Toledo Talk

"Wind Turbine Syndrome" found to be false

New York Times
February 16, 2012
Wind Turbines and Health Hazards
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/wind-turbines-and-health-hazards/?partner=rss&emc=rss
Quotes from article:

"There is no conclusive evidence so far that wind turbines are responsible for health problems ranging from balance problems to diabetes, an independent panel of health experts reports.

There is no evidence for a set of health effects characterized as “wind turbine syndrome.”

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) convened a panel of independent experts to identify any documented or potential health impacts of risks that may be associated with exposure to wind turbines, and, specifically, to facilitate discussion of wind turbines and public health based on scientific findings. http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/impactstudy.htm

Wind Turbine Health Impact Study:
Report of Independent Expert Panel
January 2012
WIND TURBINE HEALTH IMPACT STUDY
ES-5 | P a g e
2. The sound power level of a typical modern utility scale wind turbine is on the order of
103 dB(A), but can be somewhat higher or lower depending on the details of the design
and the rated power of the turbine. The perceived sound decreases rapidly with the
distance from the wind turbines. Typically, at distances larger than 400 m, sound
pressure levels for modern wind turbines are less than 40 dB(A), which is below the level
associated with annoyance in the epidemiological studies reviewed
(COMPLETE REPORT)
http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf

created by wolfman on Feb 16, 2012 at 10:57:42 am     Politics     Comments: 99

source      versions


Comments ... #

Yeah, I read that one too. The results were falsified and now the Taxsachusetts government is trying to sweep a scandal under the rug. They'll probably be successful.

Regardless of the health problems (which we don't really care about anyway - right wolf?) the cost of the energy is still far higher than coal, gas or nuclear.

posted by madjack on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03:25 am     #  

Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:16:01 am     #   1 person liked this

Domestic oil and natural gas production are at near decade highs under Obama. Funny since we getting told that if we increase domestic production prices will fall...

posted by SensorG on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:23:28 am     #   2 people liked this

Yes SensorG the producers are now capping off excess capacity.

So the deluded madjack slanders the story. Surprised? Not at all! Look I know the partisans will never except anything if the other side's idea is good for America and the environment. The study was done by who? That's right an independent panel. And why? To stop naysayers like madjack from finding fault and most important to give a real study of what has become the playground of right wing propaganda.
http://www.capecodtoday.com/news365.htm

posted by wolfman on Feb 16, 2012 at 11:41:09 am     #   1 person liked this

oh yeah, DB, like the president controls gas prices. jesus.

posted by nana on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:03:46 pm     #   1 person liked this

Under his watch Nana, lot of thing Bush had no control ever he got the blame as well. It comes with the job, just no one reporting it as such in the mainstream media.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:20:03 pm     #   2 people liked this

Domestic fossil fuel consumption is expected to increase approximately 50% over the next 25 years, yet not one oil refiner is planning on adding additional refining capacity. Yep, it's definitely Obama's fault.

posted by brainswell on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:41:39 pm     #   2 people liked this

wolf must not be getting enough attention on swampbubbles.

posted by Molsonator on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:46:16 pm     #   4 people liked this

dbw: mean no disrespect but I don't understand this post or the myriad of times I heard it in the Republican primaries.

"Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office."

Gas has been around $3-$3.40 for the most part since Obama has been in office. When Bush was in office gas was well over $4 for a long time (post Katrina).

posted by INeedCoffee on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53:39 pm     #   1 person liked this

$1.79 when he took office. Yes INC?

posted by Molsonator on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:02:51 pm     #  

INeedCoffee posted at 11:53:39 AM on Feb 16, 2012:

dbw: mean no disrespect but I don't understand this post or the myriad of times I heard it in the Republican primaries.

"Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office."

Gas has been around $3-$3.40 for the most part since Obama has been in office. When Bush was in office gas was well over $4 for a long time (post Katrina).

I guess the Washington Times is part of the evil teabagger conspiracy too right? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/

"Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction."

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:02:59 pm     #  

We need to continue to improve alternative energy and make it affordable. Many countries are now using alternative energy to supplement their power needs.

Heard on Bloomberg News that the main reason gas is so dang high is many faceted. They started with 20 million Chinese new drivers having cars. Also, America is basically a suburban or rural country so mass transit only works in a few major cities. Also, we have lagged behind in drilling and refining capacity. And plain old greed is in the mix.

When my sister was here in April and May she and her husband thought our gas was cheap. In Australia where they live it was almost twice as much. Americans are just used to low energy costs and few worry about conserving it.

If we here in America are going to continue to use oil and gas like drunken sailors then we must be willing to find new resources in our country and find a way to make alternative energy affordable.

posted by jackie on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:05:39 pm     #   3 people liked this

China fuel demand seen up 5.5 pct per yr to 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/china-oil-demand-idUSL4E8D331S20120203

posted by wolfman on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:08:40 pm     #  

"I guess the Washington Times is part of the evil teabagger conspiracy too right?"

Uhmmm... have you been hiding under a rock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_leanings

posted by toledolen_ on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:23:27 pm     #   2 people liked this

Gas was so cheap at the end of the Bush presidency because the economy was in free fall and demand was very low.

posted by SensorG on Feb 16, 2012 at 01:57:40 pm     #   4 people liked this

Ha!

posted by Molsonator on Feb 16, 2012 at 02:43:58 pm     #  

From the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America.......don't worry about noise, they won't be around to create any....http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/06/1111769109.abstract

posted by fred on Feb 16, 2012 at 03:08:52 pm     #  

yes sensor... on both of your posts

dbw - come on....

posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Feb 16, 2012 at 03:39:12 pm     #   1 person liked this

From Jackie: We need to continue to improve...

No, we don't need to. If the government of the United States wanted to provide the citizens with cheaper gasoline, it could do so.

Also from Jackie: Many countries are now using alternative energy...

Mainly because they have no choice. The power needs of many countries are not being met - period. The governments of those countries will try anything to get more energy sources, including more reliable energy sources. I keep waiting for Kim Jong-il to reveal North Korea's new energy turbine - powered by political malcontents on treadmills.

Then there are the howls from wolfman: So the deluded madjack...

Inebriated, maybe. Deluded? No. Don't be an idiot, Wolf. It isn't my fault that Taxsachusetts has another scandal going on. What do you expect?

Even if you want to buy into the veracity of that study, and it seems a few people do, just try reading your own quotes for a second and applying some comprehension. For instance:

There is no conclusive evidence...

Which is corporate weasel speak for "We don't know one way or the other". That's what the 'no conclusive' clause means - we cannot conclude.

Then there's your other quote:

There is no evidence...

Meaning that there is no evidence that this company that the government hired either found or is willing to admit that they found. Again, the statement does not mean that the evidence does not exist; it means that officially the company failed to find the evidence.

Usually I'm willing to let you believe your own delusions, but this is really going a bit far - even for you.

posted by madjack on Feb 16, 2012 at 07:23:17 pm     #  

wolf must not be getting enough attention on swampbubbles.

Either that or he slammed into GuestZero and got the crap slapped out of him. Again.

posted by madjack on Feb 16, 2012 at 07:25:21 pm     #   1 person liked this

madjack here's some facts.

Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208
Quote:
Shaun Burnie, nuclear adviser for environmental campaign group Greenpeace International, told the BBC World Service that Germany had already invested heavily in renewable energy.

