Obama backpedal of the day: promising to bankrupt any new coal plants during the campaign, but this week signaling that coal will play a big role in his domestic energy plans. 1 year ago in the San Francisco Chronical, this was Obama--->

quote:

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

And now this:

quote:

Big Coal is on a roll in the nation's capital, winning early rounds this week in what promises to be a long fight over fossil fuels and climate change. Despite a well-funded ad campaign by environmentalists attacking the industry, and a huge coal-ash spill in Tennessee that has led to calls for more regulation, the industry has received positive assurances this week from President-elect Barack Obama's nominees that the new administration is committed to keeping coal a big part of the nation's energy source. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama's choice to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, described coal to a Senate panel as "a vital resource" for the country. A day earlier, Mr. Obama's nominee to run the Energy Department, physicist Steven Chu, referred to coal as a "great natural resource." Two years ago, he called the expansion of coal-fired power plants his "worst nightmare." The comments indicated the new administration is trying to steer toward the center in the debate over the costs associated with curbing fossil fuels and the greenhouse gases they produce.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123198153797183981.html

Is this guy something or is this guy something? However... it looks like his dream to bankrupt them will still get fulfilled, even though the public supports coal. I just read about how the incoming EPA head Lisa Jackson will invoke the Clean Air Act which will lead to those bankruptcies.

quote:

Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder Declares “Waterboarding Is Torture” President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to be Attorney General, Eric Holder, has declared waterboarding to be a form of torture and has vowed to shut down Guantanamo Bay. At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder was questioned about torture, the pardoning of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich and the commutation of sentences of sixteen members of the Puerto Rican independence group the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known as FALN. We play highlights. [includes rush transcript]

Source: Democracy Now

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

^^^

OMFG ... ROFL ... it wasnt funny when I read it, Z, but when I saw the video - ITS HILARIOUS! Hahaha, Vietnamese used waterboarding torture ... hahahah

Didnt know he pardoned a fugitive billionaire. Now he expresses "regret" over that. Oh, I am sure he didnt just do that for nothing - you dont see politicians pardoning average Joe and Lisa somewhere. Instead of pardoning a Native American accused of murdering 2 FBI agents - and human rights groups support his case for pardon - but no, billionaire is pardoned. And him also pardoning some criminals from Costa Rica.

All are focking dirty pigs, those politicians.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Jan-17-2009 at 02:42

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo are you telling me there are no earmarks in this?

From what I've heard, there are no projects involved here that are restricted to particular congressional districts or states. I'm not really sure what exactly you think an earmark is, but if you're speaking like Boehner, you view everything that is a stimulus package as an "earmark." I already watched Paul Ryan on CNBC try to sell that angle. I"m not exactly sure what Paul Ryan thinks a stimulus package should include, but I'm sure that'll be coming in the next few days. I'm guessing it'll be lots of corporate tax cuts or something like that.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1001181857

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

Obama backpedal of the day:

Obama campaigned against the Bush executive order barring federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and said he would reverse it once elected. Now Politico reports that Obama has backed away from that pledge, but only because he has a way to share the burden:

quote:

President-elect Barack Obama signaled Friday that he might not use his executive authority to reverse Bush-era limits on stem cell research, but instead might wait for Congress to change the policy. Obama pledged during the campaign to lift the restrictions, and political observers had expected him to move swiftly to reverse President Bush's 2001 executive order – most likely with his own executive order. But the president-elect suggested Friday that he would wait for Congress to weigh in on the issue. "Well, if we can do something legislative then I usually prefer a legislative process because those are the people's representatives," Obama said in a CNN interview. "And I think that on embryonic stem cell research, the fact that you have a bipartisan support around that issue, the fact that you have Republicans like Orrin Hatch who are fierce opponents of abortion and yet recognize that there is a moral and ethical mechanism to ensure that people with Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's can actually find potentially some hope out there, you know, I think that sends a powerful message.["]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17540.html

Unreal! This is an every day occurrance. Obama intends on having the policy reversed, but instead of doing it by himself, he wants Congress to initiate the changes. He knows Congress will do what he wants so why not use that cover to one's advantage?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Obama backpedal of the day: Obama campaigned against the Bush executive order barring federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and said he would reverse it once elected. Now Politico reports that Obama has backed away from that pledge, but only because he has a way to share the burden: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17540.html Unreal! This is an every day occurrance. Obama intends on having the policy reversed, but instead of doing it by himself, he wants Congress to initiate the changes. He knows Congress will do what he wants so why not use that cover to one's advantage?

