Obama Is Outsmarting The Republicans Again

I listened to President Obama's State of the Union Address and couldn't stop laughing. The address reminded me of the strategy the Mongols used creating their empire. The Mongols would approach lands and give them two choices. They could surrender and become part of the Empire. If they surrendered they could keep their rulers, religions and cultures. If they refused to surrender they would be totally annihilated. It appears Obama is at the gates giving the Republicans this ultimatum. If the Republicans surrender Obama will go down in history as the most effective POTUS in history. If they don't surrender the Middle Class will bury the Republicans in 2016. In addition, the Republicans made their first blunder last night. Some unknown politician from Iowa repeated most of Obama's Address as a Republican Agenda. It appears to me the Republicans have decided to do what they always do. Take others good ideas and brand them as their own.

Lastly, Obama made it perfectly clear who was in charge. When the Republicans applauded when he stated he was not running for office again he reminded them that he can't because he has already won twice.

No votes yet

ok so NOW Obama is in charge?

Will he stop claiming the first time he heard of the shit he has done is on the news?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Yep, he's in charge. He's the POTUS regardless how he gets his information and regardless what you may think.

Correction: Obama is in charge of the Executive Branch. He is not in charge of the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

You are a typical loudmouthed Liberal who makes pointless points in order to score some propaganda.

You just can't accept the fact that Obama is the Head of the most powerful Nation on Earth and will continue to be in charge for two more years. The rest of the world knows he is in charge, but you can't.

Obama is not the "Head of the most powerful Nation on Earth". He is only in charge of the Executive Branch of that nation's federal government. He is not in charge of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of the federal government, and he does not head the governments of the 50 states within that nation, etc.

There's something definitely wrong with the brains of Liberals. Something chemically wrong.

you as mentally unbalanced. Believe it or not, people can have honest disagreements without one or both of them being mentally deranged.

I just watched James Baker being interviewed this morning on "Face the Nation." James Baker was Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff in his first term. Baker than served as Secretary of the Treasury for Reagan's second term. He went on to serve as Secretary of State in GHW Bush's Administration, until asked to be GHW's Chief of Staff for GHW's last year in office. James Baker stated that the invitation for Netanyahu to speak to Congress was a mistake by both Boehner and Netanyahu. Baker spoke of the importance of American foreign policy being bipartisan, and led by the POTUS.
So, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, argue with James Baker! Does he have, "something definitely wrong with" his brain? "Something chemically unbalanced?"

Many in White America will do and say anything to not admit that their leader is non-white. White Americans will call people from other countries leaders, but not their own President, who happens to be a person of color..

equal opportunity in this one respect, at least. If someone disagrees with him, he really doesn't pay attention to their race or ethnicity. Mr. Empty Glass is one of those people who believes that anyone of any background who disagrees with him must be mentally deranged. Personally, I try to follow the lead of Thomas Jefferson on this topic: "I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion."

It is true that some white Americans can't stand the idea that the person who is POTUS, and has generally been perceived to be, at least since the end of World War II, the "Leader of the Free World," is a non-white (really mixed-race). We may see something similar to this again should Hillary or another woman, especially if she is a Democrat, be elected POTUS in 2016 and becomes the next "Leader of the Free World." There are many Americans who can only perceive their leader to be a white male...oh, and Christian, too.

Oh really?

Many white people won't admit that the President is Black?

Never Go full retard

Never go full retard


Many white people, including at least one who posts here regularly, do not want to admit that Obama, as our elected POTUS, is THEIR LEADER. They seek to diminish the office of the POTUS as long as it is not held by a white male, preferably Christian. That's the point!

And your post here is insulting and demeaning. Are you going to join that camp which claims that anyone who disagrees with them somehow is mentally deficient or deranged? AND are you going to use a term which has been discredited to describe people who are of limited intelligence through no fault of their own?

It's actually you who misses the point.

ZCs post was poorly worded. Hence I rephrased it back to him to show it's idiocy.

As far as the rest of my post all I did was link to a picture of a movie. If you're offended by the quote maybe you should write to Robert Downey Jr. and Ben Stiller.


My post is only poorly worded to idiots and buffoons.

You used a double negative.

Maybe you should look up the definition of idiots and buffoons.


MikeyA, you figured it out.

Double negatives are by their own definition confusing and unclear. That is not an effective way to communicate which was the point of my original post... That your post was stupid. You clearly weren't posting in an ironic fashion because your second post makes it clear it was serious.

You comment was and remains stupid.


"double negative." A double negative is incorrectly used when the writer or speaker wants to make a negative statement and does so incorrectly, such as: "My cold was so bad, I couldn't smell nothing." In ZC's case, he was using a term "non-white" which had nothing to do with the other part of the statement. If you're going to be a cop in the language police, join the crowd, but be accurate, please.

Dale, I don't present myself as the language police. Far from it. I readily accept people's spelling and grammar mistakes on here. However, double negatives should never be used. Why? For the same reason you shouldn't use multiple pronouns when talking about multiple subjects, it makes things unclear. As I showed with his sentence it can be understood two ways and thus unclear. So if you want to assign a label to me, call me the clarity police. That is consistent with my actions on this board. Because I do my best to ensure the debate is able to be comprehended.


double negative, so continuing this discussion is pointless. I understood the post without any "clarifications," thank you.

You may all share my disgust with this term.

Well you can take your disgust and your offense and tell someone who cares.


you who has learning difficulties and to whom this label is directed and/or attached. If that does happen, you may care.

How do you know I don't? Your making assumptions about my family based upon nothing. I am not PC and will not pretend to be. I assign respect where I feel it is due. If you have s problem with that... Again find someone who cares.


If, indeed, you have a family member who has learning difficulties, I certainly do not want to be the one who uses that term to describe your relative with you present. I can't believe that you would let anyone get away with using this term to describe your family member, and stand silently by, or even agree with that person. But, maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe you're thicker skinned than I, or you simply just don't care what people call those about whom you care.

Since MikeyA has appointed himself as supremo to us all, I have decided to also give him a Latin name, Buffooneous Idiatosas.

That is not Latin. It is a form of pig Latin.

I do have a layin word to describe you though. Ignorans.


It's neither, you idiot. It's Latonics. The language spoken in the ghettos of Rome.


Correction! He's HALF WHITE, now isn't he?

The fact is, reality (not me) is saying that you're mentally unbalanced when you insist that "Head of the most powerful Nation on Earth" is a true statement for Obama.

What Baker said was nothing like that. He merely claimed American (i.e. federal) foreign policy was lead by the POTUS, which it certainly is, since that's what the U.S. Constitution says.

And I hardly need to mention to sane people (i.e. not you) that there's a world of difference between "head of the nation" and "leading federal foreign policy". There is no head of our nation. We have no government head as such, nor an economic head, nor even a cultural head. No one leads the nation across all sectors.

You Liberals will never learn. Your'e incapable of doing so.

