# Democrats give american people the finger



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/67...-rejects-gop-bill-to-expand-offshore-drilling


The Senate on Wednesday rejected Republican-backed legislation intended to speed up and expand offshore oil and gas drilling. 
In  a 42-57 vote, the Senate failed to move forward with the bill, which  was opposed by the White House and most Senate Democrats. Republicans  needed 60 votes for the measure to proceed. 
Every Senate Democrat voted against the motion to proceed.



so, in short, **** the american people, who cares about out of control gas prices, the Dems care more about the enviro wack jobs than the average american citizen


----------



## WC_lun (May 19, 2011)

If every area that the oil companies wanted opened up was opened up today and drilled to maximum ability, it would only lower the price of gas by 4 cents a gallon, in seven years time. Opposed to that is the risk of off shore drilling in those areas, ala the Gulf of Mexico mess. Not every American thinks we should open up all areas to drilling because of that. So once again, you are posting ignorant crap.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

anything other than your say so on that?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

There's no need to open more area for drilling. There are huge backlogs of oil already waiting to be refined, and huge stockpiles of already refined gas sitting in tanks.  In short, we've got a glut of oil and gas here now. No shortage.

Just greed and speculators driving the prices up, because they can.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

ok, so take petro off the commodities market, OR, make the speculators put up 75%


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 19, 2011)

or how about creating one single standard nationwide so we dont have dozens of different standards that are a pain in the *** to fine tune.
maybe even build a new refinery or two.
I am convinced that our government is not opening up the drilling because they plan on waiting for everyoen else to run out before we open ours up and sell it to the rest of the world for megabucks LOL


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

Build more refineries....build different refineries so we can make usable fuel from the more sulphuric oils instead of relying on "sweet bonnie crude".

And build some more nukes while you're at it!  We have at least 20 CPs that have already been approved!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I am convinced that our government is not opening up the drilling because they plan on waiting for everyoen else to run out before we open ours up and sell it to the rest of the world for megabucks LOL



Actually, you are 100% correct. Few know it, but that IS official policy going back over 20 years.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2011)

after the japanese plant meltdown, they bunny huggers here will NEVER let another nuke plant be buildt in america


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

Carol said:


> Build more refineries....build different refineries so we can make usable fuel from the more sulphuric oils instead of relying on "sweet bonnie crude".
> 
> And build some more nukes while you're at it!  We have at least 20 CPs that have already been approved!


There's no profit in building more refineries. The ones we have rarely run full tilt, there's always unused production capacity.

As to nukes, TF's got it right.  Despite it being safe, the FUD runs wild on that one.


----------



## Steve (May 19, 2011)

Nuclear is good if we can fugure out what to.do with yhe waste.


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There's no profit in building more refineries. The ones we have rarely run full tilt, there's always unused production capacity.
> 
> As to nukes, TF's got it right.  Despite it being safe, the FUD runs wild on that one.



The Construction Permits are already in approved. Approved CP = roll the trucks and build the sucka.


----------



## Carol (May 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Nuclear is good if we can fugure out what to.do with yhe waste.



Breeder reactors are a start...but that would go along with building more nukes.   We don't have any in operation here.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 19, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Nuclear is good if we can fugure out what to.do with yhe waste.


You can thank the Obama administration for **** canning that question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=559619


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You can thank the Obama administration for **** canning that question.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
> 
> http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=559619


Then I do thank him. That is a terrible place.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Then I do thank him. That is a terrible place.
> Sean


If you care about the bunnies, no western state is an option.
Sean


----------



## K831 (May 19, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Just greed and speculators driving the prices up, because they can.



I've never really bought this argument. Here is a quick piece on the subject. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/04/gasoline_and_onions_109746.html


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

if it is really just speculators, then couldnt the government declare gasoline a national resource and take it off the commodities market?


----------



## elder999 (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> if it is really just speculators, then couldnt the government declare gasoline a national resource and take it off the commodities market?


 
but, but, but, _*socialism!*_


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> but, but, but, _*socialism!*_


Some of the worst kind of socialist don't know they are socialists.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

as I have said before, i normally despise government in business, but this isnt bananas, price of bananas goes up, we can simply choose not to eat them

this is the lifeblood of the entire country


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> as I have said before, i normally despise government in business, but this isnt bananas, price of bananas goes up, we can simply choose not to eat them
> 
> this is the lifeblood of the entire country


Remember prohibition? You do know shutting down the stills was more about forcing the public to switch to gasoline, than it was keeping people sober, don't you? Its our life's blood because of Big Oil, we don't need to keep drinking the Koolaid.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

there is nothing to take its place


----------



## MaxiMe (May 20, 2011)

I'm thinking they do have a large reserver and stuff just sitting around. My Brother in law works at a refinery. they used to put in all kinds of crazy shifts for rebuilding it from scratch almost 2x a year. now they do it all in the course of a normal work day. With less pepole on staff.


----------



## Darksoul (May 20, 2011)

-Do oil companies need tax subsidies? That is what I think is the real 'finger' to the American people. Not only do your tax dollars go to subsidize companies that make massive profits, you also get to pay out the a$$ at the pump!

