Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[Lamplighter]

All humor aside, much the same arguments as those made by Adak
helped the gas drilling industry in Colorado win rare exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the Clean Water Act when Congress enacted the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

The Energy Policy Act is to the EPA as the Patriot Act is to the Constitution.

I agree. This situation is just now being taken up by the US Supreme Court.

The article below is primarily the lawyers wrangling over judicial procedures,
but one paragraph describes up the real-world situation....


NY Times
ADAM LIPTAK
12/3/12

E.P.A. Rule Complicates Runoff Case for Justices

<snip>Much of the argument on Monday was devoted to the consequences
of the new environmental regulation for the two consolidated cases before the justices,
Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-338,
and Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-347.
They arose from suits against logging companies and Oregon forestry officials under the Clean Water Act,
saying the defendants were required to obtain permits for runoff from logging roads that ran through ditches and culverts.

The E.P.A. has long taken the opposite view, and the ultimate answer to whether
the Clean Water Act applies to hundreds of thousands of miles of logging roads
is quite consequential, as it could provide a tool for conservationists to block logging
where silty runoff would choke forest streams.

But it seemed on Monday that even a partial answer would have to wait.

[Adak]

I'm in Southern California.

A number of methods are used to extract oil shale - a sort of fracking is one of them, true. However, what most people know about fracking is in relation to natural gas extraction. There are significant differences between "fracking" oil shale versus fracking natural gas. In addition, given our current technology, strip mining and extraction of petroleum via a high temperature process remains the preferred technique. This is called "retorting." You are correct in stating that natural gas is a clean fuel to burn. However, it is not always a clean fuel to extract.

If it doesn't use a deep bore and involve fracturing the underground rock/shale and recovery through the bore piping, then it's not fracking.

PA shares the dubious honor along with Colorado and a number of other states of having regions where the inhabitants can perform the burning water trick. Youtube has endless videos of people from all over the US burning their tap water.

Whatever source you found that states fracking has nothing to do with methane in the near-by area water supply is either out-of-date, or dismissive of science in the manner of many right wing outfits, or both.

Just heard the geologist speak about it, last week. How obsolete can the info be, in 7 days?

In April of 2011, the peer reviewed publication of the American Academy of Science included a research paper describing “a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.”

Even the scientists who conducted the research were surprised at the strength of correlation.

If they don't handle the contaminants they store above ground correctly, then of course, it's likely to soak down right into the ground water. But that's not because of the fraking, that's because someone has been careless/negligent and allowed above ground contamination.

By contrast, research conducted at the behest of state and local governments has shown definate evidence of contamination and a host of other problems that result from fracking. See for example, the report issued by Garfield County containing an exhaustive examination of the methane problem on Colorado's Western Slope:

We have acted unwisely in getting our needed energy - sure. No question about it.

We have a lot of oil off our CA coast, but because of one oil spill back in the 50's, it's all off-limits. We also have a lot of oil up in the barren arctic, which is already set up with the pipeline, several wells etc., so bringing in the new wells would be very easy - but most of it has been stopped by Obama.

I'm just saying, you have a scarce commodity, and high demand. Yes, the price will increase when the demand for it increases, but it's not the companies fault it's increased.

I honestly appreciate your final comments here, Adak - I really do. You seem to have done a little reading and you don't come across as wanting an environmental wasteland any more than I do.

~~~~~~
Colorado and the rest of the Inter mountain West will still never recover from what will amount to decade after decade of strip mining and other types of energy exploitation.

I'm not familiar with strip mining. I know the area around Colorado Springs has a lot of contamination. I worked under the director in charge of overseeing the clean up of my employer's dumping, both in Colorado Springs, and at a plant in CA.

Remember those beautiful aspen in my first pic a way back? Well, those trees along with the spruce and the pinyon and the Doug fir and all the others are already dead. They just don't know it yet.

Notice how dry it's been out here? And it's been dry for quite a while now, come to think of it. And hasn't this been one of the warmest summers and falls ever? Sure has in MY part of the Southwest, anyhow.

Yes, this was a very warm year. But the last three Summers have been below average in So. CA.

Forests in the Inter Mountain West are already suffering from an ecological three strikes and out - climate change, fire suppression carried out like a slap in the face to all known forestry and ecological science, and an incredible outbreak - epidemic, really - of pine beetle and other destructive insects.
~~~~
Strip mining will be the final blow. The forest will never return.