One correction to your comment--I believe you meant to say that Obama is using the strategy of the "Mongrels" not the "Mongols." You're welcome!

Just proves that the U.S. is a nation of Mongrels.

"Mongrels who ain't got a penny, sniffing for tidbits like you on the ground." Quick, which song are those lyrics from?

You're the one who proves the nation is full of mongrels ZC

When used to apply to a person, it has often been used disparagingly. However, a synonym for mongrel is hybrid. Both hybrid flora and hybrid fauna tend to be stronger and more resilient than are the progeny of the flora and fauna of those who breed too closely with others who are too much like themselves genetically.
IMHO -- One of the reasons why America has become the greatest nation in the history of the world, is the open nature of our society, which has led to the mixing of different peoples. Remember, at one time there were signs in places of business which read, "Help Wanted: No Irish Need Apply." In its origins, the KKK was not only anti-black, but also anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic. Many in the KKK today still hold all of those prejudices and more!
Purity in race most often leads to a weakening of those groups. America's diversity is America's strength! One of the great ironies of history was that the Nazis who claimed that the Nordic ideal of tall, blond people were superior to all others, were led by Adolf Hitler, who, at best was of average height for the day, about 5 ft. 8 in. And Hitler had medium brown hair!

The Germans definitely proved that racial purity is a disadvantage. Even though they came up with great inventions and great ideas their genetic makeup caused them to be rigid to a fault. The Germans are responsible for some of the greatest discoveries, but have proven to be so narcissistic as a people they believed and may still believe the world should only be German. I worked with Europeans for a number of years and hated working with the Germans.They are are a people who work very hard when they work. Getting them to work is another story. Other groups also have positives. Race mixing does give humankind the opportunity to produce offspring who have the best of all the races..

It's not about race, it's about culture. The Japanese and mid-century American have long proven the successes of a monoculture. The Liberals are destroying that sort of thing with this 'diversity' crap. And I must note, Liberals flee that same diversity, so they're hypocrites of the greatest degree.

Luckily, the Liberals outfoxed themselves, and Section 8 is now pushing the undesirables (i.e. 'diversity') into areas faster than Whites and the middle class can flee. So more and more, these previously fleet-of-foot have to face the reality they had previously relegated to people like me... the working class who was priced out of White Flight and had to watch his home neighborhoods collapse into rental/welfare/crime zones that invariably earmark 'diversity'.

way of your vacuous opinions! EVER!
Today -- right now -- America's economy, with all of our problems, is the most reliable in the world for investors. As I have often stated, I watch a LOT of CNBC, and I get a LOT of information while listening to financial experts. And the Japan you love so much, has been in the economic doldrums for the last quarter of a century! NO!! Japan's "monoculture" has NOT been so successful as has America's multi-culture! Of course, China's modern communism has been doing quite well lately. It is China, NOT JAPAN, which now has the second biggest economy in the world. In all listings I have seen, Japan's economy is slightly more than 1/2 that of China today.
So, if, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, you are looking for the most successful economies of the past 25 years, your choice is multi-cultural America, or Communist China, NOT your beloved "monoculture" in Japan!

Multiculturalism means, as was described in the past, that the country is some sort of melting pot. The problem with melting pots is that the waste rises to the top, and what's on bottom gets burned.

In other words, you cannot refute the statistics, so you bring up an innocuous analogy, instead. Nice try, G-MAN. Sorry that I introduced actual facts into this discussion. I have a disturbing habit of relying upon factual information, rather than ideology and/or gut feelings.

Who says Japan is burning? And this is priceless: " I have a disturbing habit of relying upon factual information, rather than ideology and/or gut feelings." What planet do you spend most of your time on?

You love the "monoculture" of Japan. You state that Japan's "monoculture" is more successful than America's cultural diversity. Facts prove this to be dead wrong. I'll keep posting facts. You, G-MAN, are free to continue spewing venom.

Sorry. I have more facts for you. I am adding a link to an article about Japan's economic malaise since 1990. If you want, I can find more. As far as the "burning"reference, it was you, G-MAN, who brought in this analogy while referencing America's diverse culture and its effect on the U.S. economy. All I'm stating here is if, in your opinion, the U.S. economy is burning, how can you, concurrently, place the Japanese economy on a pedestal? With the U.S. being so far ahead of Japan economically, with your analogy, if America's economy is burning, Japan's must be having an all out conflagration!
Here's the link:

The terms of the past continue to be misconstrued.

The "melting pot" aims at homogeneity. Today's 'diversity' is nothing like that, and also doesn't allow for sensible segregation. Today 'diversity' is being used to destroy the very fabric of the culture that attracted the diversity in the first place.

In short, the takers will overwhelm the makers and then we will become a Second World shithole like Brazil. The melting pot will have cooled and disparate elements will freeze out and try to jumble into like groups. This will be a violent process taking many decades.

understand why I use the term "Mr. Empty Glass" to describe you. "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Chicken Little and Mr. Empty Glass.

FYI GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass and G-MAN: The term "melting pot" fell out of favor about 50 years ago. In the 1960s, Hubert Humphrey adopted the term which became more popular then. He called America a "great mosaic." From a distance the individual cultures all belnd together to make a beautiful picture. As one approaches it, one can see the individual "tiles" [read cultures] which make up this beautiful mosaic.

The United States is the wealthiest, large nation in the history of the world. We have problems, it is true. But, few economists or investors would trade America's economic situation with any other major nation in the world.
BTW -- The second largest economy in the world, almost double the size of Japan's, is in Communist China. Personally, I'll take America over either Japan or Communist China. You two are free to choose otherwise. Diversity always will triumph!

Looking at all the diversity in the Middle East, e.g., shouldn't that area be as close to the Garden of Eden as anywhere on the Earth? After all, the Jews, Christians, Agnostics, Arabs, Moslems, Sunnis, Shiites, Women, Gays, and so on, all bring their richness of ideas, cultural experiences, tolerance and openmindedness to the table, do they not? If so, why does that part of the world look more like a cesspool than a beautiful garden?

term cultural diversity means, or you're being extremely sarcastic. Maybe both. Almost every Middle East nation is intolerant of minority groups. Most are bitterly anti-gay. And women have few rights in most of these nations. There is almost no mixing of people with different cultures.

In stark contrast, there is no nation like the United States. All of those supposed groups you mention which exist in the Middle East, exist in America...and so many more! The biggest single difference is that almost everyone who comes to America, comes here to be part of a nation where they can enjoy their culture, work hard and achieve success, and not live in constant fear.
One time when my wife and I were visiting our son in San Francisco, we were riding back to his apartment on a bus. There were only about 12 other people on the bus. As we went to take seats, I noticed someone reading a Spanish-language newspaper. Another passenger was reading a Hebrew-language newspaper. Another was reading a newspaper written in Russian. Yet another was reading one written in Chinese. And, indeed, someone had a local San Francisco newspaper written in English. And, they were all getting a long. No riots. No fights. Cultural diversity at its best!
That's America, G-MAN! Love it, or leave it!

