I forgot Gingrich, the true 'conservative underground' star.

This is all about money for Rush and Newt and right wing groups. It's a pretty old political game to use stuff like this to mobilize your base. By the way, listening to Huckabee, I'm convinced he's not seriously going to seek higher office, as he's become a huge media whore.

Frankly, I'm amused that all the Gingrich/Rush types have come up with is that rather innocuous statement made years ago, and event here, they've taken it somewhat out of context. There's definitely a weird phenomenon out there where people only seem happy when they're frothing at the mouth about something, and their need to froth is so deep that they'll invent things to get genuinely upset about.

TenuredVulture wrote:This is all about money for Rush and Newt and right wing groups. It's a pretty old political game to use stuff like this to mobilize your base. By the way, listening to Huckabee, I'm convinced he's not seriously going to seek higher office, as he's become a huge media whore.

Frankly, I'm amused that all the Gingrich/Rush types have come up with is that rather innocuous statement made years ago, and event here, they've taken it somewhat out of context. There's definitely a weird phenomenon out there where people only seem happy when they're frothing at the mouth about something, and their need to froth is so deep that they'll invent things to get genuinely upset about.

Bottom line seems to be that they know she is relatively moderate, know that her demographics make it tough for many Republican Senators to oppose her strongly, know that opposing a SC nomination in the first half year of a President's term is suicidal, know she is going to win confirmation fairly handily, and yet -- they are beholden to the right wing special interest groups who need a manufactured controversy to raise money to keep their operations going. So we have this you scratch my back, I'll scratch your's and the controversy-starved media will give us all free publicity, which will help us raise $ and maintain our visibility.

Werthless wrote:The Myth of 5 Million Green Jobs

Well, in March, one of Spain's leading universities, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, published an authoritative study "of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources." The report pointed out: "This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians. This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style 'green jobs' agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this in terms of jobs destroyed per job created."

The central finding of the study is that -- treating the data optimistically -- for every renewable-energy job that the government finances, "Spain's experience reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created."

Each wind industry job created in Spain required a subsidy of about $1.4 million. Overall, the average subsidy cost for each green job was about $800,000 (571,138 euros). And to create about 50,000 green jobs, Spain lost 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, principally in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing and in the beverage and tobacco industries.

Here's a linkto the actual study.

Just started reading this, but it seems more than a tad politically slanted. 'one of Spain's leading Universities' publishes 'an authoritative study' of Spanish green energy programs and the authors' couch the presentation in terms of the United States and the Obama plan? Certainly the hallmark of an unbiased academic study. The lead author in fact belongs to the Mises Institute, so not exactly unbiased. I don't know if this is one of Spain's leading Universities, but it is only about a decade old.

Seems same old, same old. Electric costs will rise, capital more efficiently spent elsewhere, etc. Some uniquely Spanish shoot-yourself in foot approaches, like disfavoring projects over 100 KW. Authors also don't seem to understand concept of 'peak production' as definition of installed capacity for wind and solar and how that differs from capacity definition for cogeneration.

Yet private industry and consumers in US are not spending savings, capital investment is down. The government is simply filling the void, not sucking $ from worthier investments. Other nascent industries have been nurtured by governments in the past. It has hardly led to catastrophe for the economy. Rather, it has aided economic growth.

Almost any manufacturing has lifetime economies of scale. The more widgets you manufacture as an industry, the more you improve the widget and the cheaper in constant $ it becomes to manufacture. Coal-fired utilities and hydroelectric dams are mature technology. Of course they're cheaper today. That gap will close as more windmills, solar panels, geothermal generating stations, etc. are built and operated.

dajafi wrote:Sonia Sotomayor, flaming racial grievance-monger:

And yet I somehow doubt this will appease the likes of Gingrich, Limbaugh and Tancredo. Though I'm somewhat more optimistic about Werthless.

Consider my subsequent silence on the matter appeasement.

If you're in Canada or Mexico right now and you want to come back to the united states and you don't have your passport, you'd better get to the border soon.

Tom Coburn is running for reelection.

Yay

jerseyhoya wrote:Tom Coburn is running for reelection.

Yay

But he said he'll only serve two terms.

The Justice Deptabruptly changes course, and brought an end to the complaint against 3 New Black Panthers who were alleged to have been intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station. Here's the youtube.

Nice to see that voter intimidation is no longer a major concern in the new administration. Methinks the decision to prosecute may have been different if the video was of voter intimidation in a rural southern town.

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant, nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."

Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their failure to appear.

But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a "weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.

Cheney supports gay marriage

He's better on this issue than Obama. Much.

dajafi wrote:Cheney supports gay marriage

He's better on this issue than Obama. Much.

"Only Nixon can go to China."

"Only Cheney something something vagina."

Bakestar wrote:

dajafi wrote:Cheney supports gay marriage

He's better on this issue than Obama. Much.

"Only Nixon can go to China."

"Only Cheney something something vagina."

IS THIS A JOKING MATTER>!>!

What weirds me out here is that if there are two current "values" issues that matter above all others for me, they're torture and gay equity. From my perspective, Cheney is foully wrong on one and absolutely correct on the other (at least as far as marriage; I'm not sure what his view is on DADT, but I find that more a gray area, in that there are important if unpleasant practical considerations), while Obama is good/not great on the first and bad/not awful on the second.

It kind of goes to my overall theory that, in the long run, it's going to take a progressive/enlightened/libertarianish Republican President to tackle the social issues that liberals hold dear (same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.) and which Democratic Presidents are so scared to touch for fear they'll be branded degenerate sissy Commies.

Don't normally post in this thread, but I clicked on it and read the last few posts. What's the big deal with gay marriage? I really don't get why anyone would be opposed to it.

Bill McNeal wrote:Don't normally post in this thread, but I clicked on it and read the last few posts. What's the big deal with gay marriage? I really don't get why anyone would be opposed to it.

For you, Woody.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Bill McNeal wrote:Don't normally post in this thread, but I clicked on it and read the last few posts. What's the big deal with gay marriage? I really don't get why anyone would be opposed to it.

For you, Woody.

Don't buy it. I've met priests, and pastors and other very strongly religious people who personally don't have a problem with it, and I've met athiests who strongly oppose it.

Bill McNeal wrote:Don't buy it. I've met priests, and pastors and other very strongly religious people who personally don't have a problem with it, and I've met athiests who strongly oppose it.

Most religions are pretty clear with their stances on homosexual relations. Those "...strongly religious people" and atheists you talk about are exceptions to the rule.

Also, atheism is nothing but the rejection of a belief in God. It's certainly not out of the ordinary for an atheist to be anti-gay or pro-life, though most atheists are liberals. It's not really a hand-in-hand thing, though.

Bill McNeal wrote:Don't normally post in this thread, but I clicked on it and read the last few posts. What's the big deal with gay marriage? I really don't get why anyone would be opposed to it.

It makes my marriage less valuable, or meaningful, or something.