It may seem that way, but forests can definitely return. Early Californians logged the giant coastal Redwoods like crazy, clear cutting everything they could get to.

Talk about a scar on the land! You can imagine a forest of almost nothing BUT huge Redwood trees, all cut down, and sent to the mill.
And there was no effort made to replant anything. Concern about ecology was very rare in those days. If it was done, it was done only enough to stop mud-slides in the wet months.

Even so, today, we have a large second growth Redwood forest. They're not the equal of the General Sherman (largest tree in the world), but they're really big and beautiful, and have again taken over the former forest.

You know what happens after a wild fire - it adds a lot of nitrogen to the soil, and next year, that will be the best growing area of the forest.

You set up nature to grow, and grow or regrow, she will. That pine beetle is the shits though - it's killed thousands of acres of pines in CA. Hiking through them is no fun - like walking through a graveyard with the dead standing above ground, instead of below.

Now, if you are like many of the other Republicans I've encountered, you probably don't "believe" in climate change or global warming.

Oh, I believe in climate change - that's obviously a part of the whole package. We've had climate change since day #1, and it will continue. What I don't believe in is guys like Al Gore, who have invested millions into "green" everything, telling me about climate change caused by man.

First, because people like Gore have big bucks to be made if they can sell this idea, (and yes, he is a HUGE energy consumer in his Tennessee mansion, as is Michael Moore in his home - hello hypocrites!), second, despite our natural egotistical slant to things, we don't control the sun, and the sun decides how much heat we receive. We control only a small portion of how much heat we retain.

But yes, our climate does change - that is irrefutable. I suspect that damn pine beetle will do worse damage than climate change to your pinyon pines, though.

I've typed you just about the longest response to a post that I can ever remember giving someone here. If you don't agree with my reasoning and don't bother to study any of the reputable links written for the scientific lay person that I've provided, that's your choice. I've already given you an ample response and I'm finished.

I wish like anything that your replies to my earlier post were correct. Unfortunately, they're not.

There's no reason why a strip mine that is closing down, can't be put back like it was - true! it won't have nearly as much mass, and won't be a "mountain" any more, (more like a hill), but it can sure have the tailings from the mine buried deep, and the area recovered with secondary and top soils, fertilized a little, and replanted.

If you have area's where that's not happening, you should be screaming at your elected officials - along with all your neighbors, and organizing for united action against it.

I've seen abandoned mines in Alaska, and it's not pretty. The area is so verdant that you don't really notice most of these mines, but still, it's a gash on the earth, and they shouldn't be allowed to remain there, once the mine is played out and no longer useful.

In Arizona they've had several people fall into old mines that were just covered over with wooden beams and dirt. Eventually, the wood rots out, and the next person or animal that weighs too much, will break through and fall.

A bond system seem sensible. The company puts up a big bond, and when the area is closed down and has been properly restored, the company gets the bond back. Otherwise, the big bond goes to restore the mine area. This may already be in place - I know VERY little about mines, aside from exploring an old Gold mine in Alaska, years ago.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm in Southern California.

Nice. But stay away Urbane Guerilla!

Southern Cali has its own set of ecological problems, although there is some overlap, of course. I should clarify what I mean when I post about the "Southwest" - Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.

Someone looking out their window in LA (or anywhere in southern California) is going to have a completely different view than I have from mine.

I will say that both southern California and Colorado share the water problem, and that's huge.

Originally Posted by Adak

Just heard the geologist speak about it, last week. How obsolete can the info be, in 7 days?

I will address scientific issues when the information comes from research published in a peer reviewed journal and conducted by scientists with actual names and professional affiliations.

The "geologist" could be the tooth fairy for all I know.

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm not familiar with strip mining.

I know.

Originally Posted by Adak

I know the area around Colorado Springs has a lot of contamination. I worked under the director in charge of overseeing the clean up of my employer's dumping, both in Colorado Springs, and at a plant in CA.

I grew up in Colorado Springs and I agree. The entire Front Range has many environmental disaster stories to tell. One of the worst is that of The Rocky Flats hooror show outside Denver, but that's a subject for another thread.

Originally Posted by Adak

It may seem that way, but forests can definitely return. Early Californians logged the giant coastal Redwoods like crazy, clear cutting everything they could get to. Etc., etc.

