 or 50 miles north of here and take a look around the aptly named Disappointment Valley and there they are.

Or were.

The first time I realized that even the pinyons were dying, I felt frightened. I still do.

We should be doing everything we can to protect and nurture our Inter-Mountain Western forests - as well as soils. We might possibly be able to preserve this precious national heritage, although the odds are increasingly against it.

Strip mining will be the final blow. The forest will never return.

Now, if you are like many of the other Republicans I've encountered, you probably don't "believe" in climate change or global warming. Or maybe you do. Whatever. I don't argue the subject with scientific atheists anymore. There's a zillion post thread about global warming around here somewhere. Read it if you want. Or look out your window at the dead pinyons.

I've typed you just about the longest response to a post that I can ever remember giving someone here. If you don't agree with my reasoning and don't bother to study any of the reputable links written for the scientific lay person that I've provided, that's your choice. I've already given you an ample response and I'm finished.

I wish like anything that your replies to my earlier post were correct. Unfortunately, they're not.

Have a nice evening or a pleasant morning.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by BigV

OF COURSE the answer should be the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Department of Energy, or some combination of both. To rely on "self regulation" will never work, and would indeed be illegal.

.



*wipes tears out of eyes*

Oh, my! I don't mean to make fun, but your response just struck me as so INNOCENT! Maybe you were being sarcastic?

I've been fortunate enough to visit the Pacific Northwest more than once, and I even lived in northern Idaho right on its border with Washington State for a year. Oh, how I'd love to see the ocean again!

Anyhow, the people who reside in the PNW have always struck me as far more liberal and far more envionmentally aware then the ranchers and farmers and the rest of the the population of Colorado's Western Slope.

I bet YOU guys demand that the EPA carry out its designated functions in your states. Well, good luck with that. Out here, we shoot first and ask questions later.

That leaves the nice fellow from the DOE. He shakes everyone's hand and winks a couple of times and helps throw parades for Halliburten or Shell in every small town on the Colorado Plateau.

The people of Naturita and Nucla are dying (literally) to get their uranium mining back. While they're waiting, the DOE goes out and puts warning signs with a big radiation symbol on them around the oddly deep blue old uranium settling and tailings containment ponds.

I used to have a priceless picture of a couple of cows drinking water from one of those ponds - radiation warning sign in full view - in the background was a dead, bloated cow - four legs in the air.

BEEF! It's what makes America glow in the dark!

All humor aside, much the same arguments as those made by Adak helped the gas drilling industry in Colorado win rare exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act when Congress enacted the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The Energy Policy Act is to the EPA as the Patriot Act is to the Constitution.

Alas, nothing to actually laugh about.

[Lamplighter]

All humor aside, much the same arguments as those made by Adak
helped the gas drilling industry in Colorado win rare exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the Clean Water Act when Congress enacted the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The Energy Policy Act is to the EPA as the Patriot Act is to the Constitution.

I agree. This situation is just now being taken up by the US Supreme Court.

The article below is primarily the lawyers wrangling over judicial procedures,
but one paragraph describes up the real-world situation....


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
12/3/12

E.P.A. Rule Complicates Runoff Case for Justices

<snip>Much of the argument on Monday was devoted to the consequences
of the new environmental regulation for the two consolidated cases before the justices,
Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-338,
and Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-347.
They arose from suits against logging companies and Oregon forestry officials under the Clean Water Act,
saying the defendants were required to obtain permits for runoff from logging roads that ran through ditches and culverts.

The E.P.A. has long taken the opposite view, and the ultimate answer to whether
the Clean Water Act applies to hundreds of thousands of miles of logging roads
is quite consequential, as it could provide a tool for conservationists to block logging
where silty runoff would choke forest streams.

But it seemed on Monday that even a partial answer would have to wait.

[Adak]

I'm in Southern California.

A number of methods are used to extract oil shale - a sort of fracking is one of them, true. However, what most people know about fracking is in relation to natural gas extraction. There are significant differences between "fracking" oil shale versus fracking natural gas. In addition, given our current technology, strip mining and extraction of petroleum via a high temperature process remains the preferred technique. This is called "retorting." You are correct in stating that natural gas is a clean fuel to burn. However, it is not always a clean fuel to extract.

If it doesn't use a deep bore and involve fracturing the underground rock/shale and recovery through the bore piping, then it's not fracking.

PA shares the dubious honor along with Colorado and a number of other states of having regions where the inhabitants can perform the burning water trick. Youtube has endless videos of people from all over the US burning their tap water.

