THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[lonewolf]

Between the two choices I will chose cap and trade. There is already too much mercury in fish and it is at dangerous levels for children.

Do you realize what you just posted? You are for a bill that allows companies to spew mercury, as long as they pay for it. Nice. That ought to keep the children safe, eh?

And you people are bitching about mortgage backed securities?

ROFLMAO....lets trade some pollution futures...do you realize how fucked up that is?

Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.

Yes Mr. Obvious

Its an innovative, idiotic plan from idiotic politicians.

If a company doesn't want to comply with their pollution limits all they have to do is buy pollution permits from other companies who don't need them. So a chemical plant buys a bunch of permits from a chip manufacturer and continues to pollute.

A new spending bill that takes you right back to where you started. When are you gonna get it thru your head that politicians' ideas are 99% stupid?

I'll give you this though. Democrats come up with the most innovative really stupid ideas.

[Hawk]

Do you realize what you just posted? You are for a bill that allows companies to spew mercury, as long as they pay for it. Nice. That ought to keep the children safe, eh?

And you people are bitching about mortgage backed securities?

ROFLMAO....lets trade some pollution futures...do you realize how fucked up that is?

Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.

Yes Mr. Obvious

Its an innovative, idiotic plan from idiotic politicians.

If a company doesn't want to comply with their pollution limits all they have to do is buy pollution permits from other companies who don't need them. So a chemical plant buys a bunch of permits from a chip manufacturer and continues to pollute.

A new spending bill that takes you right back to where you started. When are you gonna get it thru your head that politicians' ideas are 99% stupid?

I'll give you this though. Democrats come up with the most innovative really stupid ideas.

Better than the right wing plans. Stop the regulations that hurt businesses. Translation: Let them pollute all they want so they can make more money. Good one Jeff.

[lonewolf]

Better than the right wing plans. Stop the regulations that hurt businesses. Translation: Let them pollute all they want so they can make more money. Good one Jeff.

I don't think the right wing has a plan, do they?

A bad plan is a bad plan whether it comes from idiots on the left, or idiots on the right.

Not all regulations are bad and not all regulations are good.

Very few regulations are effective....because politicians are always trying to play favorites and catch-up and the smart money has already moved on to the next prey.

Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank are two examples of ineffective regulation that cost money and jobs.

Call me old fashioned, but it used to be that when somebody did harm to others, they would be arrested, tried and if convicted they were punished. If they kept doing it, the punishment would increase significantly on the 2nd and later convictions.

If something that causes harm is not illegal--make it illegal.

Perhaps this concept is too complex for the politicians to wrap their heads around?

[RobTheDrummer]

Bill, you just said stop the regulations that hurt business, and in the same post you said you are for cap and trade...wtf? Cap and trade is a regulation that will hurt businesses. I don't get it?

I dunno about you, but the more money a company has to soak into bullshit mandates, regulations, and taxes, the less they have to give to their employees or even stay afloat.

[songsmith]

[Not all regulations are bad and not all regulations are good.


Call me old fashioned, but it used to be that when somebody did harm to others, they would be arrested, tried and if convicted they were punished. If they kept doing it, the punishment would increase significantly on the 2nd and later convictions.

If something that causes harm is not illegal--make it illegal.

Perhaps this concept is too complex for the politicians to wrap their heads around?

Perhaps shed some light on regulations that are right-wing approved? I can't imagine any at all, especially in the eyes of Libertarians, who feel that if something is profitable, it negates the need for any regulation... and nothing should be done that is not profitable.
It's not the liberals who accept flammable tap-water. You're preaching to the choir on that one, Jeff. It's liberal politicians who are listening to their constituents who are attempting to do anything about rampant abuses of the environment and land-owners. In fact, the righties are licking their chops at the prospect of EVEN MORE abuse (drill-baby-drill, ANWAR, oil-sands, mining deregulation, etc.). It truly is old-fashioned to believe that Big Business will be responsible... BP has yet to pay 50% of their fines and costs (that taxpayers will pay anyway), Exxon paid 35 million for the Valdez spill (down from 300 million 1989-dollars), and conservative media ALWAYS crusades for the offender.

[Hawk]

Bill, you just said stop the regulations that hurt business, and in the same post you said you are for cap and trade...wtf? Cap and trade is a regulation that will hurt businesses. I don't get it?