Please go back and re-read the last part of my post. I have already addressed most of your comments. I'm not going to repeat myself. I will inform anyone who might be reading this that the California Redwood forest and the Rocky Mountain forests are two completely different ecosystems.

Originally Posted by Adak

What I don't believe in is guys like Al Gore, who have invested millions into "green" everything, telling me about climate change caused by man.

Bingo! One more time: I do not discuss climatology with scientific atheists.

Originally Posted by Adak

A bond system seem sensible. The company puts up a big bond, and when the area is closed down and has been properly restored, the company gets the bond back. Otherwise, the big bond goes to restore the mine area. This may already be in place - I know VERY little about mines, aside from exploring an old Gold mine in Alaska, years ago.

A bond system might work if carried out in good faith by the parties on both sides of the equation. There is no such system that I aware of in Colorado, but then things sneak below my radar all the time.

Meanwhile, back on Comedy Central, look at those damn Republicans performing their sidewhow!

[Griff]

The contamination in PA that I am familiar is the result of mishandled materials at the surface as Adak mentioned, but poor concreting could pose a problem. The lighting gas at the tap trick in Dimock, PA was common before drilling took place. I'm not saying gas companies have not or will not screw up, but Gasland intentionally misrepresented what was happening in Dimock.

Lampy and I have been having a mostly civil discussion (we all get cranky but we're both forgiving people irl) here. And keeping those interested abreast of news items as they pop up.

[SamIam]

I've never watched Gasland. I'll have to check it out. And like I said, a lot of things sneak by my radar, so thanks for the heads up on the link.

BTW, did anyone catch Newt Gingrich saying we should make the "Fiscal Cliff" a drinking game? Nice to hear a little actual wit from the Republican side.

[Adak]

@SamIam:, When you've lived on Adak Island, you would only be called "Urbane", by those who have not seen where Adak Island is located.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

On the bright side we have 25 more full days to count down Obama's willingness to reduce his current mad spending spree.

25 days to go. Amount Obama and the Democrats are willing to cut current spending: 0.00%

It's great having strong ideologically driven Socialists in the White House and Congress.

You won't find great fun and games like this among your rational political bodies - no siree, Bob!

We should charge admission!

[BigV]

You don't believe the Democrats. We get it. I think there's *no* number that you would believe, you just Do. Not. Believe. What if they said they'd cut what the Republican's have offered? Would you believe it? Given the (mono)tone of your remarks, I doubt it. Since it appears you won't accept any communications coming from them, why do you bother? And if the parties negotiating feel that way, why would they bother to continue to negotiate? It's clear your respect for "the Democrats and Obama" is essentially zero. The "other side", such as it is, doesn't have the ability to have their way by fiat, so... so... so what? Together they must negotiate. You recuse yourself. Though you abdicate your opportunity to responsibly share your ideas, you don't remain silent, you just sit there with your loud tantrum, moving neither yourself nor the process forward.

Meanwhile, you just ignore facts. You say there are no cuts to spending proposed, not even a tiny fraction of a percent. Everyone else can see your statement's false; how can you expect to work with political opponents when you lie like this? How does that increase your credibilty as an informed citizen who has a point of view worthy of attention, never mind respect?

I know a little about you from what you've shared here, but none of that follows any kind of logic. You say you're so rational, but you don't exhibit any of that rationality when it comes to political discussions like this. It's a shame, I had high hopes for you. I'd hoped that you could share your viewpoints, some of which are different from mine. I'd hoped to learn from you, but posts like this offer nothing to learn from. I feel like I want to scold you, to tell you to grow up, but that's not really appropriate. But I do wish your arguments were more mature. When they are, I'll give them more attention. If they're good, I'll give them more respect. But not this crap.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

You don't believe the Democrats. We get it. I think there's *no* number that you would believe, you just Do. Not. Believe. What if they said they'd cut what the Republican's have offered? Would you believe it? Given the (mono)tone of your remarks, I doubt it. Since it appears you won't accept any communications coming from them, why do you bother? And if the parties negotiating feel that way, why would they bother to continue to negotiate? It's clear your respect for "the Democrats and Obama" is essentially zero. The "other side", such as it is, doesn't have the ability to have their way by fiat, so... so... so what? Together they must negotiate. You recuse yourself. Though you abdicate your opportunity to responsibly share your ideas, you don't remain silent, you just sit there with your loud tantrum, moving neither yourself nor the process forward.