I love how you Liberals keep trying to redefine and rewrite. You are desperate propagandists.

Anyone can look at the common mosaic and notice the compositions are largely arranged around two things:

1. Large swathes of one color.
2. Patches of other colors arranged next to each other within the sea of the single color.

That's what works socially. It's called segregation. But you Liberals went batshit insane over it, and you don't tolerate Whites doing it (although it's perfectly fine with you when minorities form neighborhoods).

The works of Jared Taylor and others are getting more notice, and they should. Segregation worked. Diversity doesn't. What's being pushed with the latter is much like the social damage that occurs that we had named the "tragedy of the commons" except this time the commons is our productive culture. Our productive culture can't run on diversity. It needs hard workers who don't spend time in the office and factory floor complaining about privilege and feelings and social justice and all the rest of that stupid sissy crap. And sadly for the nation, it pretty much requires the culture that Whites built, which the diversity pets aren't willing to adopt for the most part.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it, pal. Your sentiments won't last. Your Liberal ideology (essentially a mental illness) has already destroyed its own underpinnings. Take the standard Liberal gun-grabbery... it sure did come as a surprise to Liberals that their diversity pets like the right to keep and bear arms as much as the White majority does. Liberalism has alienated most Americans of any ethnicity on that basis alone. And there's more, much more. So your bitter Liberal tears are our ambrosia.

Sorry that America is so successful. Sorry that gas prices are falling. Sorry that unemployment is going lower. Sorry that America is considered by most to be the best place in the world to invest. Sorry that crime rates are down, including violent crime. Here's some more of those pesky facts that ideologues like you hate so much:

It's so sad for you that things are going so much better here.
Find someplace better, Mr. Empty Glass.
America -- love it or leave it!

America's success has been swamped by a one-two hit of imperialism and socialism, which your class of person (the Golden Class, primarily filled with Boomer Generation unionized retirees) is obtaining full benefits from.

leave it!

"One correction to your comment--I believe you meant to say that Obama is using the strategy of the "Mongrels" not the "Mongols." You're welcome!"

I think the strategy he is using is a variation of the Mongols, i.e. the one used by Mongol-oids.

The President offered few new things in the SOTU.

More talk of taxes. More finger pointing.

It's telling that the one really new idea he proposed "free community college" has been abandoned before January ended.


Someone needs to point the finger. Otherwise, the perpetrators will continue to do stupid stuff. What I really like about BO is that he continues to get the right things done for the people regardless how committed his opponents are to create a Fascist Society.

It's neither what?


A double negative is certainly present in the post MikeyA referenced. Germans don't work well together? I worked with plenty of Germans, and I give them credit for one thing--they didn't threaten to kill some other German every five minutes.

Of course there is Gman.

I repeated back the second way his post could be construed and he got pissed.

Isn't it also funny he says "decided to also give him a Latin name, Buffooneous Idiatosas" and then says "It's neither, you idiot. It's Latonics. The language spoken in the ghettos of Rome." after I tell him it's not Latin.

ZC is not what you'd describe as a smart man.


It shows I am a very witty person.

And that is another reason, in this case, I agree with you 100%. I enjoy reading and replying to posts you write most of the time because they usually don't bore me to death. And someone here is jealous of that. I've mentioned it before. Have you noticed when you pose a question, or I do, that someone almost always butts in without giving either of us a chance to answer? Not only is it EXTREMELY RUDE, but the answers I'm talking about contain tired, questionable statistics, spurious accusations, asinine slogans, and always the writers ongoing bragging about his academic accomplishments, personal resume', and so on and so on and so on. Oh, well!

In spite of the Republicans Obama has done so may things for the United States. The economy is in the best shape it has been in years, he's made great strides in renewing relationships with foreign countries, all Americans have access to affordable health care, the Russians are reeling in confusion, he eliminated Bin Laden,. I could go on and on. He did these things while Republicans were undermining him every step of the way. African Americans have a new phase to describe the way the Republicans treat Obama and treat most Africans the same way. It's called being Obamarized.

I have a feeling you might be on to something here. You should explore it more fully!

If this is what the Russians reeling looks like I'd hate to see what them taking the offensive will look like. Probably like Eastern Europe in 1945.


Thanks for the bait, G-Man. Just recently a Black Man where I work was called the "N" word by a White female employee. Four other employees witnessed the incident and one of the witnesses reported the incident to HR. Instead of disciplining the woman the company told the Black Man he was required to go to sensitivity training or face termination The company for some reason thought the Black Man's response the the woman's insult was unacceptable. The Black Man just walked away when the woman blurted out the epithet. The conclusion by HR. Although the Black Man said nothing or touched her in any way he must have done something to make the woman call him the "N" word. This type of attitude is another example of being Obamarized.

I wonder, is it possible she is part Black herself? Maybe she told HR that. If so, that is why she got herself a free pass.

It seems like the Republicans are not the only ones Obama is outsmarting. By announcing Isis when and where military forces will attack he is giving them three choices. Run like hell, beef up their forces where the attack will take place so that shock and awe will devastate them, or make them unprepared for a devastating attack elsewhere.This tactic reminds of what the allies did before attacking Normandy in 1944. Of course Obama critics don't see this recipe which worked extremely well for the allied evasion at Normandy.

Some who post here are eager to point out Toledo's problems and whine about Toledo's one-party Democratic rule. Of course, this ignores the fact that the last two elected Toledo mayors refused to join either major political party when running for elective office, and that Mayor Bell was active in Republican Governor Sick's push to have SB 1, State Issue 2, become law in a referendum. Be that as it may, I just saw this article on the 10 richest cities in the U.S. I looked up each mayor and found that 9 out of 10 were Democrats.

I have stated before, and I'll state it again, I am not interested in solutions to the problems facing our communities, our state, our nation, or our world, which are for partisan advantage. If Democratic solutions work, that's great. If Republican solutions work, that is equally great. If the solutions come from those who consider themselves to be unaligned with any political party, that's great, too.
What this article makes clear, is that, while all large cities have problems, it is not being led by Democrats which keeps them from being successful. Here are ten very successful U.S. cities, mostly dominated by Democrats: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-richest-cities-u-100124150.html

Correlation does not equal causation. New York would be a rich city regardless of who is mayor. Same with San Francisco, Chicago, and Baltimore. They are important ports and their location and geography drive their wealth. It does not matter who is the mayor.


Some people post here and claim the main reason why Toledo has not been more successful is because of one-party Democratic monopoly leadership. I pointed out that the last 2 mayors, before the untimely death of Mike Collins, ran for public office unaffiliated with either major political party. But, in addition, if a one-party Democratic domination meant the ruination of a city's economic vibrancy, then most cities led by Democrats should be in shambles. That is NOT the case, as we can see.
Once again...I apologize for throwing those nasty facts into the argument with those who prefer vacuous opinions instead.