"Germany is going to be ahead of the game on that and it is going to make a lot of money, so the message to Germany's industrial competitors is that you can base your energy policy not on nuclear, not on coal, but on renewables."

posted by wolfman on Feb 17, 2012 at 04:16:04 am     #   1 person liked this

$1.79 when he took office. Yes INC?

! posted by Molsonator on Feb 16, 2012 at 12:02:51 pm

Means to me that $1.79 was BEFORE GW took his oath.

Says a lot about his tenure in office and the "new norm" on fuel prices, seeing GW has all those oil stocks...

/off conspiracytheroristsarcasm

posted by BrianInFlorida on Feb 17, 2012 at 06:47:14 am     #   1 person liked this

No clue what your saying BrianinFlorida.

posted by Molsonator on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:11:14 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 10:16:01 AM on Feb 16, 2012:

Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office.

And it took a nosedive before he came in due to Bush's crashing the economy. Herp derp durr keep fucking that chicken.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:27:43 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 12:02:59 PM on Feb 16, 2012:
INeedCoffee posted at 11:53:39 AM on Feb 16, 2012:

dbw: mean no disrespect but I don't understand this post or the myriad of times I heard it in the Republican primaries.

"Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office."

Gas has been around $3-$3.40 for the most part since Obama has been in office. When Bush was in office gas was well over $4 for a long time (post Katrina).

I guess the Washington Times is part of the evil teabagger conspiracy too right? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/

"Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction."

HERP DERP DURR IT WAS THAT CHEAP AFTER BUSH CRASHED THE ECONOMY! RECESSION AND BIG DROP IN DEMAND = MAJOR PRICE DECLINE.

KEEP FUCKING THAT CHICKEN.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:29:56 am     #   1 person liked this

Wow. The "f" bomb? I do need more coffee.

posted by Molsonator on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:35:52 am     #  

Why were gasoline prices so low during the booming 1990s under Clinton?

posted by jr on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:48:57 am     #   1 person liked this

Mainly because of Bosnia and Clinton's clandestine agreement with the big oil companies.

posted by madjack on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:20:31 am     #  

An opposing viewpoint http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html

posted by fred on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:29:28 am     #  

anonymouscoward posted at 08:29:56 AM on Feb 17, 2012:
dbw8906 posted at 12:02:59 PM on Feb 16, 2012:
INeedCoffee posted at 11:53:39 AM on Feb 16, 2012:

dbw: mean no disrespect but I don't understand this post or the myriad of times I heard it in the Republican primaries.

"Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office."

Gas has been around $3-$3.40 for the most part since Obama has been in office. When Bush was in office gas was well over $4 for a long time (post Katrina).

I guess the Washington Times is part of the evil teabagger conspiracy too right? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/

"Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction."

HERP DERP DURR IT WAS THAT CHEAP AFTER BUSH CRASHED THE ECONOMY! RECESSION AND BIG DROP IN DEMAND = MAJOR PRICE DECLINE.

KEEP FUCKING THAT CHICKEN.

Thats right along the Neo-Liberal line of Obama gets blame for nothing. High energy cost, indefinite detention, hand outs the banks, endless wars... all Bush's fault.

It's why the Progressive movement is bullshit, all smarmy comments by John Stewart and no answers.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:34:22 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 09:34:22 AM on Feb 17, 2012:
anonymouscoward posted at 08:29:56 AM on Feb 17, 2012:
dbw8906 posted at 12:02:59 PM on Feb 16, 2012:
INeedCoffee posted at 11:53:39 AM on Feb 16, 2012:

dbw: mean no disrespect but I don't understand this post or the myriad of times I heard it in the Republican primaries.

"Fuel up 80% since Obama has taken office."

Gas has been around $3-$3.40 for the most part since Obama has been in office. When Bush was in office gas was well over $4 for a long time (post Katrina).

I guess the Washington Times is part of the evil teabagger conspiracy too right? http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/

"Feeling pain at the pump? Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office. According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has arrived on average throughout California, and a number of other states are headed in that direction."

HERP DERP DURR IT WAS THAT CHEAP AFTER BUSH CRASHED THE ECONOMY! RECESSION AND BIG DROP IN DEMAND = MAJOR PRICE DECLINE.

KEEP FUCKING THAT CHICKEN.

Thats right along the Neo-Liberal line of Obama gets blame for nothing. High energy cost, indefinite detention, hand outs the banks, endless wars... all Bush's fault.

It's why the Progressive movement is bullshit, all smarmy comments by John Stewart and no answers.

Keep fucking that chicken, seriously.

The banks start going shaky after everyone realizes the whole "flip that house" bullshit is bullshit. Since they're all multinational entities and the fiscal policy of the USA is controlled by them via the "Federal" Reserve, this starts up a worldwide recession and suddenly demand for nearly everything hits the floor and oil prices take a nosedive because the speculators are all like "oh shit, EVERYTHING'S GONNA SHUT DOWN".

Obama gets elected as oil/gasoline are cheap, manages to keep things from tanking further and even get positive progress going despite Republican obstructionism and a national credit downgrade because the TeaOP absolutely positively will not accept tax hikes, and prices start to recover as demand increases again. Then we get more infamous "disturbances in the Mid-East" with the Arab Spring and now Israel doing their "ZOMG IRAN IS BUILDING A NUKE PLEASE BE OUR BITCH USA AND BOMB THEM FOR US OR WE WILL DO IT AND MAKE YOU LOOK BAD" bullshit (don't forget, the TeaOP loves themselves some AIPAC and foreign intervention).

Yeah, all Obama's fault, totally. Keep fucking that chicken.

Also, nice deception by citing a story from MARCH 2011, old news is so exciting. And also "hand outs the banks"? BUSH DID TARP. "Endless wars?" Bush started 2 wars with no funding, don't forget his tax cuts, and hey, didn't Obama just get done getting us the fuck out of one?

I'd tell you to stop your disingenuous, dishonest, Teapublican talking points bullshit, but you'll just keep on fucking that chicken.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 17, 2012 at 10:56:20 am     #   1 person liked this

jr posted at 08:48:57 AM on Feb 17, 2012:

Why were gasoline prices so low during the booming 1990s under Clinton?

Throwing these out off the top of my head:

1) Pre 9/11 -

B) We had just kicked Saddam's ass and the Saudis were grateful and our friends... except one Osama bin Laden who didn't like us sticking around over there.

iii) Clinton and Gore weren't selfish assholes who came from the oil industry and didn't have all sorts of buddies in it that they were out to enrich by doing shit to jack up the price. Compare to "Texan" Bush and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, along with the people they brought in like Condeleezza "Chevron named a supertanker after me" Rice.

Five) Commodities trading was better-policed and speculation hadn't become the norm, as well as all this "derivatives" trading and other gambling-type bullshit the markets and banks came up with after the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999 (thank you douchebag Republican majority in both houses of Congress for passing that and thank you Clinton for being a spineless pussy post-impeachment for not vetoing it).

00000110) Global demand wasn't way up because we hadn't really got into pouring all our money overseas into China and India, for example, whereas now all the nice people who answer the phone when we call for customer service and all the nice people who make the cheap shit we buy at Walmart are wanting cars, or at least motorbikes/scooters, or mass transit (buses/diesel trains), or now have more cities needing food, water, etc. trucked or pulled by train into them, etc. Walmart only started getting really away from the "Made in USA" thing after the start of Clinton's second term... you maybe didn't notice because Toledo didn't get Walmarts until late vs. other areas, but they were very big on waving that "Made in USA" stuff up until around 1998, when it all mysteriously disappeared.

