Reply With Quote
2012
Nice job barry.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Former US vice president and environmental activist Al Gore has accused President Barack Obama of failing to lead on climate change, warning that the very survival of civilization was at stake.
LoL@Survival of civilization was at stake. What a ing knob!.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622...20110622141712
2012
Wow. If you add this to the scorecard along with his support for the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, military tribunals at gitmo, corporate welfare and trickle down economics, I'm begining to think that the republicans should give their presidential nomination to Barack Obama.
You want him to lead on climate change?
Explain.
did Al use his private jet to attend this environmental summit?
Not a misguided notion. They would still call him a 'socialist' even though, as you described, that label makes no sense on him.
Then again, Al Gore is a tool.
I'm curious if the repugs would have been supportive. He has to choose his battles.
Actually, if you compare Obamacare in its final form to Medicare Part D - the two most expensive/expansive pieces of legislation passed by the respective presidents - Bush is to the left of Obama; Fascist and Socialist as each may be.
Intelligent people and MANY corporations know anthropogenic global warming is real and will have catastrophic consequences sooner rather than later, but the VRWC/UCA/carbon-extractors/traffickers have intimidated/purchased politicians at all levels from responding.
All we need is more science to prove GW and biological evolution are bull
Sea Levels Rising At Fastest Rate In 2,100 Years
Sea level has been rising significantly over the past century of global warming, according to a study that offers the most detailed look yet at the changes in ocean levels during the last 2,100 years.
The researchers found that since the late 19th century – as the world became industrialized – sea level has risen more than 2 millimeters per year, on average. That's a bit less than one-tenth of an inch, but it adds up over time.
It will lead to land loss, more flooding and sal er invading bodies of fresh water, said lead researcher Benjamin Horton whose team examined sediment from North Carolina's Outer Banks. He directs the Sea Level Research Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania.
The predicted effects he cites aren't new and are predicted by many climate scientists. But outside experts say the research verifies increasing sea level rise compared to previous centuries.
"there is a very close link between sea level and temperature. So for the 21st century when temperatures will rise, so will sea level."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...tml?view=print
I have to disagree.
Normally I would dislike adding an expenditure like Part D, however, I have maintained I have no problem with social programs for our seniors and disabled. Obamacare is too big, too expensive, and I see it as forcing private policies out of existence except for the rich.
Then presumably you have no problem with Medicare and Social Security.
I don't like them for some reasons, but they have been around so long, it's part of the American way now. I want to see them changed, but not eliminated.
Please tell me. What post have I ever indicated I dislike the programs.
Whether you have a problem with them or not is immaterial to the fact that Medicare Part D is a more "left wing" program than is Obamacare.
Other than being a great creator of bureaucracy and busy work, Obamacare is largely impotent and irrelevant - typical government; it's socialist tendencies WAY overstated by political opponents - Medicare part D, on the other hand, is a massive, unfunded, en lement liability.
I disagree. Please enlighten me as to why.
This will likely destroy the free market insurance of health care. Part D doesn't.
Explain why.
Be specific.
Oh, and:
Already did:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...4&postcount=23What post have I ever indicated I dislike the programs.
Simple.
It is mandated that insurance policies cover certain things. It takes away the ability for insurance to offer various plans that are more affordable. They will be more expensive than before, and people will end up having to go for the government variety.
Will I be able to but a policy with a $5,000 deductible if I wanted?
OK, I used a poor choice of wording when I said "dislike" but that should be understand for that same post from what I said before.
SS and medicare are poorly run, and the excesses in receipts have no way of gaining real interest. Only government bonds at the lowest pay rates. You should gather from the linked post and thread you found that I want flexibility to have my own retirement savings, but I never indicated I wants SS to be scrapped.
How about reviving that thread, a different one, or start a new one if you wish to discuss SS rather than Climate Change and Gore.
I never said you did.You should gather from the linked post and thread you found that I want flexibility to have my own retirement savings, but I never indicated I wants SS to be scrapped.
101A opened the door; you walked through it. Now you're crying about topicality. Hard to take seriously.How about reviving that thread, a different one, or start a new one if you wish to discuss SS rather than Climate Change and Gore.
The states have been mandating benefits for years - as far as this being a Federal power grab, you are correct, but your estimation of what this will do to the market are overstated. The states have had risk pools for years; that is what, IMO the Federal govt. option is going to become; the place where high risk insureds end up; for the vast majority, the carriers will make damn sure those premium dollars don't go away. If you are in any way right, why haven't the shares of UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, et al. not plummeted?
Insurance plans have been getting more expensive than before forever. This doesn't change that. The worst part about Obamacare, IMO, is that the govt. has done something ineffectual - and proven the topic to be politically toxic; the sides will argue about its merits, but will not propose anything to actually fix our, obviously unsustainable, healthcare system.
If you would argue that Obamacare does so little that it will lead to a govt. takeover due to a complete crash of the system; when something effective could have actually been done; you might get some traction. But then, to win our current debate, you would have to prove that that was intentional by Obama and co.
I have seen clips that effectively say that was his plan. Can not take it over directly, but he had a plan to destroy the free market compe ion.
Wish I knew where to look for that clip. It's probably 4 - 6 years old.
I'm sure you can find it at inforwars.com.
Is free market compe ion currently keeping prices down?
Start a new thread and ask that question.
I'm done with that tangent on this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
