Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 06, 2009, 11:04:28 AM
-
EPA to declare carbon dioxide a public danger next week:
----------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/epa-set-delare-carbon-dioxide-public-danger/
WSJ
- December 06, 2009
EPA Set to Declare Carbon Dioxide a Public Danger
The announcement would give Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit.
Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal
-
The time is ever getting closer for Americans and American business to tell the fed gov to hang it in their ear. All it takes is electing the proper people to stop the insanity.
-
Can you imagine all the air pollution from masses of poor shivering people huddling around piles of burning tires?
;/
-
All it takes is electing the proper people to stop the insanity.
Well, yeah, but there's a nickel's worth of problem with that proposal.
Here comes the first two and a half cents' worth: the percentage of people living in the United States who positively care about America has been on the way down a long, long time. I don't mean to say the America haters are now in the majority; I do, however, mean to say their numbers have been increasing, and the number of people who are indifferent to America have been increasing at an astronomical rate. How long did the expressions of patriotism following the attacks of September 22, 2001 last? If the mere expression doesn't last long, that ought to tell you something significant about patriotism itself.
Here's the other two and a half cents' worth: the people who deeply, sincerely, truly belive America needs to be transformed into a socialist workers' and peasants' heaven on earth have spent the last century and some while worming their way into education, the purported "news" media, civil service and regulation at the federal, state, and local levels, all the soft purported "sciences," and vote counting. They're in the process of assuming command of medicine throughout the United States. They're a minority, but they've positioned themselves at the switches.
I laughed at South American banana republics as a junior in a high school world history class. "How could people be that dumb?" I wondered, and "Couldn't they see they were being cheated?"
-
I agree SW, wholeheartedly, with your observation. Your remarks are the other two thirds of my unstated opinion.
The next 2.5 cents observes that only about half the people who are able, actually vote. Sadly, I believe a majority of those folks who do vote, probably have no legitimate rationale for why they are voting the way they do. Krushchev was right when he pounded the lectern with his shoe. He just didn't know that they wouldn't do it to us, we'd do it to ourselves. Pogo was right.
-
Krushchev was right when he pounded the lectern with his shoe. He just didn't know that they wouldn't do it to us, we'd do it to ourselves.
I remember seeing him doing that. My friends and I thought he was partly an idiot, partly a nut, altogether something to laugh about. In retrospect, I've got to say he was all that; unfortunately, we were so busy laughing at him, we didn't think to look around ourselves.
Something about forests and trees, eh?
-
I remember seeing him doing that. My friends and I thought he was partly an idiot, partly a nut, altogether something to laugh about. In retrospect, I've got to say he was all that; unfortunately, we were so busy laughing at him, we didn't think to look around ourselves.
He sure had JFK shaking in his shoes.
With the way we're going, and the way Putin is playing the oil game, Russia may still best us.
-
Non elected bureaucrats making sweeping and far reaching policy with no accountability to any form of constituents? Americans tookup arms against the Brits for less. :'(
-
If the mandarins do as predicted, it will create a crystal clear, unambiguous case for the repeal of enabling legislation. Let us see if spinelessrepublicans can grow one or a set of other appendages and do what has to be done.
-
Any word on ClimateGate having an effect on this?
-
How many voters actually realized what causes CO2 emissions in industry?
I really don't mind low voter turnout. IMO, if those voters don't care much about voting, I don't want them jumping up on election day and winging it. If they don't care to find out who the candidates are, they should just stay out of it.
-
How many voters actually realized what causes CO2 emissions in industry?
How many of them realize:
Water vapor = ~35-70%
CO2 = ~10-25%
(estimates vary widely depending on who you ask, but ordinal is always the same)
I demand that we sanction the oceans.
-
How many of them realize:
Water vapor = ~35-70%
CO2 = ~10-25%
(estimates vary widely depending on who you ask, but ordinal is always the same)
I demand that we sanction the oceans.
A layer of oil will reduce evaporation from the oceans. So all we need to do is start releasing crude to coat the surface of the seas, and . . .
Uh oh, just a minute . . .
-
Let us see if spinelessrepublicans can grow one or a set of other appendages and do what has to be done.
I'll put a nickel on tails so they can slither the other way faster.
-
Any word on ClimateGate having an effect on this?