I'm sure there's more but does any of that jive with you, jr?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 17, 2012 at 11:14:31 am     #   2 people liked this

BTW

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Keep%20fucking%20that%20chicken&defid=4242406

Currently a meme on Fark used whenever Republicans spout obviously stupid shit without thinking or get worked up over something, especially when it's clear they're off on a tangent or doing so despite a majority of people not giving a fuck about their rhetoric.

Keep on doing what you're doing, Republicans, if it makes you happy.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 17, 2012 at 11:22:43 am     #   2 people liked this

You see what you started with this shit, Wolfman? TT was a nice, quiet place with everyone being considerate of the other fellow's feelings, morals and beliefs - then you start this shit and the whole place has turned into a junior version of SB.

I bet you got an 'F' in Works and Plays Well with Others.

posted by madjack on Feb 17, 2012 at 07:00:32 pm     #  

...thank you Clinton for being a spineless pussy...

Clinton? You don't mean Slick Willy Clinton, do you? Because he's a Moonbat, and we all just know that the Moonbats could never do anything wrong... so who are you talking about?

Seriously, AC, anyone who actually believes that the current crises is all one president's fault or one political party's fault is even more deluded than Wolfman. What many people are sick of hearing about is how none of this is The Anointed One's fault and how he is helpless in the face of a hostile Congress.

Which is bullshit. Himself is a long way from being helpless and his supporters should begin by admitting that He ought to be getting credit where credit is due, if for no other reason than to restore some tiny modicum of even-handedness to this so-called transparent government He was going to establish back in '08.

And, by the way, when is the (un)Patriot Act going to be repealed? How about repealing a few of the more repressive and odious laws that Congress passed over the last 30 years or so. The Anointed One could have introduced legislation to do just that, and He hasn't.

posted by madjack on Feb 17, 2012 at 07:14:21 pm     #  

If you look I've been a active poster on TT since July 1, 2005 and you Madman August 23, 2005. So how is it that YOU somehow see yourself as chief blog regulator? Seems you don't like my politics so that makes my arguments not worthy? Get in line Madman!

posted by wolfman on Feb 17, 2012 at 07:54:07 pm     #   1 person liked this

Maybe the answer is for liberals to get hand-held windmills, small generators, ride their bikes hollering WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!, thereby creating their own electricity? Problem solved

posted by Wulf on Feb 17, 2012 at 09:09:39 pm     #   1 person liked this

My account is older than both yours, so STFU and get off my lawn. And Clinton and Obama aren't bad, for moderate Republicans.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 18, 2012 at 12:02:40 am     #   2 people liked this

Just means your more senile than either of the other two.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 18, 2012 at 02:28:54 am     #   1 person liked this

To say Clinton and Obama aren't bad for moderate Republicans is quite the stretch.

I am a pretty left-leaning Republican myself, fervidly supporting Mitt Romney. I don't have many problems with Clinton, he was a smart guy and assholes like Newt made him compromise and become a centrist and take a hands-off approach while the internet boomed and he cashed in big time.

Obama is an absolute disaster and anyone with a brain can see it. To put it nicely, he is an amateur who is in wayyyyyyy too deep. He had absolutely no notable real-world accomplishments prior to taking office and it has clearly shown. He's the perfect mixture of a Machiavellian/Chicagoan political tactician and a Ivy League idealist molded into a seemingly unstoppable political machine...but he does indeed suck at his job.

He really hasn't done much more than the stimulus bill--which was nothing more than a handout to unions (the trade unions built some infrastructure and the public sector unions were able to plug their budgets temporarily so the states didn't lay as many people off)-- and Obamacare, which will either get shot down by the Supreme Court or be a fiscal disaster for this country.

I think he's a pathetic liar who promised a good deal of reform and hasn't delivered anything important. The real sad news is that Rick Santorum would be a pathetic President too. This country is going to be in some real rough shape here shortly.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 18, 2012 at 03:00:20 am     #   1 person liked this

BusterBluth posted at 02:00:20 AM on Feb 18, 2012:

To say Clinton and Obama aren't bad for moderate Republicans is quite the stretch.

I am a pretty left-leaning Republican myself, fervidly supporting Mitt Romney. I don't have many problems with Clinton, he was a smart guy and assholes like Newt made him compromise and become a centrist and take a hands-off approach while the internet boomed and he cashed in big time.

Obama is an absolute disaster and anyone with a brain can see it. To put it nicely, he is an amateur who is in wayyyyyyy too deep. He had absolutely no notable real-world accomplishments prior to taking office and it has clearly shown. He's the perfect mixture of a Machiavellian/Chicagoan political tactician and a Ivy League idealist molded into a seemingly unstoppable political machine...but he does indeed suck at his job.

He really hasn't done much more than the stimulus bill--which was nothing more than a handout to unions (the trade unions built some infrastructure and the public sector unions were able to plug their budgets temporarily so the states didn't lay as many people off)-- and Obamacare, which will either get shot down by the Supreme Court or be a fiscal disaster for this country.

I think he's a pathetic liar who promised a good deal of reform and hasn't delivered anything important. The real sad news is that Rick Santorum would be a pathetic President too. This country is going to be in some real rough shape here shortly.

I smell troll.

Obama hasn't done anything? Gee I seem to recall DADT going away, as well as ending one of those stupid wars and, oh yeah, ask Osama bin Laden how he feels about President Obama...

Kinda hard to get reform when the Teabaggers take over Congress for the second half of your first term and refuse to come to the table, while the SENATE MINORITY LEADER says the single most important goal is making Obama a one-term President. Hell, when Obama wanted revenue hikes to go along with spending cuts, you Teabaggers stamped your feet and shouted NO!, despite the fact that hey, the deficit REALLY REALLY matters. (And in Real Life, if you were in that much debt, you'd get a second job to help pay it off, right? Right, Teabaggers?)

The only thing he sucks at is finding the stones to call bullshit on the GOP, but that could be because he doesn't want to get even more partisan and hand the GOP talking points on a silver platter. I think he's disgusted with the partisan politics already in place and just hopes that some semblance of sanity comes back into the GOP. But goddamn if I don't want to see him call out Boehner and Cantor and McConnell and the puppet-masters behind them. The minute that happens, though, Limbaugh and Fox News would go nuts. Never mind all their bullshit about Pelosi and Reid and so on for the past 12 years.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 18, 2012 at 03:30:38 am     #   1 person liked this

That's the best you can do?

The best thing Obama has done to help the tens of millions of Americans struggling is let gays join the military? HOORAY! America is back!

You're trying to give credit to Obama for ending a war that was already ending and killing Osama? hahahahah Are you that freaking desperate? You think he had some divine plans and policies for those? What the hell are you smoking? The military doesn't change from President to President, the war was already winding down and the final hunt for Osama was well under way by the time Obama starting having his meetings with the military gurus.

Giving Obama credit for Iraq/Osama would be like giving Truman credit for winning World War II. Such a huge majority of that was already in the motion before he took the oath.