In addition, Mikey, two of the four cities you cite as your examples -- Chicago and Baltimore -- are not even included on the Top Ten list of richest cities!

My main point is, unlike many who post here, I do not care about ideology. I want solutions which work. There was a time when Republicans wanted to abandon ALL large American cities as not worth saving. I remember VPOTUS Agnew going to a city and being asked if he wanted a tour of the areas of poverty. Agnew stated he did not because, "When you've seen one ghetto, you've seen them all."
Mikey, you're probably too young to remember when NYC was in terrible fiscal crisis. The city asked for help from the federal government. The answer? As the New York Daily News headline put it, "[POTUS Gerald R.] Ford to City: Drop Dead!" Not exactly as you describe it as, "New York would be rich regardless of who is mayor."
The criticisms on this site of New York City are almost unending. NYC is too unionized. NYC pays its workers too much money. NYC's pension plans for public employees are too generous. NYC's taxes are too high. And on and on and on...Yet, NYC is one of America's richest cities. Does NYC have problems? Of course! Have the immediate past two mayors, Giuliani and Bloomberg, (one, a Republican, the other an independent considered to be "liberal"), brought NYC back to vibrancy? YES!!! Did their leadership make a positive difference? YES!!!
Leadership matters, Mikey! It matters A LOT!!!

Didn't New York need a bailout at one time?

Angry White House and G.O.P. Senators Clash Over Letter to Iran. Again, the Republicans are self-destructing. Dozens of Senators are trying to undermine a peace deal. being orchestrated by The White House. In some countries this type of behavior by the Republicans is called treason.

Treaties are ratified by the Senate. If the President doesn't include the Senate in the writing of the treeaty there is precedence that they won't ratify it. It is not treason it is a process of our government that has happened before. Ever wonder why the U.S. never joined the League of Nations?


Treaties are ratified by Congress, but that's not what I'm talking about. The Senate's actions shows disrespect the the POTUS and proclaims to the world that we are weak. The Nazis used the same type of tactic to take over Germany and look what happened. If I were POTUS I would entertain the idea of having the Attorney General issue charges of conspiracy to commit treason against every congress-person who is part of this communication with Iran.

Utilizing a check and balance is not disrespectful nor is it treasonous.

You should write the President and the AG and encourage them to do what you suggest. This administration has gotten slapped down several times already in Federal court for it's overreach into areas that fall under the legislature's power and I don't see that happening any time soon.


I don't have to contact anyone. This behavior on the part of the Republicans has been noticed by the conservative news media. If they think it is treason why can't I?

Since the Republican letter to Iran, 150,000 Americans have signed a petition to issue charges of treason against those who signed the letter. I can't wait to see what happens next. The US Attorney General is going to have a good time with this. The Republicans would rather align themselves with foreign enemies rather than strive for peace.

Go right ahead with charges. They will be thrown out. The letter deals with foreign policy. Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Senate the power to ratify treaties. They have an inherent right to give their opinion.

The only "charges" that can be brought are under the Logan Act. The Logan Act bars unauthorized citizens from dealing in foreign policy. Senators are authorized per the treaty clause.

All the petition does is show that 150k Americans didn't pay attention in their civics class. 150k and one since you seem convinced as well.


It is clear to anyone who is sane that the Republicans have undermined the POTUS and the Constitution. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans try to interfer with the War Powers Act or repeal the Emancipation Proclamation.

The War Powers Act? You mean the one the President ignored to wage war in Libya? That War Powers Act?


negotiations undertaken by the POTUS, whoever that is. The letter is a clear violation of the Logan Act. It fits neatly into the very description on the law. However, the law is vague enough that there have been exactly zero successful prosecutions under the Logan Act. In addition, there is an open question, legally, if a sitting, elected, member of the Legislative Branch, is or is not conducting negotiations with a foreign power, "without authority of the United States." While many legal scholars contend that the Logan Act is meant to allow only the Executive Branch to conduct negotiations, the way the act is written leaves that open-ended enough to have many conclude that ANY federal official may legally engage in negotiations.
Practically speaking, it has long been considered improper for anyone but the POTUS to negotiate with foreign powers. There is a long tradition, and much precedent for this type of non-partisan approach, so that the nation speaks as one voice to foreign leaders. Here is a link to an article which is written by a constitutional scholar, and is pertinent to this discussion: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/03/logan-act/
Here is another article written for a Jacksonville News outlet. It discusses other times when other Presidential Administrations were upset by Members of Congress talking independently with foreign leaders: http://www.news4jax.com/politics/did-47-republican-senators-break-the-la...

Whether or not any or all of these 47 Senators could be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act, it would seem that this action is unprecedented. The letter undermines the authority of the POTUS. It could lead to the feeling by foreign powers that, as much as Americans grouse about the POTUS being too powerful, America, in fact, has no real leader. The action by these U.S. Senators is unpatriotic at best and traitorous at worst. This unprecedented letter underscores the fact that the current leaders of the Legislative Branch care more about making political points than they do about making a very dangerous world a somewhat safer place. The normal way to assure that your views are fully appreciated and understood by the POTUS is to have Congressional leaders discuss the issues directly with the POTUS. The letter circumvents such direct discussions in a manner which could harm future negotiations, on the nuclear issue with Iran, and on Iranian help with the fight against ISIS/ISIL.
None other than John McCain stated that too many of his colleagues, and he, himself, signed on to the letter without giving it the careful deliberation such a letter required. Here's a link to an article containing his statement: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/republicans-surprised-by-iran-lett...
The very idea that such a serious step would be taken without due diligence by the signees, mainly because they wanted to get it signed and get out of town before bad weather struck the capital, indicates the state of our current Congress. Their creature comforts take precedence over an unprecedented foray into an area that has long been considered the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch. And they wonder why average citizens have so little respect for Congress? Really??

The letter only reaffirmed the Senate's constitutional powers. I invite you to read it and point out what line(s) you find to be unpatriotic. I don't personally believe reminding and educating people on Constitutional limitations is unpatriotic or illegal.

Being that any agreement the President makes would be nonbinding it's important to remind all parties of that.

There is definitive precedence for the Senators doing exactly what they did.