"They" have pretty much doubled down on the rhetoric and pretty well ignored the corruption revealed in the hacked emails.
Some of those implicated have resorted to name calling and denier bashing.
Today they formalize the lemming rush to save us from ourselves by attempting to destroy the US economy.
-
Even worse than CO2 is oxygen and even worse than that is breathing and living as a non-angelic green being...
America was built on the idea that there would be a critical mass of smart, disciplined, and honorable people. Well...
-
We are at war with these climate bastards and our own government is in collusion with them. EPA ruled today that CO2 is a harmful to humans gas and must be highly regulated.
We continue to elect to high office evil, self centered, greedy and clueless men and women who don't have the scruples to think about their country. God help America.
-
Look at the top ten searches this year on Yahoo if you want a reflection of the contemporary American psyche. Michael Jackson, Britney, assorted floozies, WWE, and NASCAR. No Thomas Jefferson. Again. Damn. =D
-
The time is ever getting closer for Americans and American business to tell the fed gov to hang it in their ear. All it takes is electing the proper people to stop the insanity.
I am all for this. Most of us will be dead before global climate change is a problem for us anyway.
[popcorn]
-
If the mandarins do as predicted, it will create a crystal clear, unambiguous case for the repeal of enabling legislation. Let us see if spinelessrepublicans can grow one or a set of other appendages and do what has to be done.
Well, before the "spinelessrepublicans" can do anything, they have to get a clear majority. Right now, they are a largely irrelevant minority.
-
They are irrelevant by choice. Too comfortable, I'd say.
If they think what is going on is wrong, deadly wrong, they need to speak out, regardless of the cost.
-
Well, before the "spinelessrepublicans" can do anything, they have to get a clear majority.
They had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. All they did was tax and squander nearly as irresponsibly as the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.
-
They had a majority in both houses of Congress and the White House. All they did was tax and squander nearly as irresponsibly as the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party.
Ayup. I seem to recall the "irrelevant minority" of D's managed to stop a our fearless heroes from doing much of anything.
-
Ah, yes, let's keep talking about how the Republican's didn't do nearly as much as they ought to have done, and more than they should have done, all at the same time. It's such a very obscure fact, we should all make sure everyone knows about it. Maybe that way, we can keep the Democratic Party in power for ever and ever and ever. It's worked the past two election years.
-
Ah, yes, let's keep talking about how the Republican's didn't do nearly as much as they ought to have done, and more than they should have done, all at the same time. It's such a very obscure fact, we should all make sure everyone knows about it. Maybe that way, we can keep the Democratic Party in power for ever and ever and ever. It's worked the past two election years.
Fair enough.
If your party isn't aiming for meaningful change, it doesn't deserve to get power.
If conservatives allow their party to be come a set of Democrats with slightly different trappings (a lip service to their values and beliefs rather than actual action), they deserve to have the Democrats come in and break everything.
-
You don't have to be a Democrat to subvert your country. Two Bushes have proven that. There are two parties all right, one in Congress and the unelected Rest of Us who are locked out of representation. The difference--in terms of actual policies--between the two parties has become marginal. Being "the Loyal Opposition" is not going to stop the tyranny that is unfolding.
-
Ah, yes, let's keep talking about how the Republican's didn't do nearly as much as they ought to have done, and more than they should have done, all at the same time. It's such a very obscure fact, we should all make sure everyone knows about it. Maybe that way, we can keep the Democratic Party in power for ever and ever and ever. It's worked the past two election years.
Yeah, holding the R's accountable for their actions is a terrible idea. We should just shut up and vote for them no matter what they do. That'll fix the problems in the party! Any disloyal thoughts are treasonous and must be squelched. ;/
-
But we do have two parties: the Fascist party and the Communist party =(
-
I don't get it. I really, really don't get it.
If you people don't like the Republican party the way it is, why aren't you getting involved so that you can change it back into whatever it is you expect from them? You all act as though withdrawing from the Republican party is somehow going to make them eager to represent you and your values.
News flash: when conservative/libertarian types withdraw from the party, the party withdraws from them too. They don't come running back to you begging for your forgiveness.
If you want to stop what's going on in Washington, you're going to need a Republican Party that's both strong and conservative. And you're not going to get that behaving the way you do.