Whatever source you found that states fracking has nothing to do with methane in the near-by area water supply is either out-of-date, or dismissive of science in the manner of many right wing outfits, or both.

Just heard the geologist speak about it, last week. How obsolete can the info be, in 7 days?

In April of 2011, the peer reviewed publication of the American Academy of Science included a research paper describing “a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.”

Even the scientists who conducted the research were surprised at the strength of correlation.

If they don't handle the contaminants they store above ground correctly, then of course, it's likely to soak down right into the ground water. But that's not because of the fraking, that's because someone has been careless/negligent and allowed above ground contamination.

By contrast, research conducted at the behest of state and local governments has shown definate evidence of contamination and a host of other problems that result from fracking. See for example, the report issued by Garfield County containing an exhaustive examination of the methane problem on Colorado's Western Slope:

We have acted unwisely in getting our needed energy - sure. No question about it.

We have a lot of oil off our CA coast, but because of one oil spill back in the 50's, it's all off-limits. We also have a lot of oil up in the barren arctic, which is already set up with the pipeline, several wells etc., so bringing in the new wells would be very easy - but most of it has been stopped by Obama.

I'm just saying, you have a scarce commodity, and high demand. Yes, the price will increase when the demand for it increases, but it's not the companies fault it's increased.

I honestly appreciate your final comments here, Adak - I really do. You seem to have done a little reading and you don't come across as wanting an environmental wasteland any more than I do.

~~~~~~
Colorado and the rest of the Inter mountain West will still never recover from what will amount to decade after decade of strip mining and other types of energy exploitation.

I'm not familiar with strip mining. I know the area around Colorado Springs has a lot of contamination. I worked under the director in charge of overseeing the clean up of my employer's dumping, both in Colorado Springs, and at a plant in CA.

Remember those beautiful aspen in my first pic a way back? Well, those trees along with the spruce and the pinyon and the Doug fir and all the others are already dead. They just don't know it yet.

Notice how dry it's been out here? And it's been dry for quite a while now, come to think of it. And hasn't this been one of the warmest summers and falls ever? Sure has in MY part of the Southwest, anyhow.

Yes, this was a very warm year. But the last three Summers have been below average in So. CA.

Forests in the Inter Mountain West are already suffering from an ecological three strikes and out - climate change, fire suppression carried out like a slap in the face to all known forestry and ecological science, and an incredible outbreak - epidemic, really - of pine beetle and other destructive insects.
~~~~
Strip mining will be the final blow. The forest will never return.

It may seem that way, but forests can definitely return. Early Californians logged the giant coastal Redwoods like crazy, clear cutting everything they could get to.

Talk about a scar on the land! You can imagine a forest of almost nothing BUT huge Redwood trees, all cut down, and sent to the mill.
And there was no effort made to replant anything. Concern about ecology was very rare in those days. If it was done, it was done only enough to stop mud-slides in the wet months.

Even so, today, we have a large second growth Redwood forest. They're not the equal of the General Sherman (largest tree in the world), but they're really big and beautiful, and have again taken over the former forest.

You know what happens after a wild fire - it adds a lot of nitrogen to the soil, and next year, that will be the best growing area of the forest.

You set up nature to grow, and grow or regrow, she will. That pine beetle is the shits though - it's killed thousands of acres of pines in CA. Hiking through them is no fun - like walking through a graveyard with the dead standing above ground, instead of below.

Now, if you are like many of the other Republicans I've encountered, you probably don't "believe" in climate change or global warming.

Oh, I believe in climate change - that's obviously a part of the whole package. We've had climate change since day #1, and it will continue. What I don't believe in is guys like Al Gore, who have invested millions into "green" everything, telling me about climate change caused by man.

First, because people like Gore have big bucks to be made if they can sell this idea, (and yes, he is a HUGE energy consumer in his Tennessee mansion, as is Michael Moore in his home - hello hypocrites!), second, despite our natural egotistical slant to things, we don't control the sun, and the sun decides how much heat we receive. We control only a small portion of how much heat we retain.

But yes, our climate does change - that is irrefutable. I suspect that damn pine beetle will do worse damage than climate change to your pinyon pines, though.

I've typed you just about the longest response to a post that I can ever remember giving someone here. If you don't agree with my reasoning and don't bother to study any of the reputable links written for the scientific lay person that I've provided, that's your choice. I've already given you an ample response and I'm finished.

I wish like anything that your replies to my earlier post were correct. Unfortunately, they're not.