I dunno about you, but the more money a company has to soak into bullshit mandates, regulations, and taxes, the less they have to give to their employees or even stay afloat.

Read the post again Rob. With the translation.

[Hawk]

Bill, you just said stop the regulations that hurt business, and in the same post you said you are for cap and trade...wtf? Cap and trade is a regulation that will hurt businesses. I don't get it?

I dunno about you, but the more money a company has to soak into bullshit mandates, regulations, and taxes, the less they have to give to their employees or even stay afloat.

Obama wants to cut taxes to small businesses. Obama wants to continue the payroll tax cuts. The Conservatives won't let that happen...! Why not ?

The top 1% set records for business incomes and you want to let them free to pollute ? While they are NOT increasing payroll ? While they are not hiring ? WAKE UP

[lonewolf]

[Not all regulations are bad and not all regulations are good.


Call me old fashioned, but it used to be that when somebody did harm to others, they would be arrested, tried and if convicted they were punished. If they kept doing it, the punishment would increase significantly on the 2nd and later convictions.

If something that causes harm is not illegal--make it illegal.

Perhaps this concept is too complex for the politicians to wrap their heads around?

Perhaps shed some light on regulations that are right-wing approved? I can't imagine any at all, especially in the eyes of Libertarians, who feel that if something is profitable, it negates the need for any regulation... and nothing should be done that is not profitable.
It's not the liberals who accept flammable tap-water. You're preaching to the choir on that one, Jeff. It's liberal politicians who are listening to their constituents who are attempting to do anything about rampant abuses of the environment and land-owners. In fact, the righties are licking their chops at the prospect of EVEN MORE abuse (drill-baby-drill, ANWAR, oil-sands, mining deregulation, etc.). It truly is old-fashioned to believe that Big Business will be responsible... BP has yet to pay 50% of their fines and costs (that taxpayers will pay anyway), Exxon paid 35 million for the Valdez spill (down from 300 million 1989-dollars), and conservative media ALWAYS crusades for the offender.

Why is this concept so difficult for some to comprehend:

"If something that causes harm is not illegal...make it illegal."

That's the most extreme thing that can be done is make something a criminal offense and hold violators accountable.

3 strikes and you're out might get their attention.

Regulation is lame and rarely works.

EDIT: Just because there is a problem doesn't mean that you must try "anything" to solve it. That kind of attitude is why our country is on The Verge of bankruptcy.

We need some people in DC with real world problem solving experience to clean up the mess that the politicians made of our government. Unfortunately, I don't see any on the political landscape...except maybe Herman Cain...but 9/9/9 is a bad idea for the poor.

[Banned]

The libs just aren't listening.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/sports-enterta ... ewers/1680

It was no surprise that Olbermann drew a big audience for its early shows - averaging 106,000 viewers a night. Unfortunately, by August it was down to 79,000. Last month’s numbers were even worse. Olbermann’s average was down to 46,000 viewers and was in no danger of coming close to breaking into the top 30 cable TV news shows.

And he is being paid $10 million a year to lose viewers.

[Hawk]

The libs just aren't listening.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/sports-enterta ... ewers/1680

It was no surprise that Olbermann drew a big audience for its early shows - averaging 106,000 viewers a night. Unfortunately, by August it was down to 79,000. Last month’s numbers were even worse. Olbermann’s average was down to 46,000 viewers and was in no danger of coming close to breaking into the top 30 cable TV news shows.

And he is being paid $10 million a year to lose viewers.

Schadenfreude !







A German word that has no direct English translation.

Loose translation. Some one who has fun or gets joy out of seeing someone else being hurt or damaged or failing. Usually distinguishes the person as a bully or having a lack of feeling for others or has a low level of sociopathy. A lack of sympathy in others weaknesses.


Scientific studiesA New York Times article in 2002 cited a number of scientific studies of schadenfreude, which it defined as "delighting in others' misfortune." Many such studies are based on social comparison theory, the idea that when people around us have bad luck, we look better to ourselves. Other researchers have found that people with low self-esteem are more likely to feel schadenfreude than are people who have high self-esteem.