Andrew


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 20, 2011)

Darksoul said:


> -Do oil companies need tax subsidies? That is what I think is the real 'finger' to the American people. Not only do your tax dollars go to subsidize companies that make massive profits, you also get to pay out the a$$ at the pump!
> 
> Andrew


 
Do you know how the subsidies work? Or are you just complaining because you think they are given every break in the book?
I imagine there are a but a few posters who understand what is going on this site, even though almost everyone here will complain about them. I have yet to meet any person live and up close who after saying the same thing can not even begin to state what is being subsidized, how, or why.. just seems some like to complain.


----------



## granfire (May 20, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Do you know how the subsidies work? Or are you just complaining because you think they are given every break in the book?
> I imagine there are a but a few posters who understand what is going on this site, even though almost everyone here will complain about them. I have yet to meet any person live and up close who after saying the same thing can not even begin to state what is being subsidized, how, or why.. just seems some like to complain.




well, subsidies are supposed to be for companies that struggle. record profits should automatically disqualify you....


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/67...-rejects-gop-bill-to-expand-offshore-drilling
> 
> 
> The Senate on Wednesday rejected Republican-backed legislation intended to speed up and expand offshore oil and gas drilling.
> ...




In light of damage done by oil spils I would point out I dont cry for your opinion and rush limbaugh is a pill popping skank bag...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

who mentioned Rush?


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> who mentioned Rush?




why not mention your pill popping hero. It highlights the hypocracy of your outlook quite nicely. Trump is money grubbing such and suc h, Coulter is a   Nazi in barbie disguise, but from another thread, you are legion.....

no bow though, punk.....


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

To save me having to type the same sentiment out in a different way, please see:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1396143&postcount=22


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

ganglian said:


> why not mention your pill popping hero. It highlights the hypocracy of your outlook quite nicely. Trump is money grubbing such and suc h, Coulter is a   Nazi in barbie disguise, but from another thread, you are legion.....
> 
> no bow though, punk.....




no one mentioned Rush, or Coulter, or Trump.

ad homs are a violation of the TOS, and have been reported


----------



## WC_lun (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> anything other than your say so on that?


 

Yes.


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/more-drilling-extends-0127.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-offshore-drilling-make-us-independent


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

one opinion piece from a member of an environmental group, and one that, to be charitable, is written by an environmental nut job

sorry not convinced.

NEXT!!!


----------



## WC_lun (May 20, 2011)

LOL  did you read the articles?  Much of the info in them are not opinion, but fact.  Or you could do your own search.  There are tons of articles out there saying the same thing.  Of course I know that "science" and "scientist" are a bad word in your lexicon, but when articles are published like these you might want to pay attention, even if the scientist involved don't follow your political leanings.  Or does truth not mean anything to you unless it has passed through your political screening process?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 20, 2011)

*-Admin Notice-

Enough of the personal shots.  Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.

See someone else breaking them?
Report it.  That's this thing here:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Can't stand the other person? Then put the SOB on your 'ignore' list, or grow a thicker skin already. 
 Just because they disagree with you, isn't a rules violation. 
Being a jackass is. 

Back to the bloody original topic.
*


----------



## Twin Fist (May 20, 2011)

the writer of the first is a member of an environmental group, ergo, is disqualified to be a voice of impartial thought

the writer of the second writes ONLY environmental articles, so, same as the first.


its ok, you dont have to convince me, and I am not trying to convince you

we need to build a **** ton of nuke plants, and drill everywhere there MIGHT be oil, 

for no other reason than we need to get the hell out of the middle east


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> for no other reason than we need to get the hell out of the middle east




Aye, breaking that dependant relationship is of great importance; for an awful lot of post-war history has been coloured by it, mostly bringing a cargo of negative consequences along with the oil.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the writer of the first is a member of an environmental group, ergo, is disqualified to be a voice of impartial thought
> 
> the writer of the second writes ONLY environmental articles, so, same as the first.
> 
> ...


That a solution for the next 100 years, not the next 10. 
Sean


----------



## ganglian (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no one mentioned Rush, or Coulter, or Trump.
> 
> ad homs are a violation of the TOS, and have been reported




As I reported you for brazen trolling, yer point?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 20, 2011)

ganglian said:


> As I reported you for brazen trolling, yer point?


Choose your battles my friend.


----------



## WC_lun (May 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> for no other reason than we need to get the hell out of the middle east


 
I actually agree with this part of your post.  However, I and many others, don't believe drilling everywhere will do much of anything to achieve this goal.  Nuclear power might, if the waste can be managed and the safety concerns can be addressed.  Having a Japan type catastrophe here in the States would not be helpful at all.  Though I do realize we are less succeptable to tsunami causing that kind of havoc here.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Choose your battles my friend.



And equally importantly, find your *common ground*.  There almost always is some.

As an example particular to this site, *TF* and I fought like cat-and-dog for a while a few years back.  

Over a little time tho', you discover that no person is uni-dimensional or defined solely by a single view on a topic.  You uncover that there are things you agree on, positions you understand or stances that you admire a person for holding (even those that you don't subscribe to yourself in some cases).

That is how you grow into protagonists on certain issues of contention and avoid being antagonists - and along the way you learn a little something about your own prejudices and 'weaknesses'.