There's no reason why a strip mine that is closing down, can't be put back like it was - true! it won't have nearly as much mass, and won't be a "mountain" any more, (more like a hill), but it can sure have the tailings from the mine buried deep, and the area recovered with secondary and top soils, fertilized a little, and replanted.

If you have area's where that's not happening, you should be screaming at your elected officials - along with all your neighbors, and organizing for united action against it.

I've seen abandoned mines in Alaska, and it's not pretty. The area is so verdant that you don't really notice most of these mines, but still, it's a gash on the earth, and they shouldn't be allowed to remain there, once the mine is played out and no longer useful.

In Arizona they've had several people fall into old mines that were just covered over with wooden beams and dirt. Eventually, the wood rots out, and the next person or animal that weighs too much, will break through and fall.

A bond system seem sensible. The company puts up a big bond, and when the area is closed down and has been properly restored, the company gets the bond back. Otherwise, the big bond goes to restore the mine area. This may already be in place - I know VERY little about mines, aside from exploring an old Gold mine in Alaska, years ago.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm in Southern California.

Nice. But stay away Urbane Guerilla!

Southern Cali has its own set of ecological problems, although there is some overlap, of course. I should clarify what I mean when I post about the "Southwest" - Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.

Someone looking out their window in LA (or anywhere in southern California) is going to have a completely different view than I have from mine.

I will say that both southern California and Colorado share the water problem, and that's huge.

Originally Posted by Adak

Just heard the geologist speak about it, last week. How obsolete can the info be, in 7 days?

I will address scientific issues when the information comes from research published in a peer reviewed journal and conducted by scientists with actual names and professional affiliations.

The "geologist" could be the tooth fairy for all I know.

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm not familiar with strip mining.

I know.

Originally Posted by Adak

I know the area around Colorado Springs has a lot of contamination. I worked under the director in charge of overseeing the clean up of my employer's dumping, both in Colorado Springs, and at a plant in CA.

I grew up in Colorado Springs and I agree. The entire Front Range has many environmental disaster stories to tell. One of the worst is that of The Rocky Flats hooror show outside Denver, but that's a subject for another thread.

Originally Posted by Adak

It may seem that way, but forests can definitely return. Early Californians logged the giant coastal Redwoods like crazy, clear cutting everything they could get to. Etc., etc.

Please go back and re-read the last part of my post. I have already addressed most of your comments. I'm not going to repeat myself. I will inform anyone who might be reading this that the California Redwood forest and the Rocky Mountain forests are two completely different ecosystems.

Originally Posted by Adak

What I don't believe in is guys like Al Gore, who have invested millions into "green" everything, telling me about climate change caused by man.

Bingo! One more time: I do not discuss climatology with scientific atheists.

Originally Posted by Adak

A bond system seem sensible. The company puts up a big bond, and when the area is closed down and has been properly restored, the company gets the bond back. Otherwise, the big bond goes to restore the mine area. This may already be in place - I know VERY little about mines, aside from exploring an old Gold mine in Alaska, years ago.

A bond system might work if carried out in good faith by the parties on both sides of the equation. There is no such system that I aware of in Colorado, but then things sneak below my radar all the time.

Meanwhile, back on Comedy Central, look at those damn Republicans performing their sidewhow!

[Griff]

The contamination in PA that I am familiar is the result of mishandled materials at the surface as Adak mentioned, but poor concreting could pose a problem. The lighting gas at the tap trick in Dimock, PA was common before drilling took place. I'm not saying gas companies have not or will not screw up, but Gasland intentionally misrepresented what was happening in Dimock.

Lampy and I have been having a mostly civil discussion (we all get cranky but we're both forgiving people irl) here. And keeping those interested abreast of news items as they pop up.

[SamIam]

I've never watched Gasland. I'll have to check it out. And like I said, a lot of things sneak by my radar, so thanks for the heads up on the link.

BTW, did anyone catch Newt Gingrich saying we should make the "Fiscal Cliff" a drinking game? Nice to hear a little actual wit from the Republican side.

[Adak]

@SamIam:, When you've lived on Adak Island, you would only be called "Urbane", by those who have not seen where Adak Island is located.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

On the bright side we have 25 more full days to count down Obama's willingness to reduce his current mad spending spree.

25 days to go. Amount Obama and the Democrats are willing to cut current spending: 0.00%

It's great having strong ideologically driven Socialists in the White House and Congress.

You won't find great fun and games like this among your rational political bodies - no siree, Bob!

We should charge admission!