Interesting note. The Logan Act was enacted as part of the same legislative session as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which also ran afoul of the Bill of Rights.


a scholarly essay is NOT unpatriotic. Having Congressional leaders speak directly to the POTUS and the Secretary of State about these limits in NOT unpatriotic. Writing a letter underscoring those limitations to a foreign power while delicate negotiations between that foreign power and the government of The United States are ongoing is unprecedented, unpatriotic, and treasonous.
And, as often occurs, you're wrong on the history, Mikey. The acts which together became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts were believed by many to be Unconstitutional, but were never found by the courts to be Unconstitutional. These acts became major issues in the Election of 1800, leading to the defeat of the incumbent POTUS, John Adams by his VPOTUS, Thomas Jefferson. Specific legislation was passed to remove one of the laws. The others were allowed to merely expire over time.
Just because a law in ineffective and was passed by the same Congress which passed other laws of questionable constitutionality, does not make that law a bad law. The Logan Act speaks directly to the type of actions undertaken by these Senators in a hurried, imprudent fashion. This action may turn out to be the same type of political blunder that the Alien and Sedition Acts were. The letter is further evidence that Congress too often acts in direct conflict with the Executive Branch, then blames the POTUS for not being cooperative. Current Republican leaders view of POTUS cooperation is: "We want you to do something, and you show cooperation by doing what we want you to do. Otherwise, you are uncooperative!"

But, not to worry, Mikey. If Lindsey Graham becomes the next POTUS, Congress will act or he'll have soldiers force them to vote his way...sort of like Kim Jong-un, I guess. THAT'S the modern Republican way!

First a portion of the Alien and Sedition act remain in effect and was used during both WWI and WWII. Communist leader Eugene Debs and Japanese Americans were both confined under them.

The letter merely states that without Senate approval any negotiation is nonbinding which Secy Kerry just reaffirmed yesterday. Therein there is no law broken... Unless you think Secy Kerry broke it as well.


The fact that some provisions were resurrected in order to violate the Constitutional rights of some Americans and legal foreigners living here, is proof that the Logan Act may be old, but could still be a basis for prosecution of traitorous activities.

This letter doesn't "merely" state anything. It is injurious to delicate multi-national negotiations -- period! But, I am not an expert on foreign relations, and neither are you, Mikey. Here's an article about someone who is: the Foreign Minister of Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. http://news.yahoo.com/german-fm-hits-republicans-over-iran-letter-150508...
As Minister Steinmeier points out, "This is not an issue of domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva." He went on, "Obviously, mistrust is growing on the Iranian side if we are really serious with the negotiations."

In the world of unintended consequences, these 47 Republican politicians have given great political cover to President Obama. If the negotiations should break down now, for any reason, guess who will get blamed? The world may be a more dangerous place, but the Republicans, while trying to gain a political advantage, may, in fact, have given that advantage to the Democrats. That does not matter to me one wit, Mikey. I want a less dangerous world, and this letter undermines negotiations which could make the world just a little less dangerous.
Yes, Mikey, this letter is unprecedented. Yes, Mikey, this letter is unpatriotic. Yes, Mikey, this letter is treasonous. Yes, Mikey, this letter is a violation of the Logan Act. And most certainly of all, Mikey, it is intended mostly for "domestic politics," and"...it affects negotiations...in Geneva."

You're not old enough to remember the War in Vietnam. I'm sure you've studied it, though. I cannot imagine what would have happened to any elected Member of Congress who would issue this type of letter to Ho Chi Minh or those leaders who succeeded him in North Vietnam while the Nixon Administration was negotiating to end American involvement in that war. As it was hundreds, even thousands, of peaceful protesters were jailed by both LJB and Nixon. These prosecutions and jailings were applauded by almost every conservative American at that time. Some protesters -- and some innocent bystanders -- were even killed while protesting official actions of the government of the United States. Hmmm...

Since you believe this is so unprecedented and unpatriotic you and ZC should encourage the administration to pursue charges. I am quite certain the letter would be found constitutional based upon what I previously posted.

The federal court system post WWII has not supported laws like the Logan Act which use legal means to suppress dissenting political opinion. The Senators have a vested interest in foreign policy and a First Amendment protection. This argument is just smoke and mirrors to detract away from the President's foreign policy bumbles of which there are many.


a retired Major General, Paul D. Eaton. He does not use the word "treason," but he does use the word "mutinous" to describe those who signed "The Letter." Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/13/tom-cott...

Two points where this is wrong.

First you describe MG Eaton as an expert. I don't see how he is an expert on diplomacy. Per his bio I did not see where he served as a FAO (Foreign Advisor Officer), Military attache, or SDO (Senior Defense Official), nor Regional Component Commander (I.e. CentCom, EuroCom, etc). Per his work he does qualify as a security advisor.... but then again so do I and I am just a lowly Captain. The General's background is in training and I believe he's a training expert but I have seen nothing that shows him to be an expert in diplomacy.

The second issue is it is not mutinous. Mutiny is a subversion of the chain of command. Senators do not have a chain of command with the President in it. The Senator Pro Tempore (mostly a ceremonial position) and each respective majority and minority leader and whips are the chain of command. But I did not see where Mitch McConnell told them not to send a letter and they did it anyway.... that would meet the definition of mutinous. Instead the Majority Leader actually signed the letter as well. The Senate is completely independent of the President not subordinate.


for POTUS in 2016, George Pataki. Of course, he is considered a RINO by many of the "true believers" on the far right of the Republican Party, but he was elected three times as the governor of a state which traditionally votes for Democrats. He is being interviewed, and the first question deals with "emailgate" and Hillary. Of course, he excoriates Hillary for not using her separate, State Department email. What astounds me, to some degree, is the naivete of both Hillary and Pataki. It may be partially a function of their age and time of growing up in America. Are any electronic communications really "secure" in the 21st Century? Everyone should be aware that anything they send electronically is open to the scrutiny of anyone who is a good hacker. And nefarious groups hire hackers to break security every minute of every day. They're working right now to break America's most "secure" communications. And, guess what? American-hired hackers are doing the same to foreign powers!

Following his Hillary comments, Pataki is asked if he would do as some other Republican candidates for POTUS in 2016 have done, and endorse the infamous letter from the 47. He says, flatly, "No." Than he adds, "Foreign policy -- negotiations with foreign states -- has to be conducted by the President and his team. We don't have to agree with the decisions. I have grave reservations about the deal which appears to be negotiated with Iran. But, I don't think Congress independently reaches out to another government to express a different standpoint."
Pataki then went on to give a future example, much like the historical example I posted above. He stated, "Just imagine if, come 2017, there's a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. Would Republican candidates, would Republican Senators, want a Democratic Senate sending a letter to a country when the President is in negotiations? I don't think so," concluded, Pataki. And, IMHO, you would be one of the first in line, Mikey, to call those Democratic Senators unpatriotic -- even treasonous -- for taking such an independent action!
Here's a link to a video of the entire interview: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2016-candidate-george-pataki-gop-letter-i...

You give an example of Pataki distancing himself from the letter, and that's his right, yet he was given the opportunity to call it unpatriotic and he didn't.

I find it more telling that for all the complaints I've seen on this site about money being pushed into politics you're more concerned about the free speech of Senators with a vested interest than you are foreign companies breaking ethical laws to win influence on a Secretary of State.


Nice -- Using a left-wing tactic to try to prove your point.
We all know that our politicians are overly influenced by the moneyed classes, but you don't want to get into a battle over which political party is under the greater influence of giant, heartless, unpatriotic corporations, Mikey. You really don't!

