Obama's cap & trade policy--est. $2000 more per year per household in electric costs!

[Terral]

Hi Oreo:

As promised by Obama--he plans to bankrupt the coal industry in this country--by imposing a cap & trade on existing coal power plants.

Estimates are that this policy will cost the average home an additional $2000.00 per year in electric costs . . .

Barack Obama is using this "new energy tax" to place even more burden and stress on the average US American Household, when he promised "NO TAXES" going up for average Americans.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktWz8gjF0u8"]Just Listen To This Joker![/ame]

This is another 'tax and spend liberal Democrat' that appears more like a Fascist today (the Obama Deception) than a Socialist. Just the idea that this cartoon character is ready to drop the "New Tax Bomb" on strugging American families shows that his New World Order intentions are 'bad' for the USA . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Newby]

... Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.

This *is* a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Again? Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.

Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?

You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.

I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.

You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.

Convicted by your own statement. The record is clear.

What's 'clear' is that not only are you a partisan, you're a closed minded, stubborn partisan. Have a nice day.

P.S. You never did explain why Obama promised there wouldn't be any more earmarks during his campaign, and why he apparently thought they were a 'bad' thing.

 

[Iriemon]

... Numerous people have confronted you over your falsehoods however, and you just cluelessly plow ahead as if they hadn't said anything, or ignore them.

Again? Must be nice to make up your own definitions of words when it suits you.

Why don't you tell us why Obama promised no earmarks when he was campaigning, what did he have against them?

You claim I ignore people who accuse me of falsehoods.

I just accused you a specific falsehood by lying about my statement and challenged you to prove your accusation.

You ignored it and failed to back up your false accusation.

Convicted by your own statement. The record is clear.

What's 'clear' is that not only are you a partisan, you're a closed minded, stubborn partisan. Have a nice day.

What's crystal clear from the record is that you lie about what people say, and then don't support your accusations or retract them.

P.S. You never did explain why Obama promised there wouldn't be any more earmarks during his campaign, and why he apparently thought they were a 'bad' thing.

PS I don't feel obliged to explain things I did not assert.

 

[driveby]

This is a prime example. Of your fabrication and falsehood. Prove otherwise by citing my post where I ever said "there wasn't wasteful spending in that bill".

Or ignore and be proved a liar and hypocrite by your own terms.

Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread. We have to define what the word "Is, is?" I've lost all respect for you and your posts. You are one naive person. Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes. I've read enough of your tripe. You need to grow up some mentally.

I didn't define anything. Go back to the start of the posts. RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill. I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill. All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.

Great. Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person. There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks. Which I acknowledged.

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.

Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........

 

[Iriemon]

Now we're getting down to the crux of this whole thread. We have to define what the word "Is, is?" I've lost all respect for you and your posts. You are one naive person. Unless the spending has "This is an earmark" it isn't an earmark, in your eyes. I've read enough of your tripe. You need to grow up some mentally.

I didn't define anything. Go back to the start of the posts. RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill. I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill. All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.

Great. Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person. There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks. Which I acknowledged.

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.

Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........

Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.

 

[Meister]

I didn't define anything. Go back to the start of the posts. RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill. I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill. All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.

Great. Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person. There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks. Which I acknowledged.

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.

Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........

Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.

Oh, brother...

 

[driveby]

I didn't define anything. Go back to the start of the posts. RGS claimed there were earmarks in the stimulus bill. I had recalled there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as opposed to the omnibus bill. All I did was ask for a source to support that assertion.

After four different people jumped in to add their opinions, and no one cited a source for the contention, you finally did.

Great. Your own cites prove that there weren't "earmarks" in the stimulus bill as the term has been used to describe situation were money is specifically earmarked for spending by a particular congress person. There were only "earmarks" in it if you use a broader definition of earmarks. Which I acknowledged.

If you don't like what your own sources say, sorry.

Jesus Christ, do the terms "moonbat" or "libtard" mean anything to you ?

Don't worry, it's rhetorical.........

Yeah, they do -- Use of those terms means that a conservative has once again been frustrated because his position has been demostrated to be erroneous by a liberal.

Yeah, thats it ..........