In the end, that is the key to useful discourse out here in Net-land i.e. remembering that there is a person on the other side of the computer screen and that that person will be just as complicated and prone to emotional responses as you are.


----------



## Big Don (May 20, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> That a solution for the next 100 years, not the next 10.
> Sean


 The sooner begun, the sooner finished. Poo pooing the idea by saying it is too long term and not doing it, doesn't get anything done...


----------



## Big Don (May 20, 2011)

Last night I flipped off Mick and Keith, only later did I realize I'd gotten two Stones with one bird


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2011)

In a nutshell, my opinions on this thread are pretty simple.

First, energy independance is a matter of national security. Making oil companies richer isn't.  Nuclear power is necessary, but as I understand things now, the nuclear facilities are storing the waste and paying into a fund that will, hopefully, one day, pay for disposal if we can ever figure out how to do that.  Makes me a little nervous.  

We also need to encourage other forms of renewable energy including wind farms (yes, even though they can be ugly and kill stupid birds), solar, biomass and hydroelectric as well as looking into other new sources of energy.

Third, no one here is an expert on the subject (that I'm aware of, correct me if I'm wrong).  So, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who's overly confident and entrenched in his or her position, on either side.  From what I've read, the supply of oil we have is both measured and intentional and had little to do with where they're authorized to drill. 

Finally, this thread is a blatant troll job, and TF needs to be called on it.  If he were interested in dialogue, the thread could have had a more accurate, less inflammatory title.   Suggesting that the Democrats (whoever that might include) are giving Americans (whomever that might include) "the finger" is a juvenile, immature attempt to bait conflict.


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Third, no one here is an expert on the subject (that I'm aware of, correct me if I'm wrong). So, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who's overly confident and entrenched in his or her position, on either side. From what I've read, the supply of oil we have is both measured and intentional and had little to do with where they're authorized to drill. .


 
Eh-nuclear engineer, started career at commercial nuclear power plant. I've run research reactors, gas burning power plants, gas turbines, wind turbines, experimental diesel generators, and-after a more than a decade detour doing weapons work and physics research-currently running a coal-fired power plant.

I think that makes me some sort of an expert.:ultracool 

On _energy independence_, anyway-don't know anything-okay, don't know _much_ about oil, or drilling for it...........

.......except that there's less of it on the planet every day.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 21, 2011)

Jeff,
can nuclear waste be delt with in a way that mkes nuke plants safe to build all acorss our great nation?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 21, 2011)

I'm not as expert on nuclear as Jeff is but I do have expertise in the  field as I am a power control systems engineer i.e. I design the control  systems for generation and distribution, so that means I have to know  how the things work.  

My company does indeed do nuclear waste management  systems (Cellarfield is one of ours) and I reckon the short term answer to *TF*'s question is "Sort of, if you're careful".  Long term answer, "Yes, certainly".

There are other ways of generating nuclear power than the ones that have been used so far.  Part of the problem has been that some of the reactor designs contravene nuclear proliferation treaties (e.g. Fast Breeder's), so we have ended up with 'bad' designs that produce a lot of long term waste.

A major step would be to change the fuel type.  You don't need to use uranaium isotopes to get a sustainable nuclear reaction - thorium is a brilliant alternative.  Here is an article in the Telegraph that shows that, China at least, is taking this seriously (it's been talked about for decades but never came to fruition):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

and a piece on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13040853


----------



## elder999 (May 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff,
> can nuclear waste be delt with in a way that mkes nuke plants safe to build all acorss our great nation?


 

There are no guarantees. Taking into account the uranium fuels in use today,even with a proper fuel cycle (that would reduce waste) the methods of dealing with byproducts that remain toxic for 50,000 years are obviously limited. In the short-term, we could probably store the waste relatively safely-say for a couple of hundred years. In the long-term, we can't really say much-there's no guarantee that _we'll_ be around in 1,000 years, let alone 10 or 50,000. 

There are some promising avenues that aren't being explored nearly enough. At LANSCE, I was hoping to do prototype development on *A*ccel;erator *T*ransmutation of *W*aste, itself a somewhat hazardous but potentially productive process, but the money has never come through.

There is also research being done on using thorium/uraniium fuel, which would burn longer and reduce the waste, as well as having less toxic waste.

In short, I think the technical challenges are somewhat daunting, but not altogether insurmountable-a real solution, though, is years away.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

Elder999 and Sukerkin,  thanks!  I appreciate both the information and the insight.  I guess the flip side of my argument is that the people on these boards (you two so far) who could be considered experts aren't the ones who have overly confident and entrenched positions.  

I was listening to a radio show where two guys (one pro and one against) involved in the proposals to build more nuclear plants in Washington were debating.  We have one plant in Hanford.  What they said was very interesting, but the major concern I came away with was their explanation of where the waste management sits.  Essentially, it sounded like they don't know what to do with it.  The plant pays money into a federally held fund of some kind that is just growing until we figure out how to safely dispose of the spent uranium.  In the meantime, the pot grows and the plants make other arrangements to store the waste as safely as possible.  

Elder999, as an aside, the point you made about maybe not being here in 1000 years struck me as funny.  It's the exact same reasoning people make who fail to save for their retirements.