As for the Congress? The ummm not "coming to the table" isn't just malarkey is pure bullshit. If Obama would have learned how to compromise he'd be Bill Clinton right now and pretty damn popular. It's all pretty damn calculated on his part, and it's brilliant. Call the GOP the do-nothings and say their blocking everything, meanwhile fools like you care to ignore the "dead on arrival" Senate we seem to have had for years. If the Dems wanted to accomplish something in Congress, maybe the Senate would pass a budget once every 1,000 days or so, maybe. Bullshit about Pelosi and Reid? Restating their ridiculousness isn't bullshit, it's the very same calling out that you ask for Obama to do. "Pass the bill to see what's in it," right? Yeah, that's Democracy... GTFO with that attitude.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 18, 2012 at 04:38:45 am     #  

What you should be giving Obama credit for is having the balls to not be as radical as he looked on some things during the election. He actually listened to his generals and it's worked very well for him. I think he's done pretty well with foreign policy (specifically Libya, he did very very well there). He has failed thus far on Iran and we shall see how that goes. He could end up being JFK with the Soviets or Neville Chamberlain with Hitler. Time will tell.

Other than that, he hasn't done many things worthy of a second term.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 18, 2012 at 04:42:24 am     #  

"If Obama would have learned how to compromise he'd be Bill Clinton right now and pretty damn popular."

Riiiiiight, what color is the sky on your home planet? Again, the ones not compromising are the Republicans, because they want to make the black guy look bad. Someone forgot that the budget originates in the House, and that big orange crybaby Boehner doesn't even have control of his caucus there.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:13:27 am     #  

You mean the House that has sent numerous budgets to the Senate, only for them to be dead on arrival? I don't even like the Congressional GOP but they have been more than willing to talk about a huge number of issues.

Remember that candidate who promised that he would crack down on closed-door meetings and would go through the budget line-by-line and bring some reform? What the hell happened to him? He was alright; bring him back.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 18, 2012 at 03:26:27 pm     #  

The Senate where Mitch McConnell (R) said the #1 goal is to make Obama be a one-term president. So there you go.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 19, 2012 at 12:18:38 am     #  

Democrats have a Senate caucus with a 53-47 majority, so what the hell is your point? Harry Reid doesn't say something is "dead on arrival" if someone in the Senate is blocking something that makes sense.

Got any more brain busters or are you going to continue with saying "Republicans are the worst!" and asking what planet I am from? You can't even mention some good things Obama has had get shot down in Congress, he hasn't come up with worthwhile stuff! His latest, the budget, is fucking pathetic! This guy is an amateur!! WAKE UP!!!

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 19, 2012 at 03:42:28 am     #  

The new rule in the Senate is, if the Republicans don't like it, it takes 60 votes to get passed.

posted by SensorG on Feb 19, 2012 at 09:38:06 am     #   2 people liked this

I'm aware that it takes 60, but why haven't they even taken a vote and shown that the GOP are making the bills fail? The answer is that Democratic Senators don't want to be associated with a lot of the crap Obama is putting out there. They don't want to have to run in an election defending their partnership with Obama.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 19, 2012 at 04:06:50 pm     #  

And more importantly if the President were actually interested in compromise and working together you'd actually see it once in a while! It is perfect;y fine for him to do NOTHING and make the GOP look bad while they don't pass it. It does nothing for the country, which is pathetic, but it accomplished the needs of the White House.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 19, 2012 at 04:08:33 pm     #  

No, the votes can't take place because you need 60 votes for closure, not 60 votes to pass legislation (unless over riding veto).

Civics 101...

posted by SensorG on Feb 19, 2012 at 05:43:27 pm     #  

BlusterButt doesn't seem to understand how the Senate works these days.

Debate comes up before a vote on a bill.

Some asshole Republican senator stands up and says "I filibuster, suck it Dems!"

Vote takes place for cloture to override the filibuster, and this takes 60 votes, which automatically fails because the Dems don't have 60 or more seats.

Asshole Republicans like BlusterButt: "WAAAA WAAAAAAA OBAMA ISN'T DOING ANYTHING, NO BILLS ARE GETTING PASSED!"

Or they put "secret holds" on bills to keep them from coming up for a vote. Or other shit that features more gaming of the rules than the entire history of BASHcon, GenCon, and Origins EVER.

Got it, BlusterButt?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 19, 2012 at 06:19:04 pm     #  

BlusterButt? Republican asshole? Did you graduate from middle school? Ad hominem attacks nearly always show weakness; which is understandable considering the bad hand you are oh-so-desperately clinging to.

It's strange that you can say Republicans are blocking everything when the Senate majority leader says bills are "dead on arrive." Doesn't look like <60 votes would cause that.

If Obama has an issue with his bills not being passed, maybe he should get together with the GOP leadership and compromise? It would seem to me, at a very minimum, that both sides are unwilling to compromise. The one-sided, ridiculous stance you take makes you look like a fool.

I'm intrigued, what home-run bills for the American economy are the Republicans blocking? Maybe we should pass Obama's budget, after all who wouldn't want to live in Greece? Maybe we should raise the capital gains tax to 30%, that way we end the days of "America being the best place to invest your money," and destroy everyone's 401k in the process! YES WE CAN! So make my day, what awesome idea is Obama proposing that aren't designed to simply win election points?

I was promised change. I was promised leadership. I was told that huge budget deficits were "unpatriotic." I was promised that my President would reform the way things operate in Washington. I was promised a tremendous level of transparency.

I haven't seen any of that. But maybe I'm just the typical "Republican asshole" I guess? Get a fucking clue you child: I support gay rights, am generally pro-choice, disagree with the premises of libertarianism, I think the War on Drugs should be ended immediately and marijuana legalized, I want to see the DoD slashed in half, etc etc etc. So yeah go ahead and assume I'm just another of the Bible-thumping bigots you want me to be and I'll simply ask "what is Obama doing that makes me think he is deserving of a second term?"

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 20, 2012 at 01:37:29 am     #  

BlusterButt, how many times does it need to be said that the GOP DOES NOT COMPROMISE WITH OBAMA?

"If Obama has an issue with his bills not being passed, maybe he should get together with the GOP leadership and compromise? "

They will not give a single millimeter. NOT ONE BIT. So unless your fat-headed idea of compromise is "Obama does everything the GOP wants", get with the program.

Remember the earthquake in Virginia that affected D.C.? There was a joke about it. "There was just a 5.9 earthquake in Washington. Obama wanted it to be 3.4, but the Republicans wanted 5.9, so he compromised."

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 20, 2012 at 09:27:56 am     #  

So you pathetic excuse for zero leadership on Obama's part is "blame the Republicans." Gotcha.

I'm still waiting for some examples of these home-run programs the Republicans are shooting down. I'll wait.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 20, 2012 at 03:45:42 pm     #  

All I have to do is point to the budget where they not only refused to agree to tax hikes on the rich (reversing the BUSH TAX CUTS on the upper brackets), but also failed to do anything with the so-called "Super Congress" or whatever it was that is now supposed to trigger automatic huge cuts.

By the way, where are all the Republican jobs bills? And don't give me that "tax cut" shit, we need to NOT cut revenue.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 20, 2012 at 04:15:31 pm     #  

The two post immediately preceding this one are exactly the reason politics in this country are broken. Everyone is so busy trying to find the wrong in everyone else that they have no sense of where the compromise might be. If either Democrats or Republicans were all wrong or all right, we would not be in the current s**t storm. Even a moron would be able to cut through the crap if it were that obvious.