 

[garyd]

Let me clue you in Gentlemen. As currently configured if Obama's cap and trade plan goes into action as it is currently written according to one of Fox news leading Dem supporters (and they have more Dem supporters than the Alphabet soup media has REp. supporters combined) It will include a bill that will give most Americans a rebate of any increase in cost that is passed along to them by the various energy companies, which means essentially that no one gets penalized except those few people who don't qualify for a rebate.

Which means most American companies in the Next few decades will be run from some manmade island of the Coast of Abu Dhabi where the fat cats will take ther money and tell Obama as J.Paul Getty once told FDR kiss my ass I don't live there anymore.

Oh and because no one really gets penalized that still lives here, the likelihood is that nothing energy wise will change accept thruough the normal function of government.

 

[Iriemon]

Let me clue you in Gentlemen. As currently configured if Obama's cap and trade plan goes into action as it is currently written according to one of Fox news leading Dem supporters (and they have more Dem supporters than the Alphabet soup media has REp. supporters combined) It will include a bill that will give most Americans a rebate of any increase in cost that is passed along to them by the various energy companies, which means essentially that no one gets penalized except those few people who don't qualify for a rebate.

Which means most American companies in the Next few decades will be run from some manmade island of the Coast of Abu Dhabi where the fat cats will take ther money and tell Obama as J.Paul Getty once told FDR kiss my ass I don't live there anymore.

Oh and because no one really gets penalized that still lives here, the likelihood is that nothing energy wise will change accept thruough the normal function of government.

Understanding that the cap and trade will cost big emitters money and that Fox news is known for its very conservative pro-business bias, why would you think quoting a claim by Fox news would be persuasive to anybody?

 

[Newby]

Why don't you tell us all who you feel is a legitmate news source?

 

[editec]

So far we have three people claiming there were eamarks in the stimulus bill, and not one can provide a cite to reliable source to show it.

There were plenty of earmarks.

The question is are they porky earmarks are not?

Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

 

[Newby]

If their general connotation was taken by the public as 'money directed to a specific problem', and weren't incredibly abused by all those in Washington, then why would Obama promise during his campaign that there would be none of them? (If Iriemon would answer this question, it would negate her whole perspective, which is why she does not answer it.) Obviously, the connotation of the word 'earmark' is negative and perceived as a pejorative by the general public, and as wasting the tax payer's money on things the federal government has no business funding to begin with.

 

[DC42]

I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork". What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!

 

[Meister]

I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork". What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!

Call it what you want to call it. Call it a potato if you want. Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have. The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks. This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that". This is no way to run our government. If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed. Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent. They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.

 

[Iriemon]

There were plenty of earmarks.

The question is are they porky earmarks are not?

Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. The Obama admin didn't deny it. But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills. That's my understanding.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

 

[Iriemon]

I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork". What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!

Call it what you want to call it. Call it a potato if you want. Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have. The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks. This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that". This is no way to run our government. If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed. Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent. They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.

Don't blame me. I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.

 

[driveby]

Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $4000 omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. But the Obama adminsitration asserted the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and article that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while it technically didn't have earmarks" there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, and therefore is not an earmark in the sense these things are traditionally done.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

And a blow job is not sexual relations, blah blah blah ........

 

[Newby]

Four.

Still not one cite reliable source that says there were earmarks in the stimulus bill.

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. The Obama admin didn't deny it. But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills. That's my understanding.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

 

[Iriemon]

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $4000 omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. But the Obama adminsitration asserted the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and article that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while it technically didn't have earmarks" there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, and therefore is not an earmark in the sense these things are traditionally done.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

And a blow job is not sexual relations, blah blah blah ........

And waterboarding is not torture blah blah blah ........

Lots of things come down to definitions.

 

[Iriemon]

Are we talking about the same thing, Iriemon?

If money is DIRECTED at a SPECIFIC problem it's an earmark.

I believe, for example, that something on the order of $6 Billion has just been EARMARKED to increase the number of young people hired in civilian conservation corps.

THAT is an example of an EARMARK.

Earmarks aren't necessarily bad or good.

Whether the earmark is PORK really depends on how you view that particular allocation of money.

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. The Obama admin didn't deny it. But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills. That's my understanding.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

I don't believe he did.