Keep flailing...you're pure entertainment these days.

I will

I can understand the feeling of euphoria that some of the standard bearers of the right wing on this forum are feeling right now, but remember that you only have two years to turn things around. That's an awfully short time to straighten out a big mess. We've seen how difficult that can be these past two years. I hope that our new Congress can figure it out. If not, God help us. The American voters showed yesterday that they have little patience for failing to act.

BGFalcons82;544042 wrote:Compromising on budgetary items (NOT trading pork for votes), taking hard looks at their own party's nominess (SCOTUS for example), and working with the other party on defense-type items are examples of bipartisanship that most conservatives can agree upon. Supporting Cap and Trade and ObamaKare are huge monstrosities that conservatives and Tea Party people draw the line on agreement. Coons wanted these, so he's no conservative and no friend of conservatism. Good riddance. Now he can run as a liberal Democrat, which is what he votes like. There are limits to compromise.

Cap and Trade is a piece of legislation that could use some reworking, just like the health care plan.

I wish conservatives would come up with real alternatives to these instead of just saying that the legislation is bad. I agree, they aren't very good pieces of legislation. But neither is/was the status quo. No good choice there.

My alternative to cap & trade is simple:

All energy alternatives on the table, all the time. Drilling off shore in the Gulf, Alaska and California; an active program of building new nuclear plants and updating our infrastructure. At the same time, keep working the alternative like wind and solar, and start programs to develop oil shale and clean coal.

The ultimate goal is to come up with a system that gets the US energy independent as soon as possible by using every available resource, all the while researching the next big thing in energy that can help sustain us in the future, when needed.

You really think the liberals will go for this program? Because I can assure you most Americans would be on-board. However, that fellow in the White House right now wouldn't let something like this go forward because he'd lose his political base -- so the good of the country be damned. Let's play the man-made global warming game, complete with offsets, and anything else (especially oil) is out of bounds.

Oh and I'm not the first (or second) person to suggest this type of approach. Those in Congress have talked about it, too. But our "bipartisan president" wouldn't talk to anybody at the time. Elections have consequences, you know...

By alternatives to cap and trade, I meant alternative ways to encourage businesses to lessen their pollution output. But on the usage of energy resources front I mainly agree except I'd like to see a lessening of the use of coal because not only is it bad for the environment (I mean this in a bad to breath way, not even touching on any warming so please don't argue that point) but it's one of the more unsafe energy sources with all the mining accidents.

I agree completely with new nuclear plants and updating infrastructure. I hope people continue to develop and invest in wind and solar because they're extremely valuable and useful solutions for a lot of power needs (not all, at least now). I believe there is a massive wind farm being built in Washington now which is nice. From what I've heard we haven't been able to find a way to use oil shale very effectively yet.

stlouiedipalma;544360 wrote:I can understand the feeling of euphoria that some of the standard bearers of the right wing on this forum are feeling right now, but remember that you only have two years to turn things around. That's an awfully short time to straighten out a big mess. We've seen how difficult that can be these past two years. I hope that our new Congress can figure it out. If not, God help us. The American voters showed yesterday that they have little patience for failing to act.

In case you didn't notice- R's have a majority in one house of Congress. Dems still control the Senate and the Executive branch of govt., and they had a monopoly on all that the past two years. If things don't improve fast, it is NOT on the Republicans.

I Wear Pants;544407 wrote:Cap and Trade is a piece of legislation that could use some reworking, just like the health care plan.

I wish conservatives would come up with real alternatives to these instead of just saying that the legislation is bad. I agree, they aren't very good pieces of legislation. But neither is/was the status quo. No good choice there.

They do, they just get derailed and demonized by environmentlist nuts in the (insert a certain political party here) Party.

I Wear Pants;544407 wrote:Cap and Trade is a piece of legislation that could use some reworking,..