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

On the bright side we have 25 more full days to count down Obama's willingness to reduce his current mad spending spree.

25 days to go. Amount Obama and the Democrats are willing to cut current spending: 0.00%

It's great having strong ideologically driven Socialists in the White House and Congress.

You won't find great fun and games like this among your rational political bodies - no siree, Bob!

We should charge admission!

Originally Posted by BigV

this is done.

Attachment 41971

also you're really bad at this whole... knowing what the fuck you're talking about thing

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

@SamIam:, When you've lived on Adak Island, you would only be called "Urbane", by those who have not seen where Adak Island is located.

Yeah, I already knew about Adak Island. I think it's kind of cool that you took its name for your user name.

My mention of Urbane Guerilla was a little Celllar in joke. Hang around here long enough and Urbane Guerilla will probably grace this forum with one of his occasional posts. He's also from Southern Cali, but there any possible resemblence would end. UG is seldom civil and his posts are outrageous. He's so far to the right that he makes Hitler look like a progressive. His posts do have a certain bizarre entertainment value, though.

I hope you will continue to be active on this forum. It's always interesting to read someone SANELY posting a view from the right, even though I often disagree.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Ibby

also you're really bad at this whole... knowing what the fuck you're talking about thing

How *wonderful*!

Someone who still believes in the projected spending figures of the Democrats and Obama!

Wonderful entertainment, right here! Only wish I could sell tickets to have you explain just WHY you believe any of that malarky.

Here we are, just 3 weeks away from a big kick in the gut to our economy, and the Democrats and Obama, have still not offered to cut their current spending by even 1/10 of 1/100th, (yes, that's 1/1,000ths).

The logic is clear -- and FUN.

1) We're spending WAY too much money.

2) So we'll get a tiny bit more money from the wealthy, and we'll continue to overspend like a drunken sailor on liberty.

And EVERYTHING WILL BE JUST DANDY!!

See? There is NO NEED to cut our current mad spending spree! Not even by ONE PENNEY, by gawd!!

The Democrats' trying to avoid the fiscal cliff is so hilarious, when you step back and just enjoy their madness. I believe it helps you understand it a lot better, if you're drunk.

[BigV]

You don't believe the Democrats. We get it. I think there's *no* number that you would believe, you just Do. Not. Believe. What if they said they'd cut what the Republican's have offered? Would you believe it? Given the (mono)tone of your remarks, I doubt it. Since it appears you won't accept any communications coming from them, why do you bother? And if the parties negotiating feel that way, why would they bother to continue to negotiate? It's clear your respect for "the Democrats and Obama" is essentially zero. The "other side", such as it is, doesn't have the ability to have their way by fiat, so... so... so what? Together they must negotiate. You recuse yourself. Though you abdicate your opportunity to responsibly share your ideas, you don't remain silent, you just sit there with your loud tantrum, moving neither yourself nor the process forward.

Meanwhile, you just ignore facts. You say there are no cuts to spending proposed, not even a tiny fraction of a percent. Everyone else can see your statement's false; how can you expect to work with political opponents when you lie like this? How does that increase your credibilty as an informed citizen who has a point of view worthy of attention, never mind respect?

I know a little about you from what you've shared here, but none of that follows any kind of logic. You say you're so rational, but you don't exhibit any of that rationality when it comes to political discussions like this. It's a shame, I had high hopes for you. I'd hoped that you could share your viewpoints, some of which are different from mine. I'd hoped to learn from you, but posts like this offer nothing to learn from. I feel like I want to scold you, to tell you to grow up, but that's not really appropriate. But I do wish your arguments were more mature. When they are, I'll give them more attention. If they're good, I'll give them more respect. But not this crap.

[regular.joe]

Spending is being cut. The war in Iraq has drawn down and is ending, the war in Afganistan will come to an end. We, as a nation, did not re-elect the people with the political will to send our nation to war with another nation who did not attack us (Iraq), while ignoring the war in the country that mattered (Afganistan), all while CUTTING taxes and revenues to pay for these wars. We can now stop spending the billions of dollars a year funding our enemies. I applaud these spending cuts. I can stop doing armed social work and capacity building over seas, and we can maybe..just maybe...provide some social work and capacity building in our own country. I understand that men and women like Adak does not want to give his tax dollars to the United States and it's people. Perhaps he should move to Iraq or Afganistan.

[Ibby]

When Ann mother fucking Coulter is making more sense than Adak and, indeed, almost all of fox news, the world REALLY IS UPSIDE DOWN.