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Elder999, the point you made about maybe not being here in 1000 years struck me as funny. It's the exact same reasoning people make who fail to save for their retirements.


 

Just to clarify, I meant it the other way. How can we build a repository like Yucca Flats, in the hopes of storing something down there for thousands of years, when there's no guarantee that we'll be around, or that whoever is around will understand the hazards and warnings associated with such a place? 

Creating such waste and disposing of it by trying to entomb it is irresponsible.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Finally, this thread is a blatant troll job, and TF needs to be called on it.  If he were interested in dialogue, the thread could have had a more accurate, less inflammatory title.   Suggesting that the Democrats (whoever that might include) are giving Americans (whomever that might include) "the finger" is a juvenile, immature attempt to bait conflict.




Steve, if you dont know who "democrats" are, then i am amazed your pc managed to turn itself on this morning........

this act EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTING NO is in fact giving americans the finger. It is sayng, IMO:

"**** you, i dont care how much you are paying for gas"

"**** you, the trees and fish and little birdies are more important"

"**** you, we should all be riding bikes anyway"

and most importantly

"**** YOU, the green-loving-bunny-huggers donate SCADS of money to us"

that it bothers you lets me know it is pretty much right on target. 

the feat of mental gymnastics required to claim it is a troll post is impressive tho.

here is the bottom line:
just because YOU dont like something, doesnt make it wrong

maybe, just maybe, it shows you that YOU are wrong.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

Jeff,
i keep seeing refferences to some method developed by the french that eliminates the possibility of the waste getting out? something about glass? whats that about?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Steve, if you dont know who "democrats" are, then i am amazed your pc managed to turn itself on this morning........
> 
> this act EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTING NO is in fact giving americans the finger. It is sayng, IMO:
> 
> ...


Wrong fluids on the cornflakes?
Sean


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Steve, if you dont know who "democrats" are, then i am amazed your pc managed to turn itself on this morning........
> 
> this act EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTING NO is in fact giving americans the finger. It is sayng, IMO:
> 
> ...


Why are you attacking me?  It makes me sad.  But, on the positive side, everytime you post now, I can remind you of your own bottom line so you remember your own wise words:  Just because YOU don't like something, doesn't make it wrong.  Words to live by, TF.  Try walking your talk sometime. 

Balance in all things.  To suggest that birdies and fishies aren't important is short sighted and naive.  To suggest that being mindful of pollution isn't important is also short sighted and naive.   Does that mean we sacrifice people for birds?  No.  But often we sacrifice the birds for no good reason and write it off as necessary.  

A thread entitled "Democrats give american people the finger" is intended to start flames going back and forth.   Call it what it is, TF.  You're looking for a fight every time you post.  At least be honest about it with yourself.


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff,
> i keep seeing refferences to some method developed by the french that eliminates the possibility of the waste getting out? something about glass? whats that about?


 
There have been a few methods developed and proposed for encapsulating high level rad waste prior to internment. The idea is that the material is put into a more stable, potentially longer lasting form itself, rather than simply putting it into a container that will decay over time.

There is no guarantee, though that any of them would actually last the required amount of time-it's time on a_ geological_ scale-there's not even a guarantee that the ground where they're depositedwill remain stable for all that time: an eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano could cause a plate uplift or changes in ground water flow: what was once a flat place could become a mountain, and vice versa. Potential sites were well investigated, and are thought to be stable, but the site that was ultimately chosen (now rejected and soon to be chosen again, I think) Yucca Flats, proved to be less stable than initially believed in a mere 35 years.


The French method is similar to a method developed at Brookhaven National Lab, where the waste itself is vitrified under high heat and actually becomes glass-this method is also employed in the UK and Belgium. 

The Australians have developed a method called Synroc, which I think might prove to be more stable encapsulation/vitrification-like _all_ of these methods, it's also more than 30 years old.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> There have been a few methods developed and proposed for encapsulating high level rad waste prior to internment. The idea is that the material is put into a more stable, potentially longer lasting form itself, rather than simply putting it into a container that will decay over time.
> 
> There is no guarantee, though that any of them would actually last the required amount of time-it's time on a_ geological_ scale-there's not even a guarantee that the ground where they're depositedwill remain stable for all that time: an eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano could cause a plate uplift or changes in ground water flow: what was once a flat place could become a mountain, and vice versa. Potential sites were well investigated, and are thought to be stable, but the site that was ultimately chosen (now rejected and soon to be chosen again, I think) Yucca Flats, proved to be less stable than initially believed in a mere 35 years.
> 
> ...


I took a geology class, and the teacher believed the most obvious choice for nuclear waste storage is in Minnesota, but the voters of Minnesota will have none of that; so, states without strong voting blocks are what is left. No western state is a good place, even with what the French are doing.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> A thread entitled "Democrats give american people the finger" is intended to start flames going back and forth.   Call it what it is, TF.  You're looking for a fight every time you post.  At least be honest about it with yourself.




you can read minds now?
Well hot damn and praise Allah, we got us a bonafied mentalist here ladies and Gents.

Come on, tell me what i am thinking NOW....



pffft


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2011)

Calmly, gentlemen, if you would be so kind.