Meanwhile, you just ignore facts. You say there are no cuts to spending proposed, not even a tiny fraction of a percent. Everyone else can see your statement's false; how can you expect to work with political opponents when you lie like this? How does that increase your credibilty as an informed citizen who has a point of view worthy of attention, never mind respect?

I know a little about you from what you've shared here, but none of that follows any kind of logic. You say you're so rational, but you don't exhibit any of that rationality when it comes to political discussions like this. It's a shame, I had high hopes for you. I'd hoped that you could share your viewpoints, some of which are different from mine. I'd hoped to learn from you, but posts like this offer nothing to learn from. I feel like I want to scold you, to tell you to grow up, but that's not really appropriate. But I do wish your arguments were more mature. When they are, I'll give them more attention. If they're good, I'll give them more respect. But not this crap.

During Reagan's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Reagan would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George H. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

During George W. Bush's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if Bush would approve some big ticket spending bill - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

No, I wouldn't believe a Democrat's promise to cut spending, if they served it on a silver platter, 7 days a week. And NO, the parties are NOT negotiating, because Tim Geitner has made it clear that the first order of business is upping the tax rates on those making more than 250k a year. Nothing else can be discussed, until that happens.

That's not negotiating, that's not compromising. That's the socialist's agenda, and nothing else.

The spending cut i would believe from the Democrats, is the bill they pass in Congress, and give to the President to be signed into law - and the President signs it. That's the Democrats' spending cuts that I'll believe.

The Republicans have proposed spending cuts both now, and those that would be phased in, in the coming years.

The Democrats have proposed ZERO, ZIP, NADA spending cuts in next years fiscal year.

NOT ONE PENNEY.

Their proposals are:

1) To increase taxes on the wealthy, immediately.

2) In the years ahead, to consider some cuts in PROJECTED spending.

Do you know what that means?

1) That our actual spending will continue to increase. Further increasing our debt.

2) That Lucy will once again, pull that football away from Charlie Brown, so when he tries to kick it, he'll fall on his keister -- again.
Which is to say that the "promises" to cut spending, will evaporate like fog hitting the hot desert air, once the Democrats (again!) have their tax increase, and can look for new ways to spend it.

Like Wimpy, in Popeye, the Democrats will be GLAD to pay you on Tuesday, for a hamburger today.

You understand, that the wealthy - if they are taxed per Obama's wishes - will only pay in enough to hold our debt off, for about 9 days.The rest of the year, we'll still be going into debt, if we don't stop spending money hand over fist.

Does that SOUND right to you? I'm not appealing to your logic here, because I'm quite sure you let yours visit elsewhere, but just from an emotional first, instinctual side, does that sound right to you?

Two questions I'd love to have a Democrat answer:

1) What part of "The overspending has to stop", do you not understand? We're talking about a TRILLION dollars plus, per year.


2) What part of doing the wrong thing, do you want to compromise with?

Truth is, compromise if over-rated. If I "compromised" your fuel tank, with 50% water, you'd drive nowhere. You'd be nearly blind if the eye doctor compromised your lenses with 50% opaque glass. If your lawn mower only cut half the long grass when you mowed the yard, you'd really be mad. Absolutely dismayed if the Oncologist just removed 50% of the malignant tumor, I'm sure.

But compromising ALL OUR FISCAL future, IS SOMEHOW OK??? That's something I should compromise on??

Yeah, right!

Say "hello" to Linus for me, Lucy. I won't be kicking the football, today.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

The spending cut i would believe from the Democrats, is the bill they pass in Congress, and give to the President to be signed into law - and the President signs it. That's the Democrats' spending cuts that I'll believe.

See the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama and voted for by 95 Democrats in the House and by 45 Democrats in the Senate. That's a majority of Democrats in Congress.

These are the default budget cuts required by law, and the only way they won't occur is if Congress agrees to do something else. We're talking about up to $1.2 Trillion in cuts through 2021. Brought to you by the Democrats (and Republicans.)

How does this simple fact fit in your delusional worldview? Is it like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole?