The politicians have made it their business to obfuscate rather than legislate. Instead of trying to poke holes in your so-called opponents' arguments, try waking up to the reality - most elected officials have no better idea of how to fix the problems than your neighbor or your cousin or the guy on this board who you like to refer to as an uneducated buffoon when you talk to all your much more intelligent friends (who also have no real idea of how to fix a problem this big.)

No one knows how to fix these problems because no one has successfully done it before. The Great Depression was not fixed by specific politicians, business people or anyone else. The economy of the US rebounded because it did. No one can definitively point to the factors that lead the recovery. Economists disagree all over the board. That is not an argument against trying to fix the mess we all created. It means we have to be willing to try solutions from every angle until we get it right. If we get it wrong, it won't be because we didn't listen to the genius on the left or the right - no one will know what the answer is until after the problems recede.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric on Feb 20, 2012 at 04:31:14 pm     #  

^^Please don't assume I am saying the GOP is infallible and am solely blaming the Democrats. That is not at all what I'm doing.

But the issue here is why does Barack Obama deserve a second term? Is is partisan horseshit to ask for results, and to request the leadership HE PROMISED US ALL.

Republican job bills? Excuse me...WHAT THE FUCK IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING IN THE JOB-CREATING BUSINESS?? You know what would create some jobs? How about not wasting a half a billion dollars on solar companies that can't cut it in the market? How about we simply say "yes" to an oil pipeline? Boom--thousands of jobs!! How about we open up ANWR and sensible offshore locations? Boom--thousands more jobs created. How about we green light the construction of some refineries to boost production??? Those are just the easy ones. If this President had half of a clue and wasn't a slave to the unions and environmentalists he would have done this years ago. He's doing a noble thing by supporting green energy jobs, and I support that, but you don't FORCE HIGHER ENERGY COSTS ON PEOPLE in the process. He is doing that, just as he said he had not problem doing.

Barack Obama said that George Bush's deficit spending was "unpatriotic" and yet he's the worst spender in American history. Where is the leadership reforming Social Security? Where is the leadership on all of the entitlement programs!?!? No where. Blame Republicans! Blame Republicans! Blame Republicans! Blame Republicans!

I'm tired of the bullshit. I'm tired of people like Barack Obama. I'm tired of people like George Bush. I don't want guys like them anywhere near the Oval Office. Bush went back to Texas, where he will inevitably run an oil company into the ground. Let's let Obama go back to teaching uber-liberal political theory at Chicago again. Let us all pray Santorum doesn't win the nomination while we're at it.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 20, 2012 at 05:24:55 pm     #  

So much wrong as usual; you don’t know how the Senate works, I shouldn’t expect any better in the other parts of your knowledge…

As for deficits, much of Obama’s deficit is structural in nature, created by the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the overall down turn in the economy.

Obama cut Medicare…

Obama didn’t teach uber-liberal political theory at Chicago…

Lastly - So giving money to solar companies is bad. Confiscating thousands of acres of private land to give to a foreign corporation is good?

posted by SensorG on Feb 20, 2012 at 05:44:36 pm     #  

SensorG posted at 04:44:36 PM on Feb 20, 2012:

So much wrong as usual; you don’t know how the Senate works, I shouldn’t expect any better in the other parts of your knowledge…

As for deficits, much of Obama’s deficit is structural in nature, created by the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the overall down turn in the economy.

Obama cut Medicare…

Obama didn’t teach uber-liberal political theory at Chicago…

Lastly - So giving money to solar companies is bad. Confiscating thousands of acres of private land to give to a foreign corporation is good?

According to projections, we'd have broken even by now if you projected everything at the same level as of the time Clinton left office. So 8 years of Bush's tax cuts and wars broke the projections. I'll let 9/11 and some of the Homeland Security spending slide. Too bad Bush let Osama get away (anyone remember Osama being "pinned down in Tora Bora"? Anyone?). And then he had to pick a war in Iraq, on top of everything. Could we please pull the fuck out of that entire area instead of playing Israel and the oil companies' private security force?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:34:05 am     #  

This is how things work in Washington:

If Obama takes a stance against drinking drain cleaner, sucking on car exhaust pipes, or stabbing oneself in the eye with a fork, the GOP would immediately announce that drain cleaner and car exhaust are good for you and stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork is patriotic and Christian.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:46:15 am     #  

I'm aware that it takes 60 votes to get cloture, asshole. I didn't sit through the Obamacare process without learning that (or the 3.7 in political science at UT, but whatever). What you seem to be ignoring is the whole "dead on arrival" Harry Reid and the leadership in Washington DC failing to compromise (on both sides)....which is the entirety of my point. I also requested a list of great ideas that the Republican leadership is blocking, and I haven't been given a list yet. This isn't about getting the votes, because the Dems Senators don't even like a lot of this shit Obama is sending out.

Obama taught Constitutional Law, which is basically uber-liberal political theory. He comes from the Ivy League and their idealism circlejerk. Please do not tell me that he was some master lecturer of what the Constitution is, he merely taught about what the Constitution [i]should be[/i]. He has stomped all over it with Obamacare and NDAA.

Did I say he needed to cut Medicare? I said I wanted reform of the entitlement programs and to say he's done that would be a huge stretch of the imagination.

Giving money to ANY company with a business model as bad as Solyndra is very bad. If the company had a breakthrough design or an economic advantage then private funding would have found it. But know he's the President and they will try to overpower capitalism. What a huge fucking fail on Obama's part.

Confiscating? I'm sorry are people not being reimbursed? Your wording seems to insinuate that people wouldn't benefit from the economic activity that would happen. And you fail to recognize that there millions of acres of uninhabited federal lands that aren't environmentally sensitive that are not open to drilling. "Save it for the future generations" is a beautiful reason concocted by the Environmentalists to keep holding America by the balls. Of course if gas were cheap why would anyone want an electric car to begin with? Ahhhhhhh, start to see the plan? Cut of the production capacity (i.e. don't allow new refineries as population/demand inherently grow) and slowly inhibit what can be drilled and eventually electric cars will be economically justified. It's all about economic and political idealism and it's fucking all of us royally.

So yeah, if he were really in it for the average American, he would be leading the charge to lower energy costs and balance the budget. We are heading for Greece and he isn't doing nearly enough to stop it.

I question your graph (and for the record I am IN FAVOR OF letting the Bush tax cuts expire), but I don't believe it. It's too simplistic and the deficit is a percentage of spending and you cannot simply pin it on something like that. It is not just those reasons and to say so is asinine, in my opinion.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 21, 2012 at 01:45:53 am     #  

anonymouscoward you are so ignorant that it is maddening. I don't angry very often discussing politics as people generally come to the conclusion that both parties blow, but kudos to you on forcing errors on my part as I get enraged typing whilst thinking "WHAT THE HELL?!? You must be a troll or retarded."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the bill just passed with great bipartisan support. Sooooo I would think that shoots a hole in your "the GOP opposes everything Obama likes" theory. Yeah, they want to see him ousted before a second term and know he's going to give the GOP a bunch of bills that they love as the election season deepens and it will win him the election. Again, Obama is a brilliant politician.

