Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted With Obama Administration.
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Sep 27, 2011 8:57 AM
I Wear Pants;912730 wrote:The market is always right boatshoes. Always. The market will always make the correct decision. Always.
Not true, but nearly always the best decision. Assuming that when the market doesn't work perfectly that there is a always a better alternative is foolish.
Sep 27, 2011 8:57am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 27, 2011 9:33 AM
They don't ever say it's a poison. The call it a danger to public health because the data they use shows :
"Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems."

They never say that CO2 is inherently a poison but that they believe concentrations of it in massive quantities cause problems for our climate.

Whether you agree with that or not it still isn't calling it a poison.
Sep 27, 2011 9:33am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Sep 27, 2011 10:08 AM
The ObamaKare hits just keep coming - http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records

In this new rule, the HIPPA regulations are tossed into the incinerator. Here's a chilling line from the Op-Ed:
[LEFT]Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records#ixzz1ZA6EHlTZ[/LEFT]
Sep 27, 2011 10:08am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 27, 2011 1:24 PM
I Wear Pants;912796 wrote:They don't ever say it's a poison. The call it a danger to public health because the data they use shows :
"Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems."

They never say that CO2 is inherently a poison but that they believe concentrations of it in massive quantities cause problems for our climate.

Whether you agree with that or not it still isn't calling it a poison.
What is the definition of poison? I gave it to you, by them stating that CO2 is a danger to public health, it is NOT a stretch to say they called it a poison, since a poison is a chemical that endangers health.
Sep 27, 2011 1:24pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 27, 2011 1:30 PM
I Wear Pants;912796 wrote:They don't ever say it's a poison. The call it a danger to public health because the data they use shows :
"Among the ill effects of rising atmospheric concentrations of the gases, the agency found, were increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, a steeper rise in sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems."

They never say that CO2 is inherently a poison but that they believe concentrations of it in massive quantities cause problems for our climate.

Whether you agree with that or not it still isn't calling it a poison.
I love when people sidestep once they are proven wrong.

You asked me to show a link to the EPA statement that they said CO2 is a danger to public health. When I did exactly that, you then come out with "they don't ever say it's a poison".

Don't change your question/story once you are proven wrong.
Sep 27, 2011 1:30pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 27, 2011 3:48 PM
jmog;913058 wrote:I love when people sidestep once they are proven wrong.

You asked me to show a link to the EPA statement that they said CO2 is a danger to public health. When I did exactly that, you then come out with "they don't ever say it's a poison".

Don't change your question/story once you are proven wrong.
You're the one changing. You said it was called a poison. I said it isn't. You link things that don't call it a poison.

How am I changing the question?
Sep 27, 2011 3:48pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Sep 27, 2011 3:49 PM
jmog;913051 wrote:What is the definition of poison? I gave it to you, by them stating that CO2 is a danger to public health, it is NOT a stretch to say they called it a poison, since a poison is a chemical that endangers health.
Water is a poison then because in too large a quantity it endangers health.
Sep 27, 2011 3:49pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 27, 2011 4:14 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;912752 wrote:^^^

Negative liberty = crony capitalism. i.e. the stimulus funds that did nothing but bolster public worker salaries/pensions that were sorely underfunded and administrative actions to prevent economic gain (read, the Boeing situation).

I do enjoy reading Boatshoes' posts. I can read them dozens of times and wonder if he even knows what the heck he/she is talking about. It is like reading the text of an Al Gore speech where he uses a lot of big words in inappropriate manners that if one tries to piece it together - makes absolute zero sense.
Ha well thank you for the kind words but it seems my friend that you are the one who is using the term "negative liberty" in the inappropriate manner.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy simply describes Negative liberty as freedom from the interference of others. Positive Liberty (or "Power" as Hobbes and Locke referred to it) simply refers to a person's freedom within society as a whole. A person in the state of nature with absolute liberty (we'll just use "liberty" instead of "negative liberty") is totally free from having others in the state of nature interfere with her bundle of sticks. But life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short and we sacrifice liberty so that we may be more free in the aggregate within the greater institution of the state under the popular sovereign as opposed to the state of nature. Isaiah Berlin first called what Locke/Hobbes called "power" "positive liberty" in Two Concepts of Liberty.

I know you just like to mock me my friend but it seems your claim that "negative liberty = crony capitalism" is not the manner in which the phrase is normally used so I find it odd you accuse me of using words inappropriately.
Sep 27, 2011 4:14pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 27, 2011 5:23 PM
Writerbuckeye;912010 wrote:How about disputing the "talking point" instead of denigrating it as if it wasn't true.

Obama was rated one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) US Senator during his brief time as a member of the US Senate. That's a fact.

He was also a very liberal state senator in Illinois.

So how is it that given those facts, and the information we know about his education and background, that you can claim he's "not that liberal" and not expect us to challenge it?

While he has taken some more centrist positions on a few issues while in office, his two biggest "accomplishments" are a massive health bill that basically puts government in control of one-sixth of the US economy, and a so-called stimulus package that was one of the largest (the largest?) government expenditures of its kind in US history -- neither of which is something a centrist would do.