This is where the RINOs get smacked. Cap and Trade does NOT need reworking...it needs tossed in the round can, set ablaze and forgotten that it ever existed. For the Unites States of American government to create a fake scarcity (carbon), then force everyone to bow to the fakeness by purchasing it through some sort of Machevelian "exchange", and then pay out the ass for green energy that costs 5 to 10 times the amount of carbon-based energy is utter theft. All for fake science that says if we do all of these things, then we'll likely shave 0.1 degree off the annual temperatures of the planet in 40 freakin years.

jhay78;544637 wrote:In case you didn't notice- R's have a majority in one house of Congress. Dems still control the Senate and the Executive branch of govt., and they had a monopoly on all that the past two years. If things don't improve fast, it is NOT on the Republicans.



They do, they just get derailed and demonized by environmentlist nuts in the (insert a certain political party here) Party.

how about you stop blaming one side and admit both sides are responsible?

BGFalcons82;544662 wrote:This is where the RINOs get smacked. Cap and Trade does NOT need reworking...it needs tossed in the round can, set ablaze and forgotten that it ever existed. For the Unites States of American government to create a fake scarcity (carbon), then force everyone to bow to the fakeness by purchasing it through some sort of Machevelian "exchange", and then pay out the ass for green energy that costs 5 to 10 times the amount of carbon-based energy is utter theft. All for fake science that says if we do all of these things, then we'll likely shave 0.1 degree off the annual temperatures of the planet in 40 freakin years.

I'm not 100% on the science either, but I'm one to think that the capping of carbon is a good thing. In addition, (my inner Tom Friedman), we need to shift our economy to green and more energy efficient jobs, as China is doing, to prepare for the energy demands of the 21st century. Otherwise, we are stilll stuck in the 20th century while China and others leap ahead of us on new forms of energy.

I largely agree with Writer's post on a move forward, but we really and I mean really need to start investing in other forms of energy.

Isn't Marco Rubio an anchor baby? Wouldn't he not be a citizen if the tea party had their way in regards to the 14th amendment? Accordingly, I believe his parents were Cuban exiles and illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty under the presidential parole power as they fled during 1959. Who would have thought, an anchor baby born to scoundrels busting into our borders grew to become a productive member of society and isn't stealing white babies in the dark of night!

Are you suggesting that Rubio would file a brief in support of Eric Holder's lawsuit against Arizona ?

derek bomar;544663 wrote:how about you stop blaming one side and admit both sides are responsible?

I have a question......would you have said that between 2000 and 2006???

QuakerOats;544744 wrote:Are you suggesting that Rubio would file a brief in support of Eric Holder's lawsuit against Arizona ?

No, as the grounds for the DOJ's case against Arizona's lawsuit I don't think are relevant to what I was trying to discuss. I find it interesting that the GOP has overwhelmingly endorsed this young, handsome, talented and conservative to the core, guy, Marco Rubio, and he's an anchor baby who's parents were granted amnesty! If the tea party were alive and well in 1959 and had their way, they would have demanded his parents be deported and would have rewritten the 14th amendment to deny young Marco natural born citizenship.

I feel like the Tea Party ought to be frothing at the mouth claiming he's not a "real" citizen. But, he has an (R) next to his name.

jhay78;544637 wrote:In case you didn't notice- R's have a majority in one house of Congress. Dems still control the Senate and the Executive branch of govt., and they had a monopoly on all that the past two years. If things don't improve fast, it is NOT on the Republicans.



They do, they just get derailed and demonized by environmentlist nuts in the (insert a certain political party here) Party.

Then what are they?

BoatShoes;544731 wrote:Isn't Marco Rubio an anchor baby? Wouldn't he not be a citizen if the tea party had their way in regards to the 14th amendment? Accordingly, I believe his parents were Cuban exiles and illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty under the presidential parole power as they fled during 1959. Who would have thought, an anchor baby born to scoundrels busting into our borders grew to become a productive member of society and isn't stealing white babies in the dark of night!

Hope you didn't tear some tendons with this little stretch you've got going.

Regardless of Rubio's heritage I'm betting he probably doesn't think anchor babies are such a great way to bring new citizens into the country. And what's with the word "scoundrels" to describe refugees who fled a harsh regime to make a better life for themselves? Isn't that exactly why many people end up coming to this country.