Noone gets their points heard if voices and temperatures rise.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you can read minds now?
> Well hot damn and praise Allah, we got us a bonafied mentalist here ladies and Gents.
> 
> Come on, tell me what i am thinking NOW....
> ...


What's interesting to me is that you aren't denying it.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

your act is getting boring.

no, not my intention to start a fight, it was and remains my intention to SPREAD THE TRUTH so everyone can see just how much the democrats hate america and americans


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so everyone can see just how much the democrats hate america and americans


 
But aren't the Democrats Americans themselves, who mostly live in America?

I think the problem is that many of us don't live in the same America, or have the same vision for America at all, and it makes it all to easy to think that the other side wants to screw everything up for some damnable _exaggerated_ agenda.

_The Republicans want to starve the poor or throw them in jail, close the borders, shackle women back in the kitchen and bedroom where they belong, put the minorities in concentration camps and do everything for business._

_The Democrats want a socialist society, complete with 97% income tax, legalized marijuana, gay marriage and free abortions for all._



The truths, of course, are much more than either of those ridiculous statements-which are right up there with "Democrats hate America and Americans," John.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> _The Democrats want a socialist society, complete with 97% income tax, legalized marijuana, gay marriage and free abortions for all._



Jeff, this isnt far off the mark.

They really DO think these things.

of the 5 things you included, they have admitted to FOUR of them being thier goals, and the 5th on they just call "social justice" to hide what it really is....


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff, this isnt far off the mark.
> 
> They really DO think these things.
> 
> of the 5 things you included, they have admitted to FOUR of them being thier goals, and the 5th on they just call "social justice" to hide what it really is....


 
_-sigh-_


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

sorry Jeff, i see your point, you just used some really bad examples of it, which made my case for me.

not my fault you picked BS things for cons and true things for libs


----------



## elder999 (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> sorry Jeff, i see your point, you just used some really bad examples of it, which made my case for me.
> 
> not my fault you picked BS things for cons and true things for libs


 
_sigh_ 

John, they're *both* BS.

_sigh_

*You're* making *my* point........:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

thats the point Jeff, they are not.

legalized pot? thats a dem talking point

free abortions? we just went through a HUGE donnybrook about funding for planned parenthood

higher tax rate? just 2 days ago Ried said that he will not approve any deficit reduction bill that doesnt include higher taxes

gay marraige? another dem talking point

socialism? they call it social justice

your list for libs were right on the money Jeff


----------



## WC_lun (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff, this isnt far off the mark.
> 
> They really DO think these things.
> 
> of the 5 things you included, they have admitted to FOUR of them being thier goals, and the 5th on they just call "social justice" to hide what it really is....


 
Is this for real?  Do you really believe this?  It really apears you are vilifying people who don't agree with you so it easier to attack them.  Just for the record, every Democrat I know actually loves America and just want it to be better.  Also true with every Republican I know.  Only thier opinion of the methods used to do so vary.  To think otherwise...well it isn't correct.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> thats the point Jeff, they are not.
> 
> legalized pot? thats a dem talking point


I wish. Neither of the major parties go on record for this. It's a Libertarian talking point primarily...sometimes the Green party (no pun intended)



> free abortions? we just went through a HUGE donnybrook about funding for planned parenthood


That donnybrook included the fact that less than 5 percent of the funding was for abortions...though it is fair to say Dems tend to support PP and its programs more often.



> higher tax rate? just 2 days ago Ried said that he will not approve any deficit reduction bill that doesnt include higher taxes


Might be different in TX, but out here the Reps and Dems seem to want about the same tax rates...it's just that the Dems want the corporations and rich to pay it, and the Reps want it to fall on the middle and working classes. 



> gay marraige? another dem talking point


Last time it was a big deal, it was the Republicans talking about it...mostly to stir up conservatives in a "get out the vote" issue. Dems in my neck of the woods won't touch it. I don't know who's pushing for it these days other than gay (and "straight but not narrow") people, but of my close gay friends, most are Republicans.  (Worth noting that most of my friends are Reps...which may skew that)



> socialism? they call it social justice


Know your enemy, dude. "Social justice" is about equal access to rights and services...such as voting rights and education. "Socialism" is an economic structure for running a country. You've demonstrated you're against both, but that doesn't make them the same any more than my not liking wine or alcoholic soda pops makes Zinfandel and Mike's Hard the same thing.

Having lived in an actual socialist country, I can tell you that neither Dems nor Reps actually want a socialist USA....but I'll agree that Dem policies trend in that direction much more than the Republicans.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you can read minds now?
> Well hot damn and praise Allah, we got us a bonafied mentalist here ladies and Gents.
> 
> Come on, tell me what i am thinking NOW....
> ...