As for the budget, what is Obama doing to FIX IT. I know why it is so bad. But why aren't we fixing this, Mr. Obama. "Bush sucks" doesn't prevent us from turning into Greece.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 21, 2012 at 02:09:59 am     #  

Again, your wrong, I shouldn’t be surprised…

If you know it takes 60 votes to get closure, why did you say “but why haven't they even taken a vote and shown that the GOP are making the bills fail”…because if you really knew what closure was you wouldn’t have ask that question…

Constitutional Law is not some “uber-liberal political theory” class, not even close. You might as well be saying the calculus is a “uber-liberal math theory class”. At the University of Toledo, the class is taught by Lee Strang, he’s an ultra-conservative/libertarian.

So you are for the government seizing private land from homeowners who don’t want to sell it as long as they are given “fair market” value” so the land can be given to a foreign corporation. Got it!

Also, why open more land for drilling when the oil companies already hold leases on 10’s of millions of acres of land that they haven’t even begun to use.

“more than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans”

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=239255

You’re just embarrassing yourself now…

posted by SensorG on Feb 21, 2012 at 09:56:55 am     #  

Obama taught Constitutional Law, which is basically uber-liberal political theory.

Really? A historical look at how our rights under the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since 1800 is now uber-liberal political theory?

What is so uber-liberal about the concept of judicial review? Or the legal justification for the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII? Or how we analyze first amendment concerns today? I could go on and on. Your statement is pure fiction.

If you don't have a clue about what you are talking about, don't spout off. And if you want your academic credentials to mean anything with regards to politics here, you might want avoid using words like "asshole" and "retarded."

posted by brainswell on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:04:32 am     #  

If you know it takes 60 votes to get closure, why did you say “but why haven't they even taken a vote and shown that the GOP are making the bills fail”…because if you really knew what closure was you wouldn’t have ask that question…

It's cloture, not "closure".

United States Senate: Cloture definition

The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:26:56 am     #  

Fair enough, that's what I get for typing too fast.

posted by SensorG on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:29:05 am     #  

Sorry SensorG, but the "s" and the "t" keys aren't even close to each other. Admit you didn't know the difference between closre and cloture -- something I learned in 9th grade civics.

posted by MemyselfandI on Feb 21, 2012 at 10:34:22 am     #  

It's more a brain to finger translation than not knowing what I’m talking about, but nice try. If your entire argument is my spelling versus my message, I’ll take it.

posted by SensorG on Feb 21, 2012 at 11:03:02 am     #   1 person liked this

It's more a brain to finger translation...

I think the problem is likely at the source...

Admit you didn't know the difference between closre and cloture...

One is an accepted word in the English language and the other isn't. I think SensorG knows this. In fact, I'll give you five to one odds that SensorG knows this. Any takers?

There's plenty to criticize about The Anointed One, but I see the man's chief problem to be His Own incredible ego. Obama has enough hubris for three rap stars and two college athletes. Himself surrounds Himself with those who support and agree with him, which would be fine if he were right all the time, but he isn't.

Many people were disappointed in Obama's failure to close Guantánamo, but I'll happily give him a pass on that one. My reasoning is that there are any number of things a new President learns the day he takes office, and I think it's very likely Obama learned just why the United States should not close Guantánamo.

The economic crises Obama faced had no good solution. Obama likely selected what he felt to be the least of several evils and implemented it. Certainly there are other people who could have handled this situation better, but I'm willing to bet that none of these people would be willing to ever hold public office.

My chief criticism of The Anointed One is His failure to restore our civil rights. Obama could have opposed the (un)Patriot Act, and He didn't. He could have introduced legislation to overturn the Patriot Act, and He hasn't. He could speak out against the militarization of our police forces, and instead Obama tacitly supports this. Likewise he could introduce legislation to repeal many of the federal drug laws, and he refuses to do that.

Obama wants an oppressive, heavy handed central government, and he's making progress in that direction. He wants higher taxation for everyone, and that's where we're headed. He wants the general populace to be dependent on the federal government, and he is slowly getting what he wants.

Maybe those of us who value freedom should be thankful that The Anointed One is a lousy president, because if he weren't things could be a whole lot worse than they are.

posted by madjack on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:08:37 pm     #   1 person liked this

Fun facts on US Oil Production under Obama…

http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php

After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation's oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad¬rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

Where are the jobs and cheap oil Republicans keep promising us?

posted by SensorG on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:57:23 pm     #   2 people liked this

I didn't know you made an argument, SensorG. I went back and read it and agree with some of it (constitutional law is real and valid and should be taught) while some of it is impossible to agree or disagree with because it deals in absolutes and black and white when the educated person knows the issues are all shades of gray.

My point was, if you don't know the difference between closure and cloture, you're probably not well versed in the intracacies of modern political discourse and that ascribing it to typoes when you said it twice and the keys on the keyboard are not related to each other is a cop out.

posted by MemyselfandI on Feb 21, 2012 at 01:04:22 pm     #  

Wasn't it just a month or so ago that we exported oil for the first time? We seem to be producing more than we need at the moment.

Now as someone who has typed her entire life to make a living it is easy to make mistakes. Especially typing while composing at the same time. Gee, lay off us rusty typists.

posted by jackie on Feb 21, 2012 at 02:36:07 pm     #  

Where are the jobs and cheap oil Republicans keep promising us?

Those are in China and Mexico right now, and will remain there until we get a good, honest, upright, moralistic, trustworthy Republican into the White House.

posted by madjack on Feb 21, 2012 at 08:00:31 pm     #  

madjack

Where will we find this relic of the past? Teddy Roosevelt.....

posted by jackie on Feb 21, 2012 at 08:54:32 pm     #   1 person liked this

madjack posted at 07:00:31 PM on Feb 21, 2012:

Where are the jobs and cheap oil Republicans keep promising us?

Those are in China and Mexico right now, and will remain there until we get a good, honest, upright, moralistic, trustworthy Republican into the White House.

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHHAa
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

YOU FORGOT INDIA AND CHINA!!!11!11oneoeneleventy

Also, let me know how President Easter Bunny, Vice President The Great Pumpkin, and the rest of the Cabinet and Congress of Mythical People and Beings works out for you on your Bizarro-Planet.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 21, 2012 at 09:13:48 pm     #  

Couldn't be satisfied with a simple "I won't hold my breath...", could you?

I thought not.

posted by madjack on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:09:53 pm     #  

I'll make an offer to all you die-hard Republicans and other people who have some sort of obsession with Obama. Here goes.

1) Fire everyone in Congress. No incumbent to return, nor to switch between Houses of Congress.

2) Throw out Citizens United ruling and legislate that only legal individual human being citizens (those with voting rights) can donate money to a candidate. No PACs, no donations on behalf of ANY entity (churches, NRA, ACLU, whatever), just unlimited money from an individual who has to put their name and address on it, and be a registered voter, to an individual candidate's campaign. And that candidate is responsible for transparently filing expenditures with the FEC every 30 days.

3) Throw out any laws that recognize political parties for purpose of ballot access or restrict ballot access for nonpartisan candidates. In other words, anyone can form their own political party and have it put on the ballot and have their candidates put on the ballot on the same terms as Democrats and Republicans. There should NOT be this bullshit of "50 signatures on the petition for a (R) or (D) but 5622 for an independent or some party that we refuse to recognize because they didn't get X number of votes for a candidate in the last election because we require 5622 signatures on the petition that you can't get whereas a recognized party candidate just walks into party headquarters and has 50 signatures instantly".