After Coulter started to say that Republicans should concede on taxes on the very rich, Hannity wondered why the House didn't just pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

"OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it," she said. "It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans."

"So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?" Hannity asked.

"Not exactly, I--" Coulter said, before stopping herself and saying, "Well, yeah, I guess I am."

"You're saying capitulate to Obama?" Hannity stammered. "We don't have a revenue problem, Ann."

"We lost the election, Sean!" Coulter replied.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

You don't believe the Democrats. We get it. I think there's *no* number that you would believe, you just Do. Not. Believe. What if they said they'd cut what the Republican's have offered? Would you believe it? Given the (mono)tone of your remarks, I doubt it. Since it appears you won't accept any communications coming from them, why do you bother? And if the parties negotiating feel that way, why would they bother to continue to negotiate? It's clear your respect for "the Democrats and Obama" is essentially zero. The "other side", such as it is, doesn't have the ability to have their way by fiat, so... so... so what? Together they must negotiate. You recuse yourself. Though you abdicate your opportunity to responsibly share your ideas, you don't remain silent, you just sit there with your loud tantrum, moving neither yourself nor the process forward.

Meanwhile, you just ignore facts. You say there are no cuts to spending proposed, not even a tiny fraction of a percent. Everyone else can see your statement's false; how can you expect to work with political opponents when you lie like this? How does that increase your credibilty as an informed citizen who has a point of view worthy of attention, never mind respect?

I know a little about you from what you've shared here, but none of that follows any kind of logic. You say you're so rational, but you don't exhibit any of that rationality when it comes to political discussions like this. It's a shame, I had high hopes for you. I'd hoped that you could share your viewpoints, some of which are different from mine. I'd hoped to learn from you, but posts like this offer nothing to learn from. I feel like I want to scold you, to tell you to grow up, but that's not really appropriate. But I do wish your arguments were more mature. When they are, I'll give them more attention. If they're good, I'll give them more respect. But not this crap.

During Reagan's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Reagan would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George H. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George W. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some big ticket spending bill - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

No, I wouldn't believe a Democrat's promise to cut spending, if they served it on a silver platter, 7 days a week. And NO, the parties are NOT negotiating, because Tim Geitner has made it clear that the first order of business is upping the tax rates on those making more than 250k a year. Nothing else can be discussed, until that happens.

That's not negotiating, that's not compromising. That's the socialist's agenda, and nothing else.

The spending cut i would believe from the Democrats, is the bill they pass in Congress, and give to the President to be signed into law - and the President signs it. That's the Democrats' spending cuts that I'll believe.

The Republicans have proposed spending cuts both now, and those that would be phased in, in the coming years.

The Democrats have proposed ZERO, ZIP, NADA spending cuts in next years fiscal year.

NOT ONE PENNEY.

Their proposals are:

1) To increase taxes on the wealthy, immediately.

2) In the years ahead, to consider some cuts in PROJECTED spending.

Do you know what that means?

1) That our actual spending will continue to increase. Further increasing our debt.

2) That Lucy will once again, pull that football away from Charlie Brown, so when he tries to kick it, he'll fall on his keister -- again.
Which is to say that the "promises" to cut spending, will evaporate like fog hitting the hot desert air, once the Democrats (again!) have their tax increase, and can look for new ways to spend it.

Like Wimpy, in Popeye, the Democrats will be GLAD to pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

You understand, that the wealthy - if they are taxed per Obama's wishes - will only pay in enough to hold our debt off, for about 9 days.The rest of the year, we'll still be going into debt, if we don't stop spending money hand over fist.

Does that SOUND right to you? I'm not appealing to your logic here, because I'm quite sure you let yours visit elsewhere, but just from an emotional first, instinctual side, does that sound right to you?

Two questions I'd love to have a Democrat answer:

1) What part of "The overspending has to stop", do you not understand? We're talking about a TRILLION dollars plus, per year.


2) What part of doing the wrong thing, do you want to compromise with?

Truth is, compromise if over-rated. If I "compromised" your fuel tank, with 50% water, you'd drive nowhere. You'd be nearly blind if the eye doctor compromised your lenses with 50% opaque glass. If your lawn mower only cut half the long grass when you mowed the yard, you'd really be mad. Absolutely dismayed if the Oncologist just removed 50% of the malignant tumor, I'm sure.

But compromising ALL OUR FISCAL future, IS SOMEHOW OK??? That's something I should compromise on??

Yeah, right!

Say "hello" to Linus for me, Lucy. I won't be kicking the football, today.