A 2006 experiment suggests that men, but not women, enjoy seeing bad people suffer. The study was designed to measure empathy, by watching which brain centers are stimulated when subjects inside an fMRI observe someone experiencing physical pain. Researchers expected that the brain's empathy center would show more stimulation when those seen as good got an electric shock than they would if the shock was given to someone the subject had reason to consider bad. This was indeed the case, but for male subjects the brain's pleasure centers also lit up when someone else got a shock that the male thought was well-deserved.

Brain-scanning studies show that schadenfreude is correlated with envy. Strong feelings of envy activated physical pain nodes in the brain's dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; the brain's reward centers, such as the ventral striatum, were activated by news that the people envied had suffered misfortune. The magnitude of the brain's schadenfreude response could even be predicted from the strength of the previous envy response.


A 2009 study indicates that the hormone oxytocin may be involved in the feeling of schadenfreude.[29] In that study, it was reported that when participants in a game of chance were pitted against a player they considered arrogant, inhaling oxytocin through the nose enhanced their feelings of schadenfreude when their opponent lost as well as their feelings of envy when their opponent won.

[Hawk]

Given that the Supreme Court has removed restrictions on how much money an individual or a business can spend on a cantidates campaign (Super Pack Money) Who will the 1% buy the Republican nomination ?

Given that super pack can spend unlimited amounts of money for the primaries (and the most advertising usually wins) They likely already chose their candidate.

I think they'd love to have Gingrich but they know he's too abrasive to take on Obama. Romney has the inside track because he can beat Obama. He can connect with the middle class and he doesn't come across as arrogant. I'm guessing you'll see Newt on the ticket as VP.

Obama knows what kind of money will be spent to take him down. Whether he admits it or not, he is currently on the campaign trail. Why? Because he will need to raise at least a Billion Dollars to take on the super pack money.

Yes, Obama will get some super pack money, but not much from the one per-centers.

[f.sciarrillo]

Given that the Supreme Court has removed restrictions on how much money an individual or a business can spend on a cantidates campaign (Super Pack Money) Who will the 1% buy the Republican nomination ?

Given that super pack can spend unlimited amounts of money for the primaries (and the most advertising usually wins) They likely already chose their candidate.

I think they'd love to have Gingrich but they know he's too abrasive to take on Obama. Romney has the inside track because he can beat Obama. He can connect with the middle class and he doesn't come across as arrogant. I'm guessing you'll see Newt on the ticket as VP.

Obama knows what kind of money will be spent to take him down. Whether he admits it or not, he is currently on the campaign trail. Why? Because he will need to raise at least a Billion Dollars to take on the super pack money.

Yes, Obama will get some super pack money, but not much from the one per-centers.

That is a good question. With Obama losing the independents, well not all the independents; there are still quite a few that will support and vote for him, and having a difficult time getting getting his base up and ready, it will interesting to see how much he does get. I agree that he is going to have it tough if he does go up against Romney. I don't think Romney will have Newt as a running mate though. I think it will either be Christy or Rubio.

[Hawk]

Given that the Supreme Court has removed restrictions on how much money an individual or a business can spend on a cantidates campaign (Super Pack Money) Who will the 1% buy the Republican nomination ?

Given that super pack can spend unlimited amounts of money for the primaries (and the most advertising usually wins) They likely already chose their candidate.

I think they'd love to have Gingrich but they know he's too abrasive to take on Obama. Romney has the inside track because he can beat Obama. He can connect with the middle class and he doesn't come across as arrogant. I'm guessing you'll see Newt on the ticket as VP.

Obama knows what kind of money will be spent to take him down. Whether he admits it or not, he is currently on the campaign trail. Why? Because he will need to raise at least a Billion Dollars to take on the super pack money.

Yes, Obama will get some super pack money, but not much from the one per-centers.

That is a good question. With Obama losing the independents, well not all the independents; there are still quite a few that will support and vote for him, and having a difficult time getting getting his base up and ready, it will interesting to see how much he does get. I agree that he is going to have it tough if he does go up against Romney. I don't think Romney will have Newt as a running mate though. I think it will either be Christy or Rubio.

Interesting. I don't think Christy wants any part of it...yet. But yeah, Rubio could be the bad cop. I was kind of thinking of that with Gingrich in the campaign. He'd be the bad cop sent out to take Obama down with negative rhetoric while Romney stands tall and looks presidential - the good cop.

Bought and paid for by the 1% super pack. Wait till the TV campaign begins, it will be like never before. Obama will once again be portrayed as the antichrist and as Hitler.