"NOT ONE PENNY"

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

See the Budget Control Act of 2011 signed by President Obama and voted for by 95 Democrats in the House and by 45 Democrats in the Senate. That's a majority of Democrats in Congress.

These are the default budget cuts required by law, and the only way they won't occur is if Congress agrees to do something else. We're talking about up to $1.2 Trillion in cuts through 2021. Brought to you by the Democrats (and Republicans.)

How does this simple fact fit in your delusional worldview? Is it like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole?

"NOT ONE PENNY"

Ha! What fun!

These are cuts, which if they are activated, will be cuts in PROJECTED and /or FUTURE spending. NOTHING HAS BEEN CUT FROM CURRENT SPENDING YET!

NOT ONE PENNEY!

These are the sad facts - always a trial for liberals to look at, but give it a try.



Do you see any reduction in our National Debt projections?

NO.


Do you notice any reduction in our National Deficit projections? Yes. That means we'll have higher tax revenues - and if it happens, it won't just be on the rich. They don't have THAT much money.

True, it MIGHT be reduced, but all it seems we'll have right now, is a slower growth to our National Debt.

And despite all the hot air and hand waving going on in Washington, (where Today, the Speaker of the House said there was no progress in the negotiations with the White House, because the White House has never negotiated on any issue, so far.)

I hope this fiscal cliff actually works, when and if we get to that point.

Politicians LOVE to spend our money. It buys them votes, by attracting donors to their campaigns, when they do it. Not just the Democrats, either. EVERY politician wants to be re-elected several times, and they need to curry favor to get their campaign coffers $stu$$ed$ to overflowing.

It's not THEIR money, why NOT use it to help themselves get re-elected?

"You want a new bridge to nowhere?"
"Sure, here's a few million for ya!"

"You want a new airport?" "Absolutely! We'll call it an anti terrorist auxiliary civil defense resource!"

Lovely!

I am writing about ACTUAL cuts in CURRENT spending, not something projected, like Wimpy's repayment on his hamburgers, "Next Tuesday".

And right now, there has been $0.00 dollars cut in actual spending.

NOT ONE PENNEY!

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Adak

And despite all the hot air and hand waving going on in Washington, (where Today, the Speaker of the House said there was no progress in the negotiations with the White House, because the White House has never negotiated on any issue, so far.

sure, except that's the exact opposite of reality. On every major issue so far, the left has compromised much further than the right.

Oh, wait, i forgot, they aren't ~real conservatives~ like you so they don't count.

[SamIam]

@ BigV

Originally Posted by Adak

During (fill in the blank) 's presidency, the Democrats promised spending cuts, if (blank) would approve some tax hikes - he did. Those promised spending cuts were never passed for him to sign.

You know, Adak, your belief system may work just fine for the Rush Limbaugh born again crowd, but when you trot it out in the real world, it fails you abysmally. What part of bills signed into law don’t you understand? Congress (which just so happens to include the Democrats) has been using cuts in discretionary spending in an attempt to reduce the deficit for quite some time now. I’ll give you just one example – housing assistance:

To address projected budget deficits, the President and Congress in recent years have relied almost entirely on cuts to discretionary programs. First, they enacted funding legislation for fiscal year 2011 that cut discretionary funding below the 2010 level. Soon thereafter, they enacted the BCA that, as noted above, set ten-year binding “caps” on total budget authority for discretionary programs.

Figure 2 shows the impact to date on housing assistance and community development programs. From 2010 to 2012, funding for housing assistance fell by $2.5 billion, or 5.9 percent just in “nominal terms” — i.e., not counting the additional losses due to the effects of inflation — while funds for community development programs fell by $1.5 billion, or 24 percent. Policymakers cut funds for public housing and housing and community development block grant programs most sharply.

This glimpse of reality is provided by the NON PARTISEN Center for Budget and Policy Priorities – not MSNBC, not some populist blog, and not from the communist party. You might try stepping outside your comfort zone some time and try getting your information from a source other than Tea Party propaganda. That noise on the roof is not Santa’s reindeer or Charlie Brown’s football. It’s the sound of a wake-up call for the Republican Party. Is there any intelligent life in there?

*silence*

Originally Posted by Adak

questions I'd love to have a Democrat answer:

1) What part of "The overspending has to stop", do you not understand? We're talking about a TRILLION dollars plus, per year.