I don't expect foreign companies to be patriotic.

Additionally, I don't need to prove anything. The fact that the Clinton Foundation took foreign corporations donations while she was Sec of State is ethically wrong. Period. Secy Clinton benefits financially from the Clinton Foundation. This is not the first time the Clinton's have used foreign money to campaign. It happened throughout the 90's and again in 2007.

Isn't it convenient that any correspondence with those corporations while she was Secretary would have been kept in her private email... that she already admitted she destroyed.


Everyone must remind themselves that MickeyA may not be capable of understanding anything above the third grade level.

If your ideas are so superior to Mikey's; if your intellect is so superior to Mikey's; those reading here will recognize that. My experience has taught me that people make personal attacks most often when they feel that they are losing the arguments based upon the facts presented by both sides. I almost always agree with your positions on the issues. I urge you to stick to the issues and not to get personal.
Mikey has had a problem in the past stooping to personal attacks. He seems to have cleaned up his act in this regard. I disagree with Mikey often; however, I do not find him to be intellectually challenged. I do find him to be far too ideological. And, IMHO, Mikey too often filters every political position through his ideological sieve.
As I stated above, I do not equate someone disagreeing with me politically with being mentally deficient or having some mental disability.

Well in this thread I have proven myself capable of understanding an 8th grade civics lesson and a 12th grade history lesson. So your characterization of me has already been proven incorrect.

If you feel my quotations from history and my reading of the constitution is wrong please give an argument or example and be prepared to back it up with a citation.

Dale, I appreciate your defense of me and our mutual respect. ZC's personal attacks do not bother me because they are as hollow as the "facts" he presents.

In the past I have attacked people personally only when I felt they crossed a line either in their discussion of this community or their treatment of people in the community. I will continue to do so where ever I feel it is warranted. I reserve this for extreme circumstances but when those circumstances are met I hold very little back. Like the many Marines I serve with I am no better friend and no worse enemy.

I would even defend ZC if there was an attack on him that I felt crossed the line. I would not dare hesitate if someone were to disrupt his anonymity, DDos, or attempt at "brigade-ing" him, just to give some examples where I've resorted to personal attacks.


for the American economy. It appears unlikely that petroleum prices will be rising significantly any time soon. Of course, international crises could change this scenario almost instantly, which you would love, Mr. Empty Glass, but probably only for a short time. At least short to medium term prospects are that current or even lower oil prices are a much more likely occurrence than are sharply higher oil prices. It's simply supply and demand. World demand is down somewhat, and supply is up significantly.

I know that this does not fit neatly into your "sky is falling" beliefs, Mr. Empty Glass, but there are actual facts which lead to the logical conclusion that relatively cheap oil is staying around for a while. And a further collapse in oil prices appears to be somewhat more likely than any increase which could damage our economy.

I apologize to you for using facts, and doing research so that I can link to articles which support my opinions. I also apologize to other ideologues who prefer to argue in a world of vacuous opinion rather than opinions anchored in factual evidence. At least one of these right-wing ideologues is openly complaining right on this site that I am too academically oriented in my posts. As Chris will inform you, that is the basis of my [and his] training. Facts often get in the way of vacuous opinion. I am so sorry!

Dale, your ideology can't overcome the physical facts about petroleum. We call them "fossil fuels" for a reason. There's only so much in the ground, the rate of replenishment is about 1 million times slower than Human exploitation of it, and of that essentially fixed supply, a much smaller amount can be economically exploited to support our imperial apparatus, and finally a much much smaller amount than that can support the wastrel American lifestyle.

Your dishonesty will not fare well in the history books. The Western imperial powers have continued to assault the Middle East to steal its oil, hence the price and supply points continue to move in Western favor. But it must come to an end. And given the exploitation curves, it's going to have significant effects within our lifetimes. And what happens to 'our' children (generationally speaking) will be worse. And for their children, even worse. There's no replacement for the physical and economic impact of petroleum's unique combination of cheapness, energy density and extreme practicality. The closest energy source to that is (ta daa!) natural gas, which is just another fossil fuel. And behind that is (voila!) yet another fossil fuel, coal. After that by a significant distance, you might have nuclear power. However, that can't be made cheap and practical, despite the enormous energy density of the supply of nuclear fuel. A civilization that has depleted its fossil fuels and then tries to rely on a melange of nuclear, hydro and solar/wind sourcing can't by any rational means support our wasteful travel habits, supply lines and frankly porous wooden housing stock.

Your problem, Dale, is that you can't in any fashion point to learned articles that relate the real future of exploitation of fossil fuels. All you do is point out short-term price variations. But I'm going to be around for 40 more years, and I can clearly see from the curves of FFE that this heat-generating party is coming to a very real end. Oil-discovery rates in the world peaked in the 1960s, when I was born. The end is coming. Oil will continue to be available, of course, since as usage collapses, governments will continue to make use of it. After all, the recent news item of the DoD paying a huge per-gallon cost for alternative jet fuel, emphasizes the point that energy elitism will greatly narrow in the world:


to see the truth. Yes. There is a finite limit to the amount of fossil fuels which are available. However, the world is developing more and more sources of these fossil fuels than was ever perceived decades ago when all of the dire predictions of imminent fuel shortages were predicted. Get with the times, GZ.
Secondly, your example of ONE extremely expensive "green" fuel is just silly. Anyone with a modicum of economic training knows that costs of producing anything plummet when that item is mass produced. And there are so many other "green" fuels than just this ONE!

The truth is, you have been predicting the collapse of our economic system since I have been reading your posts, and that's years now; especially when we were suffering through The Great Recession. You have been predicting that Americans and others who live in developed societies must get used to a MUCH lower standard of living, instead of those in the less developed countries raising their standards of living. How's that working out, Mr Empty Glass?

Unlike you, I have faith in the ability of people to find solutions, even to complex problems. You prefer to wallow in despair. This is not a matter of "ideology." It's a matter of [*WARNING WARNING* This might be a scary term for you, Mr. Empty Glass.] OPTIMISM!

"However, the world is developing more and more sources of these fossil fuels than was ever perceived decades ago when all of the dire predictions of imminent fuel shortages were predicted."

I said already that world oil discoveries PEAKED in the 1960s. Ever since it's been an environment of diminishing returns. You have an ideological barrier to realizing the truth, much less admitting it.

Like many Westerners you often confuse technology with energy itself. Further education can't help you, since your barrier to understanding is ideological, not educational.

descriptive label...doubting the intelligence and ingenuity of human beings.
More, "The sky is falling. The sky is falling," from Mr. Empty Glass. DUH!

prices for the overall economy. Of course, this news is negative for many western states with traditional oil reserves, and those with oil which can be extracted only with the more expensive fracking process. But most of us will benefit greatly from lower oil prices. Here's the latest article:

Once again, I apologize for bringing in those nasty facts to an argument which you would rather battle by using vacuous, often woefully outdated, opinions, Mr. Empty Glass.