[Banned]

Obama gets his money from corporations. Like Solyndra and SunPower, were the CEO's are big money bundlers, Super Pac funders.

As long as Obama has our tax dollars to give to illegal corporations, who then declare bankruptcy, he will have plenty of money to continue his campaign of destroying the economy of this country.

[f.sciarrillo]

I'm not sure how the good cop, bad cop strategy would work out.

[Hawk]

Obama gets his money from corporations. Like Solyndra and SunPower, were the CEO's are big money bundlers, Super Pac funders.

As long as Obama has our tax dollars to give to illegal corporations, who then declare bankruptcy, he will have plenty of money to continue his campaign of destroying the economy of this country.

schadenfreude again ? Tell me joe, how many of them succeeded ? You don't know ? Oh yeah, you only delight in failures.

[Banned]

Obama gets his money from corporations. Like Solyndra and SunPower, were the CEO's are big money bundlers, Super Pac funders.

As long as Obama has our tax dollars to give to illegal corporations, who then declare bankruptcy, he will have plenty of money to continue his campaign of destroying the economy of this country.

schadenfreude again ? Tell me joe, how many of them succeeded ? You don't know ? Oh yeah, you only delight in failures.

I only know when Billions or our tax dollars were wasted by fraudulent corporations by the Obama administration.

Wasting billions and trillions of our tax dollars is the common theme in the Obama administration. He does not have many successes to chirp about.

[Hawk]

Germany can do it. Why cant the US.


4 Reasons Why Germany Is A Renewable Energy Success Story
July 29, 2008 By Ariel Schwartz 47 Comments

A few weeks ago, I visited Intersolar North America, an exhibition for photovoltaics, solar thermal technology, and solar thermal architecture. The exhibition, which was previously only held in Germany, had an understandably large German presence (including a large beer garden). During my time there, I stopped by the German Energy Agency booth, and was quite impressed with what I found. So, without further ado, here are 4 reasons why we should be paying a whole lot of attention to the Germany renewable energy market.

1. Germany has the world’s largest wind power sector— but had barely any notable wind power at all 16 years ago.

With over 20,600 MW of installed capacity, Germany is the world’s wind power leader. And they accomplished this feat pretty quickly, having had less than 100 MW in 1992. The second place wind leader, Spain, only has approximately 12,000 MW of capacity.


2. The country has the world’s second largest solar power market, despite having extremely cloudy weather.

Germany comes in as number 2 for solar power, with 750 MW of peak capacity as of 2006. However, it is far and away the European leader for photovoltaic capacity, with a capacity of 3063 MW. Additionally, the world’s largest solar cell producer (Q-Cells) is located there. Oh, and the country also has the largest solar thermal market in Europe.

3. Over 214,000 people work in the German domestic renewable energy industry.

With 2.3 million renewable energy workers worldwide, Germany once again takes the cake as a pioneering country. Last year, German companies accounted for 38 percent of the total wind energy market.

4. They have progressive renewable energy laws.

The German government has just agreed on a new climate change legislative package with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions up to 36 percent by 2020. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel calls it the biggest climate change package in the world.

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tYf)

[Hawk]

Obama gets his money from corporations. Like Solyndra and SunPower, were the CEO's are big money bundlers, Super Pac funders.

As long as Obama has our tax dollars to give to illegal corporations, who then declare bankruptcy, he will have plenty of money to continue his campaign of destroying the economy of this country.

schadenfreude again ? Tell me joe, how many of them succeeded ? You don't know ? Oh yeah, you only delight in failures.

I only know when Billions or our tax dollars were wasted by fraudulent corporations by the Obama administration.

Wasting billions and trillions of our tax dollars is the common theme in the Obama administration. He does not have many successes to chirp about.

Do you have a list ?

I've already covered Solyndra, you just want to spin it again ? All of your facts and questions have been covered, documented and sources provided.

[Banned]

schadenfreude again ? Tell me joe, how many of them succeeded ? You don't know ? Oh yeah, you only delight in failures.

I only know when Billions or our tax dollars were wasted by fraudulent corporations by the Obama administration.

Wasting billions and trillions of our tax dollars is the common theme in the Obama administration. He does not have many successes to chirp about.

Do you have a list ?