Do you guys actually want to fix things in Washington? Want it enough to work for it? (Honest questions, not rhetorical)
-
The problem isn't our behavior, it's theirs. They were elected to advance certain principles and agendas. But they long since stopped doing that. We speak, but THEY DO NOT LISTEN.
-
Yeah, holding the R's accountable for their actions is a terrible idea. We should just shut up and vote for them no matter what they do. That'll fix the problems in the party! Any disloyal thoughts are treasonous and must be squelched. ;/
Well no, you shouldn't shut up and vote for them. Neither do I. But neither should we constantly harp on the same tired old points that everybody already knows. It's one thing to loudly disagree with Pres. Bush or Congressional Republicans. It's another thing to constantly rehearse the same tirade that everyone's already heard.
Fair enough.
If your party isn't aiming for meaningful change, it doesn't deserve to get power.
If conservatives allow their party to be come a set of Democrats with slightly different trappings (a lip service to their values and beliefs rather than actual action), they deserve to have the Democrats come in and break everything.
OK, but do we Americans deserve to have the Democrats come in and break everything?
-
Yeah, but Fisty:
Every time we kick out the bad Repubs and allow the seats to get flushed with Democrats, the Dems install more social welfare and socialist programs. Then we get mad that we're getting robbed and we put in Republicans, who 1) don't remove the social programs and 2) establish weird domestic national security priorities and build just a little bit more police state. Then we get mad at the Republicans, and we put in more democrats who don't dismantle the police state, but still start building more crap that we can get angry at so that we can get more police state with the next voter indignation phase. And so on.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Perhaps we're waking up from insanity and that's why we want a 3rd party: So that neither party can accomplish anything without convincing at least one of the other parties to go along with it.
A Libertarian contingent in Congress, perhaps just 10%, would be enough to accomplish that. Just so that neither of the existing parties has 50% control.
-
What does constant recitation of the GOP's well-known failures have to do with third parties? All I'm saying is, we keep preaching to each other about how bad the Republicans are, as if it were something new. It isn't. Who hasn't heard this already? Every time I turn on the radio, or read our politics forum, it's the same old thing, repeated as if the writer/speaker has had an original thought.
Gee, no wonder no Repub's have come out to the polls since 2004. The way we tear down the GOP like this, they could have run Jesus Christ, with Abe Lincoln as VP, and they still would have lost.
-
Republicans don't come to the polls because they feel increasingly shut out of the process, disenfranchised, not to mention betrayed. When it doesn't matter who you run for office and the legacy of your nation is in peril, it's time to begin questioning all of your assumptions about how the game's played.
-
The problem isn't our behavior, it's theirs. They were elected to advance certain principles and agendas. But they long since stopped doing that. We speak, but THEY DO NOT LISTEN.
You couldn't be more wrong. They do listen. The question is, do you know what you're saying?
What you're saying is that you won't support Republicans. You won't vote for them. You won't help them in elections. You don't want them to win. You won't be a sound and trustworthy base of political support for them. You're telling them you don't want them to represent you. You're telling them they should forget about courting conservatives and go find different electoral block to pursue, one that will support them.
Well guess what. They're listening. I'm hearing it more and more from Republican politicians locally. They're abandoning you as much as you're abandoning them.
They don't care that you're taking your ball and going home. They'll find someone else to play with.
-
Yeah, I/we know what we are saying. I didn't say I wouldn't support Republicans, that I wouldn't vote for them. I said they don't listen to us and are not really Republicans in any sense that matters any more. When the chips are down, they compromise, they "cooperate," they cave.
The Republicans of the Bush stripe began courting other electoral blocs a while ago. We can thank The Architect for some of that, but Bush the Elder was already on that course even before W. took office.
Republicans are abandoning us? To become what exactly? The de facto liberals they already were?
-
HTG: no one is saying we won't support R's. The whole Contract with America thing is a good illustration of this. R's actually sounded conservative and had a plan, people voted for them in droves. They got elected and screwed us, failed to live up to their promises and we withdrew that support. Only so much can be done at a local level. As long as the national party keeps putting Democrat Lite tools like Mike "Hey look we have a black guy too!" Steele in charge, and funding RINO's like Scozzafava it will make people not support them.
The message is not "We won't support you." The message is "We won't support you, until you represent us." I think the conservative will was made known pretty clearly via the Tea Parties etc.