4) Legislate that all elections will be conducted by Instant Runoff Voting; that the ballots MUST be paper; that the ballot format MUST be "open source" meaning that they can be scanned and read by machines from multiple manufacturers and free from any intellectual property encumbrances; that the entire process from setting up the polling place through counting the ballots through storage and the final count be both transparent to any registered voter in the precinct and also permit video recording and broadcast of such; that the final certified count be a hand count; and oh, while we're at it, move Election Day from November to be on the observation of Columbus Day and make that a national holiday, so the weather doesn't affect turnout so much.

5) Throw out the Electoral College.

Okay, now that I gave my position, which of you will be first to refuse to compromise?

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 22, 2012 at 11:22:43 pm     #  

Don't know about changing the voting date, its set by law, however making it a holiday would be nice. People will sit outside over night in the rain and snow for an opportunity to pay too much for a Apple product but cant find the time to go vote.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:38:39 am     #   1 person liked this

A/C - Thanks for actually brings up sound points that don't revolve sodomy or bestiality.

1. - Can be easily done by voting out incumbents, you don't need totalitarian decree to fire them all. The American people have to stop electing people on name recognition, people like Marcy, John Conyers, Mitch McConnel need to go as they have put in their time. But idiots in Toledo will reelect Marcy because she says nice things about Toledo and visits Grandpa in the nursing home. (but as a disclaimer I will be voting for Kucinich is he makes it to the general election).

2. I don't think Citizens United is the root of all evil, nor do I think removing it will fix anything. Water always finds it's level and money always finds it's was to the corrupt no matter the law. Voting out the corrupt speaks louder than any Supreme Court ruling (see above). But I would horse trade this if you could make the other items come to pass.

3. Spot on

4. Spot on

5. I'm for this but know you are probley really hurting democratic candidates as States like California, NY, & IL which hold a lot of Electoral votes but have a historically low voter turnout (as a percentage of population). The Repubs would feel the same effect but with less value in TX. But I would even take:

Implementation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors

Only Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method for distributing their electoral votes. Maine has four electoral votes, based on its two Representatives and two Senators. Nebraska has two Senators and three Representatives, giving it five electoral votes. Maine began using the Congressional District Method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method since the election of 1992. The Congressional District Method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Before 2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral votes. Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the Congressional District Method and return to the winner-takes-all system. In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system; the bill died in committee in March 2011. Republicans also passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to eliminate the Congressional District Method in Nebraska, but those bills were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.

In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who control both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a Congressional District Method system. Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so many saw this as an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008, but he only won a minority of the state's congressional districts. The plan later lost support.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 23, 2012 at 07:17:41 am     #  

'way to go, AC!

1) Absolutely correct. If you don't fire them you'll never get the turn over that you're looking for. I would add that all these people be made ineligible to hold public officer and/or to associate with federal, State or local government in any way for the next ten years. By that time the new government may have insulated itself against them.

2) There's another one out of the park, and even if Citizens United is not at the heart of it all, removing it will help greatly.

3) Absolutely correct.

4) Again, 100% correct.

5) Yeah, and leave it out. It causes problems.

The only thing I would add is some sort of voter ID system so as to make sure that only legitimate citizens vote. I'd also like to see the USSC turned over at the same time and replaced with US constitutional scholars.

When did you become so reasonable, anyway?

posted by madjack on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:00:52 am     #  

I would like to add to make sure the new people in #1 have term limits.

posted by tm2 on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:32:35 am     #   1 person liked this

Oh heck yeah most problems would be solved with just implementing term limits. I would go with 2 terms same as president. But would you allow jumps to another house or to president or vice president or even both? You could still see someone serve 4 years in congress, 8 years in senate, 8 years in white house for 20 years of service. I would imagine the number of people that would be able to accomplish that would be few though.

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:29:40 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 06:17:41 AM on Feb 23, 2012:

A/C - Thanks for actually brings up sound points that don't revolve sodomy or bestiality.

1. - Can be easily done by voting out incumbents, you don't need totalitarian decree to fire them all. The American people have to stop electing people on name recognition, people like Marcy, John Conyers, Mitch McConnel need to go as they have put in their time. But idiots in Toledo will reelect Marcy because she says nice things about Toledo and visits Grandpa in the nursing home. (but as a disclaimer I will be voting for Kucinich is he makes it to the general election).

2. I don't think Citizens United is the root of all evil, nor do I think removing it will fix anything. Water always finds it's level and money always finds it's was to the corrupt no matter the law. Voting out the corrupt speaks louder than any Supreme Court ruling (see above). But I would horse trade this if you could make the other items come to pass.

3. Spot on

4. Spot on

5. I'm for this but know you are probley really hurting democratic candidates as States like California, NY, & IL which hold a lot of Electoral votes but have a historically low voter turnout (as a percentage of population). The Repubs would feel the same effect but with less value in TX. But I would even take:

Implementation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Alternative_methods_of_choosing_electors

Only Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method for distributing their electoral votes. Maine has four electoral votes, based on its two Representatives and two Senators. Nebraska has two Senators and three Representatives, giving it five electoral votes. Maine began using the Congressional District Method in the election of 1972. Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method since the election of 1992. The Congressional District Method allows a state the chance to split its electoral votes between multiple candidates. Before 2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral votes. Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in 2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote of Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. Following the 2008 split, some Nebraska Republicans made efforts to discard the Congressional District Method and return to the winner-takes-all system. In January 2010, a bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature to revert to a winner-take-all system; the bill died in committee in March 2011. Republicans also passed bills in 1995 and 1997 to eliminate the Congressional District Method in Nebraska, but those bills were vetoed by Democratic Governor Ben Nelson.

In 2010, Republicans in Pennsylvania, who control both houses of the legislature as well as the governorship, put forward a plan to change the state's winner-takes-all system to a Congressional District Method system. Pennsylvania has voted for the Democratic candidate in the five previous presidential elections, so many saw this as an attempt to take away Democratic electoral votes. Barack Obama won Pennsylvania in 2008, but he only won a minority of the state's congressional districts. The plan later lost support.

The part about #5 is that if we remove first-past-the-post and go to IRV, then we should actually get candidates with broad appeal instead of "how many insane single-issue voters can I rile up to go vote for me/against the other guy?" and thus voter turnout should go up as well as from the fact that it'll be "rank the candidates from 1 to N" instead of "choose the lesser of two evils" or "they both suck so I'll stay home". Electoral College is pretty much incompatible with the idea of IRV unless you run through the instant runoff and then give all the EC delegates to the winner... and again, the winner should be someone with a broad appeal, not some winger nutjob.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:44:08 am     #  

madjack posted at 09:00:52 AM on Feb 23, 2012:

'way to go, AC!

1) Absolutely correct. If you don't fire them you'll never get the turn over that you're looking for. I would add that all these people be made ineligible to hold public officer and/or to associate with federal, State or local government in any way for the next ten years. By that time the new government may have insulated itself against them.

2) There's another one out of the park, and even if Citizens United is not at the heart of it all, removing it will help greatly.

3) Absolutely correct.

4) Again, 100% correct.

5) Yeah, and leave it out. It causes problems.

The only thing I would add is some sort of voter ID system so as to make sure that only legitimate citizens vote. I'd also like to see the USSC turned over at the same time and replaced with US constitutional scholars.

When did you become so reasonable, anyway?