2) What part of doing the wrong thing, do you want to compromise with?

What part of the need for a reasonable tax code don’t you understand? Why do you and your Tea Party buddies think it’s perfectly fine to hold the entire country hostage for the sake of a few millionaires? What makes you think that the Republicans can continue to cover up a poor motive with doublespeak such as “entitlements,” “small business,” and “job creators,” to name just a few.

It’s time to leave behind the doctrine of the world according to Fox along with its vocabulary. Let’s get honest for once. How about:

“Big corporations, which continue to outsource American jobs overseas, demand that the middle class relinquish its EARNED BENEFITS and give the taxes from their hard earned pay checks to special interests which couldn’t care less about this country or its people.”

Please respond with something other than dogma. If I want to take everything on faith, I’ll join the Branch Davidians.

[SamIam]

While Adak has escaped off into some delusional fantasy land and is busy scribbling “Who is John Galt” on the wall in the men’s room, the real world marches on, and the Republicans still retain first place honors in the bizarre humor competition.

Yesterday, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell actually stood up and filibustered his own bill.

Wait...

What?

Lawrence O'Donnell slammed Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell for filibustering his own bill on Thursday.
McConnell's attempt to embarrass Senate Democrats backfired when he proposed a vote on legislation that would increase the national debt ceiling. Senate majority leader Harry Reid called his bluff and agreed to move forward with the offer. McConnell then objected, arguing that sixty votes — the number required to end a filibuster and go to a vote — were necessary.

Speaking on MSNBC later that day, O'Donnell said that the stunt was "the most idiotic thing any minority leader has ever done on the Senate floor." After recounting how it unfolded, O'Donnell said that the event was remarkable for two reasons.

"One: a minority leader who has introduced a bill and asked for a vote, then opposing proceeding to a vote on his bill saying his bill should be subjected to the filibuster breaking vote threshold of 60 votes," O'Donnell said.

He continued, "And miracle number two was that the presiding officer, played that hour by Sen. Claire McCaskill... she actually comments on what has just happened instead of simply issuing the normal to and three word traffic directions that the presiding officer is limited to." O'Donnell was referring to what he called McCaskill's reaction to the exchange between McConnell and Reid. She snapped to attention and said, "Got whiplash."

- Huffington Post


Jon Stewart should fire his staff and just show clips from C-span.

[Adak]

“Big corporations, which continue to outsource American jobs overseas, demand that the middle class relinquish its EARNED BENEFITS and give the taxes from their hard earned pay checks to special interests which couldn’t care less about this country or its people.”

Please respond with something other than dogma. If I want to take everything on faith, I’ll join the Branch Davidians.

Oh, you should join 'em, Sam! Waco, Texas is looking for a few new head cases, I've heard.

You DO understand that it was OUR DEAR POLITICIANS, who have made outsourcing our jobs overseas, necessary if you want to stay in business, don't you?

Apple is bringing back a few jobs, but by and large, if you wanted to compete, you had no choice but to open a plant overseas.

It wasn't the businessman's choice - it was the dear sweet politicians, who made it a necessity. But who gets blamed for it? Why the dirty evil businessman - why can't he compete with nationalized "slaves" working for $2-$10 per DAY?

The nerve of those businessmen!!

When it comes to Tax code reform, Sam - you are preaching to the choir!

Our tax code is an utter mess, with thousands of loopholes, grants, exclusions, you name it - it's got it.

Any sense of fairness went out the window, long long ago.

Reagan was the last guy who cut our tax code down to size.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh, you should join 'em, Sam! Waco, Texas is looking for a few new head cases, I've heard.

Interesting idea. However, upon reflection, I think Texas is best left to the Texans. If the weather co-operates, I may just go set up a winter camp for a few days somewhere near Island In the Sky National Park over in Utah.

No CNN, no Internet, no newspapers, no pointless arguments with strangers. Just me and my Corgi and the incredible landscapes along with clear desert nights where the sky is filled with more stars than many people ever get to see. Yeah, I'd like that. Going to go if I can.

You're actually better at arguing science than you are political issues, and that's pretty pathetic. You must think we're so stupid that we don't even know the difference between the national debt and the deficit. Sorry, you tried to sneak that one past the wrong crowd.

Maybe Glatt will explain it to you if you ask him nicely. I'm done wasting my time.