-
The Contract with America thing is a prime example of the problem. The CwA was a good idea, lots of positive policies, much of it was passed, all of it was put up for a vote. It was a darned good thing overall, as much as anyone can reasonably expect from a political party. And here you are 15 years later, still griping about it as if it were a failure or a blemish on their record.
They go out on a limb for you and 15 years later you're still spitting on them for it. You say you want to support candidates who represent you. Well, your actions show otherwise.
Looking through this thread and lots of others here on APS and elsewhere, it's clear that way too many folks have a bug up their buts over the Republican Party. Everything is their fault, either because they did something wrong, or because someone else did something wrong and they weren't able to stop it, or because they just plain weren't perfect enough (and "perfect" is defined differently for each complainer), or because they compromised in a situation where anything else would have gotten them creamed by a political bus, or whatever. Way too many folks are waiting around for the "perfect" candidate and swear they won't vote for anything else, and even when a candidate comes along who is clearly much closer to perfect than the alternatives, they still refuse to vote for him. There's always an excuse.
And then y'all complain even more because many Republicans take notice of this fact and move towards other voting blocks because they know they can't count on you.
Bottom line is that I can see what y'all are willing to do to oppose Republicans. I see that all too often. I want to see what you're willing to do to support the good Republican politicians out there. If anything. Grinding it out in local politics isn't much fun, it's a lot of work and often fruitless. Not nearly as entertaining as whinging on the net. But it works. It's the only real way to make a positive difference.
I ask again, sincerely, do y'all really want to improve things, or do you simply enjoy complaining?
-
I think it's more difficult being a Democrat lately. A former co-worker of mine is pretty much a pacifist, but is also a strict Catholic who is pro-life. He's a fiscal conservative, and moderately social liberal.
Where's he going to go? There's no room in the Democrat tent for pro-lifer's. While the Republicans haven't shown much restraint fiscally, the Democrats are binging right now. As for social moderates, they've been pushed aside as well.
-
Everything is their fault, either because they did something wrong, or because someone else did something wrong and they weren't able to stop it, or because they just plain weren't perfect enough (and "perfect" is defined differently for each complainer), or because they compromised in a situation where anything else would have gotten them creamed by a political bus, or whatever. Way too many folks are waiting around for the "perfect" candidate and swear they won't vote for anything else, and even when a candidate comes along who is clearly much closer to perfect than the alternatives, they still refuse to vote for him. There's always an excuse.
The GOP went off the tracks, and a lot of people know it. They became a party of collusion.
No one expects perfection, just adherence to basic principles. Too many Republicans have lost sight of that.
-
Do you guys actually want to fix things in Washington?
Not anymore. I just want it to go away. =(
At this point in the spending deficit curve, that is pretty much a given due to default/bankruptcy. The only question is how and when it will happen, and how nasty things will get as those in power try to hang on... =|
-
Point is, there are many types of "going away," as you know...
What's clear is that where we are now, politically, does not offer any benign solutions, not, at least, in my view.
You read about what's getting paid off with TARP monies (Burston-Marsteller), you read about the TSA's "accidental" SNAFU, and you shake your head...
-
What does constant recitation of the GOP's well-known failures have to do with third parties? All I'm saying is, we keep preaching to each other about how bad the Republicans are, as if it were something new. It isn't. Who hasn't heard this already? Every time I turn on the radio, or read our politics forum, it's the same old thing, repeated as if the writer/speaker has had an original thought.
Gee, no wonder no Repub's have come out to the polls since 2004. The way we tear down the GOP like this, they could have run Jesus Christ, with Abe Lincoln as VP, and they still would have lost.
Because most of the current crop of Republicans believe in continuing the cycle. Bring us some serious libertarian minded (R) candidates, damnit!
The fact that people like Romney are considered to be frontrunners for the next election cycle speaks volumes of the (R) party.
-
Well said.
Preaching to the choir is one of my pet peeves. 'Course I'm guilty of it, too, but it just gets so old. And it don't accomplish much, 'cept to elect Obamas and Pelosis.
-
Not anymore. I just want it to go away. =(
At this point in the spending deficit curve, that is pretty much a given due to default/bankruptcy. The only question is how and when it will happen, and how nasty things will get as those in power try to hang on... =|
I'm right there with you on that. At this point I don't think "fixing" the Gov is going to be as simple as electing the right people. The folks running the USA off a cliff are not going to give up when they are so close, they don't respect us (the people) anymore, they are not going to just let us vote them out.