And stealing white babies (libs love to bring those racial terms into every discussion...but no, they're not racists)...I mean really.

You folks are flailing badly these days and it IS very amusing to see.

Writerbuckeye;544767 wrote:Hope you didn't tear some tendons with this little stretch you've got going.

Regardless of Rubio's heritage I'm betting he probably doesn't think anchor babies are such a great way to bring new citizens into the country. And what's with the word "scoundrels" to describe refugees who fled a harsh regime to make a better life for themselves? Isn't that exactly why many people end up coming to this country.

And stealing white babies (libs love to bring those racial terms into every discussion...but no, they're not racists)...I mean really.

You folks are flailing badly these days and it IS very amusing to see.

I was being facetious with the "scoundrel" and "white baby" talk...

Marco Rubio is living proof that children born to illegal immigrants can achieve success if they work hard and are given the opportunity that no nation like America provides. Is it or isn't it true, that if the world would have accepted the Tea party's view on the citizenship of children born to illegal immigrants in 1959, then Marco Rubio would not be a natural born citizen today, his parents would have been deported, and America likely would have missed out on a potentially great leader and senator?

Wait wait wait, so illegal immigration is okay as long as it results in really conservative people?

Nope. Illegal immigration is still illegal.

derek bomar;544663 wrote:how about you stop blaming one side and admit both sides are responsible?

My exact point was you can't blame one side. I was refuting stlouiedipalma who said

remember that you only have two years to turn things around.

The point I'm trying to make is that the electorate is impatient. They swept the D's into power in '08 and swept them right out in '10. What's to say that another major housecleaning won't occur in '12? The word that I got from this election was that Americans want action NOW on jobs, the economy and everything else. A lack of action by either side will result in new members of Congress in two years.

stlouiedipalma;544839 wrote:... The word that I got from this election was that Americans want action NOW on jobs, the economy and everything else. A lack of action by either side will result in new members of Congress in two years.

Hmmm...the word I got from this election was that problems shouldn't necessarily be solved by legislative activity.

jhay78;544821 wrote:My exact point was you can't blame one side. I was refuting stlouiedipalma who said

He didn't blame the Republicans. He just said that they can expect to be voted out if they don't fix shit in two years. The Democrats were.

BoatShoes;544731 wrote:Isn't Marco Rubio an anchor baby? Wouldn't he not be a citizen if the tea party had their way in regards to the 14th amendment? Accordingly, I believe his parents were Cuban exiles and illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty under the presidential parole power as they fled during 1959. Who would have thought, an anchor baby born to scoundrels busting into our borders grew to become a productive member of society and isn't stealing white babies in the dark of night!

Marco Rubio does not fit the definition of an anchor baby. One his parents were here legally when he was born in 1971 and they were subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Two the amnesty and special status granted his parent were for a specific reason for a specific group of people. Its was not general amnesty that some on the left favor.

We were engaged in a cold war that at that time was on the verge of turning hot. A revolution occurred in Cuba, just 90 miles south of our border. Because Cuba's leader allied himself with our enemy in the war Cuba immediately became a battleground. So our government sympathized with refugees in this particular case and gave them special status.

Also I think you are misrepresenting what many so called "tea party" type folks believe the 14th amendment says.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

In order to be granted citizenship at birth one of the parents and by default the baby have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That does not apply to any baby born within the borders of the USA. There are several cases this clearly would apply to; children born to forces of an invading army, children born to foreign diplomats, children born to foreigners vacationing in the US, and yes children born of foreigners here illegally.

Reading through some of the liberal blogs, I almost get the sense that they want BHO to lose the presidency in 2012 as well as the Senate because they are so eager to get payback by killing a GOP agenda that they just don't want to wait.

They have felt powerless from what I can tell without having 60 votes in the senate to get anything through, and are literally lusting at the idea of doing the same thing to Conservatives when they get power back.

They appear to be so angry they are willing to through BHO overboard in 2012 just to get the ball rolling on that.