You are absolutely right! He's not thinking anything! I love that commercial.:ultracool
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

and the personal insults just keep on comming, i guess when you got nothing else to use...

and now for the trash:

*I wish. Neither of the major parties go on record for this. It's a  Libertarian talking point primarily...sometimes the Green party (no pun  intended)*


where is thre most legal pot? california, whats one of the most liberal controlled states....CALIFORNIA
*
That donnybrook included the fact that less than 5 percent of the  funding was for abortions...though it is fair to say Dems tend to  support PP and its programs more often.*

and tax payer dollars, like i said, free abortions is thier goal, they say so themselves
*
Might be different in TX, but out here the Reps and Dems seem to want  about the same tax rates...it's just that the Dems want the corporations  and rich to pay it, and the Reps want it to fall on the middle and  working classes. *

this is just flat out horse ****. The conservatives want to lower taxes ON EVERYONE to stimulate grow, you know, which actually works, the libs want to punish success by raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy, the JOB CREATORS which stifles growth, and destroys jobs, creating more people dependant on the government and more likely to vote dem to keep the bribes comming
*
Last time it was a big deal, it was the Republicans talking about  it...mostly to stir up conservatives in a "get out the vote" issue. Dems  in my neck of the woods won't touch it. I don't know who's pushing for  it these days other than gay (and "straight but not narrow") people, but  of my close gay friends, most are Republicans.  (Worth noting that most  of my friends are Reps...which may skew that)*

look where it is legal, and how they vote....though to be fair, california and oregon both vote very liberal, and it failed in both those places, which is silly to me, i have no problem with it*

Know your enemy, dude. "Social justice" is about equal access to rights  and services...such as voting rights and education. "Socialism" is an  economic structure for running a country.*

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks for playing.....

social justice is the buzzword for socialism, the lefts ultimate goal.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

You are aware that "liberal" doesn't equal "democrat," right?

Agreed, liberals are more for drug legalization than conservatives. But that's true of any law change...because a desire to change from the status quo is the _definition of liberalism_. Ditto for gay marriage.

In both cases, you'll find that the majority of Dems are no more likely than Reps to support changes to either policy. Too politically loaded for established parties to mess about with. And extrapolating from CA is bad logic....it's like saying Republicans are wealthy from oil because TX has the most oil millionaires and the most Republicans. 

I think you'll find if you read about PP, their goals are more about preventing abortions. They'll perform one if necessary, but their primary mission is educating people about birth control -- and giving access to birth control. If you want to really play the extrapolation game, we could say Republicans are the real supporters of abortions, since they keep blocking PP's attempts to get birth control education into public schools.....

One man's horse **** is another man's reasoned interpretations of the data. I've never seen much difference between taxing me to give a buck to a homeless guy vs. taxing me to give a buck to a defense contractor. 

Social justice: aren't you the guy who was whinging about people reading your mind? Since you're clearly not a Democrat or a socialist, how do you know that's the buzz word?

Although -- in fairness to you -- social justice issues can be obtained via socialist methods. The venn diagrams do overlap. And you forgot to respond to my claim that neither Reps nor Dems actually want socialism, based on a comparison of their policies and life in actual socialist nations...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You are aware that "liberal" doesn't equal "democrat," right?


here in this day and age, it doesnt, AND it does, the rank and file dem isnt a bad guy, he doesnt realize the enormous stupidity of his actions voting for socialist/marxist, he is just trying to do something nice



bushidomartialarts said:


> Agreed, liberals are more for drug legalization than conservatives. But that's true of any law change...because a desire to change from the status quo is the _definition of liberalism_. Ditto for gay marriage.



very true



bushidomartialarts said:


> I think you'll find if you read about PP, their goals are more about preventing abortions.



thats just naive in the extreem. Do you have ANY idea how profittable it is for them to kill babies? that LAST thing they want to do is stop murdering babies, see how hard they fought to keep the money comming in?

George Tiller was a millionaire JUST from killing babies



bushidomartialarts said:


> One man's horse **** is another man's reasoned interpretations of the data. I've never seen much difference between taxing me to give a buck to a homeless guy vs. taxing me to give a buck to a defense contractor.



then you are not thinking very hard, one action accomplishes nothing, the other creates several jobs that raises the tax base and creates MORE jobs when they need to go somewhere to eat with the money they just got from thier new job....



bushidomartialarts said:


> Social justice: aren't you the guy who was whinging in the atheism thread about people reading your mind? Since you're clearly not a Democrat or a socialist, how do you know that's the buzz word?



they put it out there for all to see dude, you just have to connect the dots and be willing to believe what they are showing you



bushidomartialarts said:


> Although -- in fairness to you -- social justice issues can be obtained via socialist methods. The venn diagrams do overlap. And you forgot to respond to my claim that neither Reps nor Dems actually want socialism, based on a comparison of their policies and life in actual socialist nations...



the "dems" may not, the leftist most certainly do, and they controll the left.

soros

look it up

and this is all off topic.

the dems policy on energy seems to be "no fossil fuels, ever"

remember during the campaign, Obama and biden both said they were gonna bankrupt the coal industry

THAT is giving the finger to america, IMO


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> here in this day and age, it doesnt, AND it does, the rank and file dem isnt a bad guy, he doesnt realize the enormous stupidity of his actions voting for socialist/marxist, he is just trying to do something nice



I know you live in a small town in TX, brother...but when was the last time you actually _met_ a Democrat or a liberal? Other than when hunting them? (What's the tag limit on Dems in Nacodoches County these days?)



> very true


Glad we can agree on something. 