-
Well said.
Preaching to the choir is one of my pet peeves. 'Course I'm guilty of it, too, but it just gets so old. And it don't accomplish much, 'cept to elect Obamas and Pelosis.
So preaching to the choir about the faults of the people who are supposed to be on our side is bad. But constantly repeating criticism of Obama et al is a-ok?
-
Yes and no. Same-same-same criticism of the same-same-same cast of lefties is also annoying. BUT, it doesn't have the unfortunate side-effect of helping a much worse party win elections.
All that being said, can you really criticize the left too much? They're very evil, dangerous people.
-
And the so-called "right" are weak and complicit fools who apparently (according to HTG) will whore their votes to whoever seems like a more steady revenue stream. To some people, Quislings are worse than [/Godwin]s.
-
But again, you have the unfortunate side effect of keeping people away from the not-quite-as-bad party, which helps keep the thoroughly evil party in power. =|
-
But again, you have the unfortunate side effect of keeping people away from the not-quite-as-bad party, which helps keep the thoroughly evil party in power. =|
You'd think the less evil folks would change after it keeps happening, wouldn't you?
-
And how's the third party solution working out for you? Hear me out first.
I've done third-party before. May do so again. I can see both sides of the debate, and have been on both sides. I've concluded that both solutions (reform the GOP, or vote third party) have their ups and downs. Neither approach seems to work very well, and I would agree with those who say the third party movements need to quit putting so many eggs in the presidential election basket, and focus more on local and state elections.
So I'll do what I think is best, and you do the same. In the meantime, maybe the third partyers can stop talking as if they have seen the light and the GOP voters are all lockstep drones with total faith in their party. I can count neither the number of times I've criticized the GOP, or the number of times I've been accused of thinking they can do no wrong. As we saw, earlier. ;/
And one more thing, since I've got a good long rant going. Going a bit off-topic, but just as an example, I've often thought that the religious conservatives and the not-so-religious conservo-libertarians could come together on a great many things if we could drop all the hostility we fling at each other. There's a lot of needless suspicion on both sides. I think the same thing is true with the GOP v Third Party issue. A little less back-stabbing, a little more understanding and cooperation. Alas, tis but a pipe dream.
-
When did I say I wanted a third party? I want the R's to pull their heads out of their fourth point of contact. I'm just not willing to support a kinder gentler only sort of socialist just cause they happen to have an R by their name.
-
Then I'm not sure what you're getting at. Did you vote for McCain, or abstain, or what?
Or maybe you just misunderstand me. I never said our grievances with the GOP should not be aired. It just seems to turn into a never-ending, monotonously repetitive bull session.
It's funny that Repub's are taken to task for being "the party of No." (I wish they really were.) But anyway, to listen to some Republicans, the only thing they seem to be against is their own party. :lol:
-
I registered to vote several months in advance, but my application apparently got "lost" and I didn't find out until too late to do anything about it. :( I didn't vote for anyone in '08, damn it all.
I'm not against (or for) "the Party" per se. I'm against the weak and spineless members of it. Not all R's are bad, and I'd love to have more good ones to support. But I'll be damned if I'll give anything to the likes of Romney, Huckabee, or McCain.
-
It's not that the Republicans are bad people, it's that they are, in my mind, out of touch with reality. They are operating as parliamentarians, dealmakers, negotiators, when the other side is in full smashmouth, guerrilla warfare mode in brazen defiance of the most basic rules of civil process. The GOP needs to re-think its rules of engagement unless they are simply jousting for a dishonorable peace.
-
The health care bill is a perfect example. Instead of recognizing that all the current liberal and leftist initiatives have to be scrapped utterly, the GOP, in the main, is trying to "work out a compromise." Anything to avoid appearing principled, I guess. If they are afraid to be the Party of No the way our Revolutionary forebears were, in a time that calls first and foremost for a loud, unequivocal "HELL NO!" they are useless to us and useless to this blessed nation.