That world oil discoveries PEAKED in the 1960s isn't an opinion. It's an inconvenient fact about a future for your culture that you're afraid will arrive. But don't worry. You made it. It sounds like you've already reached retirement age, meaning you'll die in the same sort of lifestyle that you lived. Sadly the generations that follow you can't have the same. But when did you ever care about them? Your militant Liberalism is an irrefutable indication that you never cared for anyone but yourself.

It will just take while!
Right, Mr. Empty Glass?

GZ, this "type" has always thought only of themselves! Always have, and always will!

You keep referring to this "peak" of oil discovery in the 1960s. You have fallen victim to a common urban legend.
Without belaboring the point, additional "discoveries" include additions to the oil fields first developed in the 1960s and is added to those 1960s figures, years or even decades after the oil fields were initially discovered. The article to which I am linking, was written for that far-left magazine "Forbes," so you may discount it as liberal propaganda if you wish. Of course, you may actually want to read it and become more well versed on this topic. But, I caution you, Mr. Empty Glass, you may find that the author is far too optimistic about the future of world energy sources from fossil fuels. Here's the article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2014/07/07/peak-oil-4-the-urban...

And I still contend that you also underestimate the intelligence and creative talents of human beings. Neanderthals once underestimated Homo sapiens, you know. Don't ever bet against human ingenuity!

Some day, in the distant future, the sun will expand into a red giant star and envelop all of the inner planets. It will be your dream come true, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass. Too bad you won't be around to relish in the destruction of our planet, and say, "See! I told you so!"

World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s. That hardly meant that oil discoveries have stopped. Like most Liberals you have a problem with math, particularly math that reaches conclusions that oppose your selfish and wacky ideology.

All systems of exploitation are subject to a law of nature called "diminishing returns". True, the system must first ramp up production. Depending on which resource is being exploited, that can indeed take some time. But for something like petroleum, where the need was great and the extraction technology wasn't hard to develop (the first industrial oil wells were drilled by men who had been drilling water wells before), maximums were reached fairly quickly. In fact, it happened so fast that it only took a few decades before Hubbert noticed a trend already in the data, and he simply extrapolated, and found Peak Oil.

So world oil discoveries peaked about a decade after Hubbert's revelation. And they've trended downward ever since. It's a matter of the first derivative of the issue, not the issue itself. We'll keep discovering oil for the next 100 years, easy. But each find will be smaller on average than the finds of the decade before, and each find will be noticeably more costly to exploit than the finds just a decade before. That's diminishing returns.

Now we're so desperate for stuff like natural gas (the 2nd of the unholy trinity of fossil fuels) that we're actually fracking for the stuff. The effort to frack the average fracked NG well is phenomenal. If you told some gas-driller or -pumper in 1975 what we'd do to pull NG out of wells today, he'd probably guffaw. And it's even worse... fracked wells dip production significantly faster than unfracked wells.

Do you get it yet, you Boomer piece of garbage? It's called "diminishing returns" and it rules us about as strongly as any physical law. Resources are finite, and in fact tend to be in fairly limited supply. And the stuff that's easiest to extract, tends to be extracted FIRST. Over time, finds get harder and harder, and that only means more and more expensive.

Today, we commonly pump out oil wells with such high water fractions that the oil men of the 1930s would have fallen off their stools in laughter if they had seen us doing it. But we've no choice... high fractions of water or not, there's still oil in the liquid that comes out, and we're too desperate for it. After all, 99.9% of everything that moves in our nation, only moves because a petroleum distillate is tapped to energize its motion. We're trapped by oil... much like you're trapped by your generational arrogance and stupidity, Dale.

Human beings will adapt. We have decades, perhaps a century or more, to further develop alternatives to fossil based fuels. With your extensive background in energy development, you surmise that alternative energy can never replace fossil fuels. Let's compare your background to that of the man who wrote the article I cited. His name is Michael Lynch. You can read his bio by clicking on it under his name and picture. I'll let those who read here decide which of you has a better background to assess the state of energy use in the world today and in the foreseeable future. With every one of your posts on this topic, you further reinforce my labeling of you as Mr. Empty Glass.
When you refer to the old timers laughing at our current means of extracting oil and gas, they would be doing so because the technology of their times would not permit such extraction to be practicable. Among other things, Mr. Empty Glass, you live in the past. If we all just went back to horses and oxen, we would have no energy problem to worry about! Your dream, huh?
You are like a Neanderthal in your failure to have faith in your fellow Homo sapiens. I believe in the intelligence and creativity of people.

"Human beings will adapt."

You know, that's right. You will have to adapt, just like Toledoans have had to adapt to "doing less with less"... which is why our roads suck, our housing stock sucks, our cars suck, and people are behind on many bills. You adapt to the depletion of cheap energy sources, by making use of less energy. That means slimmer supply chains. Smaller cars. (OH HORROR!) Colder homes. Less capital formation. Less economic activity. (Sound familiar? It's Toledo.)

Oh wait, that's not what you meant. You meant Humans would pull some magic fuel source out of the ass of the universe.

"With your extensive background in energy development, you surmise that alternative energy can never replace fossil fuels."

That's because any citizen with basic education can conclude that. So tell me, what's YOUR "extensive background in energy development" that permits you to conclude that there's always some magic fuel source out there to discover? Especially since no drilling has found a fossil fuel source other than petroleum, natural gas and coal?

The bizarre thing about you, Dale, and in fact about much of your culture, is that you demand people become educated, but you throw a tantrum when people make use of facts and logic (the core elements of education) to conclude things that go against your ideology and economic needs.

"Alternative energy" in the world is merely a term for desperately coping with the advancing depletion of cheap fossil fuels. It's driven by desperation, and it will get the harsh wage that all desperation earns.

negativity...proving that my labeling of you is accurate. Thank you!

I was NOT comparing your knowledge of energy to mine. I was comparing your knowledge of energy to THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE I CITED. I am an expert on little. That's why, unlike you, who believes himself to be an expert on everything upon which he comments, I often cite experts in their respective fields. Once again, this expert's name is Michael Lynch. Look him up. He has both a strong educational background, and practical experience in the field.

Yes. Education is a good thing. It sure beats ignorance!

"I am an expert on little."

That's a great straight line, but there's a more serious point that needs to be made: Any citizen can read a few sources, and then make use of basic physics and geology education, to conclude that fossil fuels, particularly petroleum, represent Peak Energy for Humanity. Nothing beats petroleum, natural gas and to some extent coal, for their economic impact, meaning the combination of three critical factors: Dirt cheap, energy dense, and extremely practical. Nuclear energy with its phenomenal energy density, doesn't even come close, when you must consider all three factors used at once. Hydroelectric sources are good, but are highly limited. And then we're in the vast desert of suck-ass energy sources, like wind, solar, tidal and hydrothermal.