> thats just naive in the extreem. Do you have ANY idea how profittable it is for them to kill babies? that LAST thing they want to do is stop murdering babies, see how hard they fought to keep the money comming in?



Come now, I think I've demonstrated that I've done at least as much research into this as you have. This isn't kindergarten, so stop calling me a poopiehead just 'cos we disagree. 

PP loses money on each abortion. Stats are pretty conclusive: more access to birth control = fewer abortions. PP is one of the leading providers of birth control to the lowest SEC populations. A miniscule proportion of their operating budget and time is spent on abortions.

There's probably a tacky "baby out with the bathwater" joke here, but I'm too classy to write it down. 




> then you are not thinking very hard, one action accomplishes nothing, the other creates several jobs that raises the tax base and creates MORE jobs when they need to go somewhere to eat with the money they just got from thier new job....



Incorrect. One action (theoretically) helps somebody move from not contributing to re-entering the work force. The other (theoretically) does just as you say. OTOH, one (sadly too often) ends up buying a bottle of Mad Dog. The other (sadly too often) ends up with the lion's share in private holdings, not in the pool of funds that fosters employment.

Both are screwy.




> they put it out there for all to see dude, you just have to connect the dots and be willing to believe what they are showing you



Could say the same thing about many of the times you've objected to posts about how people think _you're_ thinking. Kind of disingenuous, dontcha think?




> the "dems" may not, the leftist most certainly do, and they controll the left.



Actually, the average Dem is about as leftist as my buddy who lost his left arm in the war. Very few of them would actually support socialism as seen in Japan, Germany and most of Scandinavia. It pays to remember that social discourse in America runs from about 5.5 to 8.5 on a scale of 1 (really, really socialist) to 10 (pure, free-market capitalism).




> THAT is giving the finger to america, IMO



IMO, giving the finger to America is every time a Dem or a Rep paints the other side with broad strokes in order to keep fostering this destructive conflict. It's not about dem/rep, right/left, con/lib. It's about what's best for our country. Both sides have some good ideas...but because cooperation doesn't serve their interests, the powers that be keep us looking at each other while they pick our pockets.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

Texas was, untill the 90's, VERY democrat leaning. LBJ was from here, and Molly Ivins, and Anne Richards..... plenty of dems and outright leftists here,

murdering babies is a multi billion dollar business dude, like i said, you just have to be willing to see it and believe it.

Given the choice, i will help create jobs, not reward sloth

sure, the average dem is not a bad person, they are just woefully and enormously un-informed about what is happening in thier name.

the far left controls the dems, and they are up to no good.

back on topic please tho. 

we MUST have fuel, the entire nation runs on it, and untill we create our own, we are the mercyof the middle eastern madmen


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

*Texas was, untill the 90's, VERY democrat leaning. LBJ was from here, and Molly Ivins, and Anne Richards..... plenty of dems and outright leftists here,*

Yes, but what's the tag limit?

*murdering babies is a multi billion dollar business dude, like i said, you just have to be willing to see it and believe it.*

Are you talking about abortion, or collateral damage from military operations?

*Given the choice, i will help create jobs, not reward sloth*

A fair point, but you're probably oversimplifying both sides of the issue. 

*sure, the average dem is not a bad person, they are just woefully and enormously un-informed about what is happening in thier name.*

Could say the same about reps. And probably libertarians, populists, green partiers, feminists, catholics and left-handed lesbian eskimo midgit albinos for world peace. 

*the far left controls the dems, and they are up to no good.*

Naw. The far middle controls the dems. The far left doesn't even get heard. 



> we MUST have fuel, the entire nation runs on it, and untill we create our own, we are the mercyof the middle eastern madmen



True. But it's been demonstrated conclusively that a) we have plenty, b) we're taking a strategic stance to save our oil for when everybody else runs out, and c)we don't need FUEL...we need energy -- so why not invest in wind/solar/tidal/orbital beam/fusion/fission/convicts on bicycles? Petrochemical fuel kind of sucks.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> so why not invest in wind/solar/tidal/orbital beam/fusion/fission/convicts on bicycles? Petrochemical fuel kind of sucks.




because NONE of those work? might be that......and we need energy NOW, not 10 years from now.....


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Well...solar works (especially in your neck of the woods), hydroelectric works (especially in mine), wind works 

fission works, though it's kind of been scuttled by ignorance and fear (and a big ****ing earth quake)

tidal works, but is limited in application

orbital beam and fusion are both a few years out

but i'm convinced convicts on bicycles might be worth a shot...


----------



## Twin Fist (May 22, 2011)

aclu says it is cruel and unusual.......thats out


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

those guys ruin all my fun...


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 22, 2011)

did someone say burn prisoners for fuel?
interesting idea....


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

only at gitmo

ages ago, when talking about energy solutions, one of my students suggested getting convicts to run on treadmills...


----------



## granfire (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> only at gitmo
> 
> ages ago, when talking about energy solutions, one of my students suggested getting convicts to run on treadmills...



When was that? The Middle Ages?

:lfao:

(nothing new under the sun....)


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You are aware that "liberal" doesn't equal "democrat," right?
> 
> Agreed, liberals are more for drug legalization than conservatives. But that's true of any law change...because a desire to change from the status quo is the _definition of liberalism_. Ditto for gay marriage.