-
The health care bill is a perfect example. Instead of recognizing that all the current liberal and leftist initiatives have to be scrapped utterly, the GOP, in the main, is trying to "work out a compromise." Anything to avoid appearing principled, I guess. If they are afraid to be the Party of No the way our Revolutionary forebears were, in a time that calls first and foremost for a loud, unequivocal "HELL NO!" they are useless to us and useless to this blessed nation.
[rabblerabble]
Hear, hear!
[/rabble]
=D
That's McCain-ism at its finest. There's no "compromise" on gun control that suits me. There's no "compromise" on single payer health care that suits me. There's no "compromise" on illegal immigration that suits me.
It's just a way for the Leftists to get SOME of what they want now until they pester me again for a "compromise" in another 5-10 years on the same issue. Then my slider moves left just a little bit more to appease them again. And again.
I WANT a party of "Hell Damn No!" >:D(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefiringline.com%2Flibrary%2Fsmilies%2FAR15firing.gif&hash=f717ce495a245adaa13c758f2755a55391caa8bd)
-
Yesterday the EPA told Congress who's boss. Anyone over five would have recognized the remarks as a threat.
One might have expected the Republicans in Congress to tell the EPA that this is not yet a nation run by bureaucratic ukaze, outside the Constitution, and that, small point, the EPA gets its financing from Congress.
-
Yesterday the EPA told Congress who's boss. Anyone over five would have recognized the remarks as a threat.
One might have expected the Republicans in Congress to tell the EPA that this is not yet a nation run by bureaucratic ukaze, outside the Constitution, and that, small point, the EPA gets its financing from Congress.
That would require a party of policritters with, at minimum, 33 vertebrae between them.
-
That would require a party of policritters with, at minimum, 33 vertebrae between them.
Ah, but that would be radical you see.
-
It's not that the Republicans are bad people, it's that they are, in my mind, out of touch with reality. They are operating as parliamentarians, dealmakers, negotiators, when the other side is in full smashmouth, guerrilla warfare mode in brazen defiance of the most basic rules of civil process. The GOP needs to re-think its rules of engagement unless they are simply jousting for a dishonorable peace.
This I agree with.
The health care bill is a perfect example. Instead of recognizing that all the current liberal and leftist initiatives have to be scrapped utterly, the GOP, in the main, is trying to "work out a compromise." Anything to avoid appearing principled, I guess. If they are afraid to be the Party of No the way our Revolutionary forebears were, in a time that calls first and foremost for a loud, unequivocal "HELL NO!" they are useless to us and useless to this blessed nation.
This as well.
-
But I'll be damned if I'll give anything to the likes of Romney, Huckabee, or McCain.
Yeah, none of them would be a huge improvement over what's going on right now. We're better off with Obama.
-
Yeah, none of them would be a huge improvement over what's going on right now. We're better off with Obama.
I assume that's tongue-in-cheek, but McCain and Huck are economic illiterates and Romney is a RINO born-again Conservative.
Sure, I bet things would be somewhat better, but McCain & Huck would likely have done the same as BHO WRT spending big bucks to "stimulate" the economy.
Romney would have been the best pick to help get gov't out of the way of recovery, but he would have stabbed us in the back in many other ways.
-
"Look, you can get stomach cancer, or you can get lung cancer. If you're so selfish as to not want cancer at all, you're just part of the problem." ;/
-
"Look, you can get stomach cancer, or you can get lung cancer. If you're so selfish as to not want cancer at all, you're just part of the problem." ;/
;/ yerself
You're making a fallacy that Thomas Sowell describes in one of the last chapters of Basic Economics. The fallacy lies in thinking categorically about things that should be thought of quantitatively. You're making the mistake of categorizing both Republicans and Democrats as deficit spenders and concluding there's no difference between them. If you consider spending and deficits numerically, the way such things ought to be considered, you see that there's a huge (order of magnitude) difference between them. Barry is on track to run up more deficits in his first year than Bush managed in his entire two terms. And Barry is just getting warmed up.
Even at his RINO worst, Bush was much, much, much better than Obama is. Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and all them would be considerably better, too. None are perfect, but you guys clearly are never going to be satisfied so, so what's the point?
If you must think about these things categorically, then at least use better categories. Ask yourself which kind of president we can survive and which kind we can't. To use your medical analogy, one kind is like a cold or a flu, and the other is like a deadly cancer. Given the choice you'd much rather have the flu.
-
And yet another one of my threads veers way into bites the dust land.