I've already covered Solyndra, you just want to spin it again ? All of your facts and questions have been covered, documented and sources provided.

Bill, you need to contact the FBI and Congress. Need to tell them the Nazi piano tuner in pennsyltucky already conducted a thorough investigation. Then can all stop it now and go home. Case closed, Herr Hawk said so.



You are the duffus of all time.

[Banned]

Another thing to thank Obama about.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589

A Long, Steep Drop for Americans' Standard of Living

Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.

Bottom line: The average individual now has $1,315 less in disposable income than he or she did three years ago at the onset of the Great Recession – even though the recession ended, technically speaking, in mid-2009. That means less money to spend at the spa or the movies, less for vacations, new carpeting for the house, or dinner at a restaurant.

[Hawk]

I only know when Billions or our tax dollars were wasted by fraudulent corporations by the Obama administration.

Wasting billions and trillions of our tax dollars is the common theme in the Obama administration. He does not have many successes to chirp about.

Do you have a list ?

I've already covered Solyndra, you just want to spin it again ? All of your facts and questions have been covered, documented and sources provided.

Bill, you need to contact the FBI and Congress. Need to tell them the Nazi piano tuner in pennsyltucky already conducted a thorough investigation. Then can all stop it now and go home. Case closed, Herr Hawk said so.



You are the duffus of all time.

Deleted. What I said in this post was just to low. I don't really want to go as low as joe. The Nazi name calling is wrong on so many levels. So upon reflection, I decided to remove this equally disgusting post.

Good luck with your Utopia Joe.

Interestingly it was my friend Tim B that suggested I just not argue with you...

[lonewolf]

I thought this was Pennsylbama?

[Hawk]

Another thing to thank Obama about.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589

A Long, Steep Drop for Americans' Standard of Living

Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago.

Bottom line: The average individual now has $1,315 less in disposable income than he or she did three years ago at the onset of the Great Recession – even though the recession ended, technically speaking, in mid-2009. That means less money to spend at the spa or the movies, less for vacations, new carpeting for the house, or dinner at a restaurant.

I've repeatedly told you about the middle class getting poorer. While the top 5% are setting records in increased wealth. How is it Obama's fault that the rich won't pay a decent wage when they can afford to ?

Because they are holding the US hostage. They will buy the next election and put in a talking head to cut regulations and kill unions so that they can get richer and more powerful. Just stating the obvious.

[lonewolf]

Germany can do it. Why cant the US.


1. Germany has the world’s largest wind power sector— but had barely any notable wind power at all 16 years ago.

With over 20,600 MW of installed capacity, Germany is the world’s wind power leader. And they accomplished this feat pretty quickly, having had less than 100 MW in 1992. The second place wind leader, Spain, only has approximately 12,000 MW of capacity.


2. The country has the world’s second largest solar power market, despite having extremely cloudy weather.

Germany comes in as number 2 for solar power, with 750 MW of peak capacity as of 2006. However, it is far and away the European leader for photovoltaic capacity, with a capacity of 3063 MW. Additionally, the world’s largest solar cell producer (Q-Cells) is located there. Oh, and the country also has the largest solar thermal market in Europe.

3. Over 214,000 people work in the German domestic renewable energy industry.

With 2.3 million renewable energy workers worldwide, Germany once again takes the cake as a pioneering country. Last year, German companies accounted for 38 percent of the total wind energy market.

4. They have progressive renewable energy laws.

The German government has just agreed on a new climate change legislative package with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions up to 36 percent by 2020. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel calls it the biggest climate change package in the world.

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tYf)

Sounds pretty impressive...unless you happen to have 2 degrees in Electrical Engineering.

In the United States the yearly electrical power consumption is 12,747.485 kWh per capita. So the required electricity per person is 12,747.485 kWH/year divided by 365 days/year divided by 24 hours/day = 1.455kW average continuous load per person.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_e ... per-capita

The capacity factor for wind power is 40%. That means that the average output for those plants is 20,600MW x 0.4 = 8240MW

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/05 ... roduction/

At that rate, Germany's entire wind generated electricity would support 8240MW x 1000kW/MW divided by 1.455kW = 5,663,230 US citizens.

At 10:26pm, the official population of the US was 312,455,961

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

So, the worlds largest wind power system can support a grand total of 5,663,230/312,455,961=

1.8% of the US population.

Do I really need to take this any further?