Statistics are pretty difficult to come by.  But the only block of people who are consistently in favor of legalizing ALL drugs are strict libertarians.  As with most things, it's a complicated issue, and fanatics on both sides are vested in simplifying things to suit their position.  And anti-prohibition is clearly, to anyone with even a shred of objectivity, a conservative position.  It's right there with seat belt laws, helmet laws and "you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."  

As for the rest, TF, our bottom line is after all, just because YOU don't like something, doesn't make it wrong.  I agree completely!   Now, if I could only get you to actually mean it.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> your act is getting boring.
> 
> no, not my intention to start a fight, it was and remains my intention to SPREAD THE TRUTH so everyone can see just how much the democrats hate america and americans


Do you hate Democrats?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

Well, libertarians and stoners.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Well, libertarians and stoners.


There's a clear distinction between people who are pro-pot and people who are pro-drug.  

Typically, people who are pro-pot either smoke it now or have smoked it in the past.  They understand that it's not entirely healthy, but also understand that it's no less healthy than many of the legal things we do all the time legally.  

People who are pro-drug (as in ALL drugs) are typically strict libertarians who are as likely as not to have used illicit drugs and are more interested in being philosophically consistent than anything else.  There aren't a statistically large number of these people.

However, pro drug and pro-pot are often lumped together in order to make the latter position seem more severe and irrational.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (May 22, 2011)

That was meant as a joke,

But you're right. I'm personally pro-drug, but not because I use or because I'm libertarian. I'm pro-drug because _prohibition doesn't work_. We learned that in the 1920s, but still we insist...


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

Oh, and Twin Fist and I both agree that just because YOU don't like something, doesn't make it wrong.  That's our bottom line.  Pot included.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> That was meant as a joke,
> 
> But you're right.


  I got the joke, but it also touched on a great example of how a complicated issue gets oversimplified.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 23, 2011)

most things ARE simple


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> most things ARE simple


No, there is always something you didn't consider.
Sean


----------



## Twin Fist (May 23, 2011)

that doesnt mean that the situation isnt simple


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that doesnt mean that the situation isnt simple


Just add one more person with their concerns and needs, and that simple situation is now more complex.
Sean


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> that doesnt mean that the situation isnt simple


have you ever heard the term "unconsciously incompetent?"

Also, you never answered the question, "do you hate democrats?"


----------



## Twin Fist (May 23, 2011)

yeah, i (as usual) got bored with your feeble attempts to play some sort of wierd stalkerish head games.

you bore me.

and i am pretty much done with you. Your backhanded insults are lame, and your are ...not stimulating to deal with


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, i (as usual) got bored with your feeble attempts to play some sort of wierd stalkerish head games.
> 
> you bore me.
> 
> and i am pretty much done with you. Your backhanded insults are lame, and your are ...not stimulating to deal with


Why are you calling me feeble?   And a stalker?  Seriously?  You need to chill out and take a deep breath and stop projecting your illness on me. 

From wikipedia:


> *Unconscious Incompetence*
> The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit.




Point being, if something complicated seems too simple, you probably don't understand it.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Point being, if something complicated seems too simple, you probably don't understand it.



The Dunning-Kruger Effect.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2011)

But I'm still interested.  Do you, twinfist, hate democrats?  What about liberals?  I believe that you sense impending cognitive dissonance and that's why you won't answer.  Just a guess.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You need to chill out and take a deep breath and stop projecting your illness on me.
> 
> From wikipedia:
> [/list]
> Point being, if something complicated seems too simple, you probably don't understand it.




your passive aggressive technique is boring and very, very weak

last bit of free advice, things in life are simple, but some people try to make them sound complicated to give themselves some ego boost for understanding it

there is nothing new under the sun

a simple understanding of human nature explains almost everything you will ever encounter.

buh bye now.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> your passive aggressive technique is boring and very, very weak
> 
> last bit of free advice, things in life are simple, but some people try to make them sound complicated to give themselves some ego boost for understanding it
> 
> ...


haha.  Now I'm passive aggressive.  Do you know what that means?  I can be obnoxious or grumpy, but I'm also pretty direct.  When you use terms inappropriately, it damages your credibility.

now, instead of insulting me, could you answer the two simple questions?

,F inally, theRe are things in life that are complicated and only an idiot would suggest otherwise.  Global energy policies.  Brain surgery.  Nuclear physics.  Macroeconomics.  Global politics.  Believing these are simple is lunacy.


----------



## The Last Legionary (May 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> your passive aggressive technique is boring and very, very weak
> 
> last bit of free advice, things in life are simple, but some people try to make them sound complicated to give themselves some ego boost for understanding it
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (May 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *-Admin Notice-*
> 
> *Enough of the personal shots. Any further digs, slings, or outright insults will get the deliverer some nice infraction points. In this thread, or anywhere else. You all know the rules, and if you don't, go read the damn things.*
> 
> ...


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96131


Just bumping this up in case people forgot.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 23, 2011)

this sort of thing is pretty much all you post isnt it?



The Last Legionary said:


>


----------



## MJS (May 23, 2011)

*Admin Note*

*Thread Closed.*


----------