The. End. That's what physics and geology say.

Your "source" can't possibly know about some future energy source that replaces petroleum, since there's nothing in the evidence and in the science that supports that. So he's probably another Boomer nutjob like you, Dale, opining about energy purely from the standpoint of his ideology and selfish need. You Boomers can't talk a cheap liquid fuel into your stupid SUV tanks. The time of talking is over. That's why World War Three already started in the Middle East, and why that war will never end (at least not within our lifetimes), and it's why we desperately frack wells now to extract their natural gas, etc. Desperation is now paying the predicted, awful wage... just like I said.

Once again, you do not have academic credentials. You do not have practical experience in the energy field. You read a little, and you believe that you are an expert. I cited an expert. He has both excellent academic credentials AND practical experience in the field, but according to you, "Any citizen can read a few sources, and then make use of basic physics and geology education, to conclude that fossil fuels, particularly petroleum, represent Peak Energy for Humanity."
Here's a citation which fits your post to a tee! As Alexander Pope stated back in 1709, and it is still true today, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain; and drinking largely sobers us again."

My expert source drank deeply from the Pierian spring of knowledge about energy. I suggest you do the same, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass. Otherwise, all that springs from you is vacuous opinion.

As with most Boomers, you're tripping over your ideology in your undue haste to make biased sense.

If YOU can read experts, then how is MY reading of experts invalid?

The answer is that my conclusions violate your self-interested, Boomer ideology, which requires cheap energy to sustain its civilization.

The fact is, no expert worth his name, can claim there's an infinite amount of petroleum. All resources deplete, as the highest-quality stuff is exploited first. Soon enough the best wine is consumed, and so when you descend to the cellar as time goes on, you're forced to tap more vinegary stuff. If there's a crowd of people behind you, screaming for wine, any wine, then the price will be bid up until most people are priced out.

I can't help that Boomer twats like yourself can pull some 'expert' out of the infosphere to support your maddened self interests. You can always find some compromised official to support an erring position. But the bulk of the material supporting petroleum geology is clear: There's only so much petroleum, at certain qualities, at certain exploitable locations. And we already sucked out and burned the best 1 trillion barrels.

Unlike you, I hardly speak from a position of ideology. I'd greatly prefer that cheap liquid fuels continue to be available for our civilization. That's my self interest. But that's not what the facts say. The facts say that this Oil Ride is coming to an end. Arguably, compared to the 1960s, the ride is already over, which is why places like Toledo will never recover. There are no known energy sources that can fuel and fund such a recovery. Cheap energy was the basis of American capital formation; we can never repeat that achievement.

Mr. Empty Glass: No credentials; no practical experience; keep arguing with experts I happen to find. Whine, whine, whine! "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Maybe a better aka for you would be Chicken Little...hmmm.

Your greatest failure is your unwillingness to accept that human beings are extremely intelligent, talented, creative, and adaptable. I'm sure that many people in the 18th Century thought that nothing could replace animal power for energy. It was cheap, renewable, and "modern" husbandry made the animals stronger and more efficient.

But, that's all right, GZ aka Chicken Little. You just keep underestimating the abilities of other human beings. And keep belittling the advantages of education and the advances made because of education. It must be of some comfort to you.

"Your greatest failure is your unwillingness to accept that human beings are extremely intelligent, talented, creative, and adaptable."

None of that can actually create energy. How many times do you have to be told, Boomer? Oh wait, you're ideologically unable to accept the truth.

I can't wait for your generation to die the fuck off so we can flush your generational stupidity from the world.

You can't refute the expert's article, so you just come back with, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Isn't it about time to feed your horse?

Can I get a resounding AMEN from the members for GZ hitting that one out of the park!!!

Amen, for hitting that one over a ten foot fence.

I am more convinced than ever B.O. has outsmarted the Republicans. If nothing else he has forced them to come out of their racist closets and definitely reveal who they really are. It won't be long that a significant number of disenfranchised people will have a much greater influence in the Republican Party and its ideology will move toward sanity.

Good luck with that. The Presidents agenda is not moving. He's routinely getting blocked and beaten in the court system. And whoever gets the Dem nomination will have to answer to his policies IF they don't outright run away from them.


What do you expect.? The court system is mostly the insane Republicans.


LOL, federal judges are appointed by the President. In the last 20 years of judge appointments have been by a majority Democratic Presidents. But keep on telling yourself that.


Where are your citations?


By appointment, not by the stated alignment of the judge:

SCOTUS: Rep 5, Dem 4
Courts of appeals (all circuits): Rep 76, Dem 95, Vacant 8

The federal court system doesn't seem dominated by Republicans if these numbers are any indication, then again, Liberals would feel that having a near-50/50 split is "too many Republicans" anyway. Right? Of course right.

LOL too funny.

GZ got here before me. Hence he provided the citations.

Apparently ZC does not believe that in the last 20 years the Presidency has been held by a Democrat. Either that or he doesn't understand how our government works.

Both are plausible.

Just because it wasn't cited for you ZC, here is my proof that in the last 20 years the Dems have been the appointing authority in the majority of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

So there you go. I'm not afraid to cite things. Care to go back and cite for me your "Latin dialect"?


I have lived through 12 Presidents. During the times we had a President who was a Democrat times were abundant for the middle class. During the times Republicans were President times were bad for the middle class. During George W. Bush's reign of stupidity my personal wealth plummeted 50%. During the Obama Administration my personal wealth has rebounded.

This post has nothing to do with "courts being ruled by insane Republicans" which was proven false.

Face it, the President can't negiotiate. He proved that with Republicans and is proving it with Iran. So the only way he can govern is through force and edict. The Dem controlled courts are undoing it. Unless he changes strategy he will be left with his legacy being an unpopular law that will most likely be undone under the next GOP President.


Hopefully there will be no GOP Presidents until the GOP begins to represent all the American people, not just the 1%. The President can't negotiate? Isn't that what the GOP is upset about. Past Presidents ran the country, but with Obama the GOP thinks they should run the country. Sounds like White entitlement to me.

"Hopefully there will be no GOP Presidents until the GOP begins to represent all the American people, not just the 1%."

Then how do you explain that the Congress is now majority rightwing, a majority of state legislatures are rightwing, and a majority of governors are rightwing? How did the 1% manage to pull that off?

The truth is that for all their faults, the rightwing is rightfully appealing to the American public... because the leftwing is such a horror, and refuses to admit it's a horror. The leftwing is a gungrabbing pack of heavy taxers. Rational people don't want that.

My explanation: Voter fraud. Who do you think manufactures voting machines?

Big Business.

Also let's not forget right wing voters who think Jesus was a Scandinavian and mysteriously showed in Palistine to be crucified.

"Nobody denigrates democracy faster than a Democrat who loses elections."
-- me, 2015

This post makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.