I've BEEN saying this shit for years, it's just that you all get so wrapped up with "ZOMG 0BAMA AND DEMS ARE TEH EVIL" partisan crap that you can't see the forest for the trees. As long as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the other partisan hacks continue to spew bullshit about how the Dems suck and their team is so much better to distract you from even thinking "hey, what if maybe we kicked everyone out, took ALL the corporate money out of politics, NOT ONLY the "OMG UNION ACORN DAILYKOS HUFFPO SOROS" money but the NRA/conservative Christian group/Koch Bros/oil lobby/whatever else money as well, then leveled the playing field by removing the two-party system and its entrenched bullshit and actually voted by ranking candidates, then MAYBE MAYBE we could get people in office who didn't suck so much, and at least the far-out nutjobs on both sides can go vote-rank their favorite far-out nutjob #1, their second favorite #2, etc. and we'd maybe get a Congress and President of moderate centrists who'd actually have gotten elected on the basis of popularity with the PEOPLE, not with the corporations/PACs/etc. who bought them an election.

Oh, and we do have a Voter ID system, it's called Voter Registration, requiring a government ID one has to pay for is a Poll Tax and is therefore illegal. Problem I have is that the voter registration rolls are messed up and used for partisan purposes and so on, people wrongfully removed from the rolls, etc. Right now I'm more worried about who counts the votes being the source of fraud and errors than I am about who is doing the voting.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:00:10 pm     #  

But would you allow jumps to another house or to president or vice president or even both?

No way! That already happens here in Toledo and we've all seen how that's worked out for us. I say two terms TOTAL, then your out. We might get people who aren't afraid of losing voters to do some actual good.

posted by tm2 on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:11:51 pm     #  

Linecrosser posted at 10:29:40 AM on Feb 23, 2012:

Oh heck yeah most problems would be solved with just implementing term limits. I would go with 2 terms same as president. But would you allow jumps to another house or to president or vice president or even both? You could still see someone serve 4 years in congress, 8 years in senate, 8 years in white house for 20 years of service. I would imagine the number of people that would be able to accomplish that would be few though.

24 year cap total, no more than 4 terms (8 years) in House of Reps or 2 (12 years) in Senate with mandated "cooling-off" period of 2 years of ineligibility to hold elected office after serving 8 consecutive years in office (to start after current term is over). So if you serve 2 years in the House and 6 in the Senate, you get to sit on the bench for 2 years... if you serve two terms in the Senate, you get to sit on the bench.

Don't agree that "most problems would be solved with just implementing term limits" though. That didn't stop Czarty, it just put him out of action for a few years due to the way the law was written.

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:20:33 pm     #  

What do you do with the unelected officials who can't be "term limited"?

A career, long-term, high level, unelected employee can accumulate more influence than many elected officials, even now.

And, people being what they are, the "newbies" who come in after the old guys term out would probably lean on these career people for "advice" on how to get things done.

Not at all opposed to term limits, but there are more people in Washington, Columbus, and here in Toledo working in government who are not elected that people who are "accountable" to the people. And how that is handled is problematic. I don't have a solution.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:38:34 pm     #  

And before somebody just says "fire them", remember we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of guv'ment employees.

Easier said than done.

posted by oldhometown on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:39:18 pm     #  

We do have term limits in this country. It is called voting. It is the public's fault for making our representatives permanent fixtures in our governments.

posted by jackie on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:47:38 pm     #   4 people liked this

From Jackie: We do have term limits in this country. It is called voting.

Clearly it isn't working as advertised or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

From OldHomeTown: And before somebody just says "fire them", remember we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of guv'ment employees.

Yeah, we can't fire them for the same reason we can't deport the ten million or so illegals living in the US.

In short: Like hell we can't. We may not collect and deport the entire ten million, but we can damned sure deport nine an a half, and that's a good beginning. In the case of the government workers, get rid of 90% or so. The rest will quickly fall into line.

posted by madjack on Feb 24, 2012 at 02:43:22 pm     #  

Visited the Bowling Green's Wind Farm today still no noise or Flicker to report! Talked with one of the township trustees who said no one ever complains anymore. He said that at first before construction the misinformed area residents were afraid of all the "rumors" of noise and flicker that was being disseminated. After the installation no one ever complained about any noise and a few did complained about an occasional flicker. He said seems everyone have grown accustom to their new neighbors, in fact I seen some new construction going up around the turbines.

posted by wolfman on Feb 24, 2012 at 05:05:04 pm     #  

Of course they don't complain - what good would it do? The damned things are built and it isn't like anyone is going to tear them down just because they offend a few people.

If anyone is building homes you'd best keep an eye on things. You could pick up a new home at a very low cost.

posted by madjack on Feb 24, 2012 at 07:27:52 pm     #  

jackie posted at 11:47:38 AM on Feb 23, 2012:

We do have term limits in this country. It is called voting. It is the public's fault for making our representatives permanent fixtures in our governments.

And that worked for Kaptur, Ted Kennedy, Carty the Fink?

posted by Linecrosser on Feb 25, 2012 at 12:11:53 am     #   1 person liked this

And that worked for Kaptur, Ted Kennedy, Carty the Fink?

Exactly.

posted by madjack on Feb 26, 2012 at 10:54:10 am     #  

madjack posted at 09:54:10 AM on Feb 26, 2012:

And that worked for Kaptur, Ted Kennedy, Carty the Fink?

Exactly.

Again, the system is rigged so you nearly always have either them and one other choice on the ballot. Thus, you're nearly always faced with either a "lesser of two evils" or "the devil we know" scenario if you're not just voting party loyalty. Eliminate the two-party system and institute IRV so you just have one election in November (IRV can eliminate the need for primaries, which are just publicly funded popularity contests for partisan candidates (which can also be thought of as "socialism" or "corporate welfare" for the party machines, since they could easily decide who represents them through other means not funded by the taxpayer!)

posted by anonymouscoward on Feb 26, 2012 at 12:01:11 pm     #  

I don't like the idea of "firing everyone in Congress." That is just silly. This would work pretty well:

1) Term limits. Senators get two terms, Representatives get five terms. No person can spend more than 16 years in Congress. Terms as Vice President (being the President of the Senate and all...) do not count towards years in Congress.

2) When a budget is passed that has a deficit or if the debt ceiling is raised, every member of Congress is immediately ineligible for reelection to Congress for the next six years; they are allowed to finish their term. Budget deficits with no election penalties are allowed under one scenario: the United States is in a declared war.

posted by BusterBluth on Feb 27, 2012 at 02:29:25 am     #   1 person liked this

Eliminate the two-party system and institute IRV...

Once IRV was instantiated the number of viable, functional political parties would likely see a sharp increase.

You're quite right about the lack of choice, but given what would happen if IRV were instantiated I don't ever think it will happen during our lifetimes. I'm reminded of a little experiment that was tried in Colorado some years ago. The people were allowed to vote directly on where and how their tax dollars were spent. I think the initial result was that infrastructure got a huge amount of funding and education took the biggest hit imaginable. Control of funding was immediately returned to the legislature.

posted by madjack on Feb 27, 2012 at 09:19:34 am     #  

Whatever happens, don't throw out the Electoral College. It protects uninformed voters from themselves, and the rest of us from the ALGORE types in Washington.

posted by Wulf on Mar 01, 2012 at 04:10:01 pm     #