Wait, let me get this straight. You're upset because instead of him just going ahead and using executive privilege, something most of the country would have gotten on Bush for, he's trying to allow the legislative branch to do it first? There's nothing that says he still wouldn't use his executive powers if things didn't work, just that he's going to try to allow congress to do it first. I really don't see what the big deal is. Either situation would still lead to a lifting on the ban.

We're just getting done with a President who constantly found ways to bypass other branches of the government and was hated for it. Now we're looking at a president that would rather incorporate other branches of the government in policy making than do it alone, and we're already faulting him for it? Jeez.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Obama backpedal of the day: Obama campaigned against the Bush executive order barring federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and said he would reverse it once elected. Now Politico reports that Obama has backed away from that pledge, but only because he has a way to share the burden: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17540.html Unreal! This is an every day occurrance. Obama intends on having the policy reversed, but instead of doing it by himself, he wants Congress to initiate the changes. He knows Congress will do what he wants so why not use that cover to one's advantage?

We're gonna have backpedal of the day now?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Wait, let me get this straight. You're upset because instead of him just going ahead and using executive privilege, something most of the country would have gotten on Bush for, he's trying to allow the legislative branch to do it first? There's nothing that says he still wouldn't use his executive powers if things didn't work, just that he's going to try to allow congress to do it first. I really don't see what the big deal is. Either situation would still lead to a lifting on the ban. We're just getting done with a President who constantly found ways to bypass other branches of the government and was hated for it. Now we're looking at a president that would rather incorporate other branches of the government in policy making than do it alone, and we're already faulting him for it? Jeez.

I'm not "upset"... and you're rationalizing for Obama. I'm not blaming his use of inclusion of other branches of government, I'm making the point that once again, he said something during the campaign that he's going back on now... and at least on the surface it appears it's being done to buffer any possible fallout over making such a decision.

His problem is that he tries to please everyone. He carries the reputation of still not making tough decisions, but rather going along party lines 95% of the time with his votes, or voting "present". This is just another example, and the Obama apologists are quick to blow this off too. There will come a time after the honeymoon period where he will not be able to blame things on the Bush administration and be responsible for accepting the consequences of his decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I'm not "upset"... and you're rationalizing for Obama. I'm not blaming his use of inclusion of other branches of government, I'm making the point that once again, he said something during the campaign that he's going back on now... and at least on the surface it appears it's being done to buffer any possible fallout over making such a decision. His problem is that he tries to please everyone. He carries the reputation of still not making tough decisions, but rather going along party lines 95% of the time with his votes, or voting "present". This is just another example, and the Obama apologists are quick to blow this off too. There will come a time after the honeymoon period where he will not be able to blame things on the Bush administration and be responsible for accepting the consequences of his decisions.

Well to be honest, if someone says that they'll do something during their election campaign, and then decides to do it by involving more people into the process than initially stated, I don't see the issue. If the end result is the same, but it will be the decision of many instead of one, I'm not going to be upset. It seems to me that we get upset when a politician wants to "go it alone," and it's a bit fickle to get upset when the opposite happens.

Now, when a tough decision comes along, then we can judge how well Obama does. Right now he's not President and hasn't really had to face them. We'll see soon enough. If a tough decision needs to be made and he decides to defer it to congress, I'll have a problem. This to me is a policy change that he's hoping to have congressional support on before deciding to go it alone; not a "tough decision" that he's pawning off.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well to be honest, if someone says that they'll do something during their election campaign, and then decides to do it by involving more people into the process than initially stated, I don't see the issue. If the end result is the same, but it will be the decision of many instead of one, I'm not going to be upset. It seems to me that we get upset when a politician wants to "go it alone," and it's a bit fickle to get upset when the opposite happens. Now, when a tough decision comes along, then we can judge how well Obama does. Right now he's not President and hasn't really had to face them. We'll see soon enough. If a tough decision needs to be made and he decides to defer it to congress, I'll have a problem. This to me is a policy change that he's hoping to have congressional support on before deciding to go it alone; not a "tough decision" that he's pawning off.

fair enough. you make some good points