A centrist would also not have imbued agencies like the EPA with expanded regulatory authority that has considerably widened that agency's powers.

So tell us again how Obama isn't "that liberal' of a Democrat.

EDITED TO ADD: Obama also was involved in the government takeover of two-thirds of the US auto industry that included two things a centrist or conservative would not have done: it bypassed legal stakeholders of those companies when reaching agreements for payouts; and gave sway (and lots of money) to the unions.

Here's a link to what the EPA is up to under new regs on co2 that Obama wants...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/
Pants has ignored the story about all the employees and billions of additional costs the EPA regs on co2 would create. I wonder why...:rolleyes:
Sep 27, 2011 5:23pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 27, 2011 7:25 PM
I Wear Pants;913195 wrote:You're the one changing. You said it was called a poison. I said it isn't. You link things that don't call it a poison.

How am I changing the question?
Look back through my posts and the one you quoted when you asked for a link to the statement.

Do that and you will NOT find me saying that the EPA called itba poison. I said they called it a danger to public health which isn't a big stretch from poison.

Reread my post that YOU quoted when you asked for a link. You are wrong.
Sep 27, 2011 7:25pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 27, 2011 7:26 PM
I Wear Pants;913198 wrote:Water is a poison then because in too large a quantity it endangers health.
Now you are thinking just like the EPA! ;)
Sep 27, 2011 7:26pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 27, 2011 9:19 PM
jmog;913371 wrote:Now you are thinking just like the EPA! ;)
Give him a few billion dollars to waste and a few hundred thousand employees, and he's set to go.
Sep 27, 2011 9:19pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Sep 28, 2011 12:36 AM
I Wear Pants;913198 wrote:Water is a poison then because in too large a quantity it endangers health.
You're on to something....Let's cap-and-trade H20.
Sep 28, 2011 12:36am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Sep 28, 2011 1:56 PM
QuakerOats;914319 wrote:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,788807,00.html

Europeans not appreciating obama's arrogant lecturing ........

Change we can believe in .....
The world liked him so much better when he was on his global apology tour.
Sep 28, 2011 1:56pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Sep 28, 2011 4:25 PM
LOL. Our collapse isn't far behind theirs, and ours will make theirs look like a walk in the park. We don't have the right to lecture anyone.
Sep 28, 2011 4:25pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 28, 2011 10:18 PM
A Bloomberg Survey of Economists suggests that "The American Jobs Act" will prevent a Recession in 2012. More than half of the plan is tax cuts, $105 billion is infrastructure (not social welfare) and $35 billion is aid to the sovereign states. If you believe a survey of economists has any value, it seems you ought to support the bill if you want the economy to grow and people to suffer less and more people to be working. Now, I know there are Austrians ought there like Cleveland Buck who desire for us to experience "temporary" contraction so I don't expect you to agree we should pass it.

The link also includes the institution's whose economists they surveyed

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/obama-jobs-plan-prevents-2012-recession-in-survey-of-economists.html

[/URL]
Sep 28, 2011 10:18pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 28, 2011 10:19 PM
Cleveland Buck;914485 wrote:LOL. Our collapse isn't far behind theirs, and ours will make theirs look like a walk in the park. We don't have the right to lecture anyone.
I mean you're aware that what's killing Europe is austerity...you know, just what you would have them do...
Sep 28, 2011 10:19pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Sep 28, 2011 10:37 PM
BoatShoes;915025 wrote:I mean you're aware that what's killing Europe is austerity...you know, just what you would have them do...
Yes that's it. The Euro is better than ever too.
Sep 28, 2011 10:37pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 28, 2011 11:24 PM
BoatShoes;915022 wrote:A Bloomberg Survey of Economists suggests that "The American Jobs Act" will prevent a Recession in 2012. More than half of the plan is tax cuts, $105 billion is infrastructure (not social welfare) and $35 billion is aid to the sovereign states. If you believe a survey of economists has any value, it seems you ought to support the bill if you want the economy to grow and people to suffer less and more people to be working. Now, I know there are Austrians ought there like Cleveland Buck who desire for us to experience "temporary" contraction so I don't expect you to agree we should pass it.

The link also includes the institution's whose economists they surveyed

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/obama-jobs-plan-prevents-2012-recession-in-survey-of-economists.html
You need to read your own link.

Craptacular growth does not necessarily mean > recession.

There was no good news in that article. If there was any, please point it out.
Sep 28, 2011 11:24pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Sep 28, 2011 11:26 PM
One highlight:

"The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage point in 2012, economists said. "

Well shuckydarn, let's spend and spend to reduce unemployment by an irrelevant amount.

This country is destined to fail, we cannot collectively be this stupid, or are we?
Sep 28, 2011 11:26pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Sep 28, 2011 11:33 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;915218 wrote:One highlight:

"The program would also lower the jobless rate by 0.2 percentage point in 2012, economists said. "

Well shuckydarn, let's spend and spend to reduce unemployment by an irrelevant amount.

This country is destined to fail, we cannot collectively be this stupid, or are we?
I'd say we're not, collectively, but there's a significant number of folks who meet your description, and the highest profile ones live and work in the White House and the halls of Congress.
Sep 28, 2011 11:33pm