EPTbut yea in terms of funding particular road maintenance and upgrades that already take up existing land and traffic flow, it could be nice to have private capital and management.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1441
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but yea in terms of funding particular road maintenance and upgrades that already take up existing land and traffic flow, it could be nice to have private capital and management. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
The private contractor is footing most of the bill for the expansion of the highway and renovation of the overpasses. Wait "most"? Who's paying the rest? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
TheMusiC
United States1054 Posts
On November 20 2014 07:15 Wolfstan wrote: A couple reasons. It's easier to upgrade existing refineries. The capital required to build new refining capacity doesn't jive from a risk/reward standpoint, thus it would have to come from public funds as private capital isn't interested. Distribution is too hard as Canadian consumption can't satisfy refined supply. Gulf of Mexico refineries are much closer to end user. Nailed it. The oil flows to where the demand is, and it requires a specific refinery configuration in order to process the type of oil that comes from western Canada. Plus the east/gulf coasts have more options for shipping/exporting. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
When you think of a navigable water, you think of the Mississippi or the Potomac River not a ditch or a puddle. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a different viewpoint and is attempting to burden major parts of our nation’s economy including our farmers, realtors, engineers, builders, manufacturers, foresters, and even golf and tourism professionals with intense regulations and stipulations. Daily CallerIn April, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule called the “Definition of Waters of the U.S.” This 80-page proposal has a laudable intent of protecting small streams and wetlands from the risk of pollution. However, the unintended consequences of the rule would greatly expand the scope and limitless definition of “Waters of the U.S.” This expansion would bring many roadside ditches, small ponds on family farms, water features on golf courses, and storm water systems under extremely burdensome federal regulation. The results of this rule would be devastating. Farmers, foresters, contractors, and even golf course superintendents would be subject to additional regulation and even federal permits. For example, road project mitigation costs alone could range from $180,000 to $2.8 million or fines of $37,000 per day. This draconian measure would impose financial hardship and bureaucratic headaches on property owners, county governments, farmers, developers and small businesses. One of my biggest concerns with this proposed rule as South Carolina’s Attorney General is that unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and the Army Corps have virtually no limitations on what they can determine to be “navigable waters.” This is why numerous South Carolinians have shared their fears about this new rule with me. They have reason to fear that a ditch which hasn’t held standing water in years could now meet the criteria. Bonus points to those of you that know who heads the EPA without looking it up. She of course couldn't be more surprised. When there isn't a legitimate law to forward goals, the EPA seizes the smallest bit of rationale to appropriate legislative power for themselves. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
I feel like Ted Cruz is the most likely? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 21 2014 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote: So who's going to be the first Republican to try to do a rebuttal to Obama's EA announcement? I feel like Ted Cruz is the most likely? Please tell me there's going to be a The Sims: Obama DLC  | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On November 21 2014 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote: So who's going to be the first Republican to try to do a rebuttal to Obama's 'Executive Action' announcement? ;P I feel like Ted Cruz is the most likely? You already missed it. Well, at least you missed one. Sen. Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor Thursday to deliver a slightly changed version of a very old speech as a form of protest against President Obama's planned executive action on immigration. The Texas Republican, in a four-minute address, gave a gently edited version of Cicero's first oration against Cataline. Obama was substituted for Cataline, the U.S./Mexico border was swapped in for the Palatine Hill, "women" was added to references to men, "pen and phone" made an appearance, "execution" was changed to "defeat" and the IRS scandal showed up near the end. Source | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
On November 21 2014 07:36 Introvert wrote: You already missed it. Well, at least you missed one. Source lol. going full Cicero vs. Cataline in a speech. talking about hyperbole ~ | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14128 Posts
Ted cruz is no cicero and obama is no cataline, Cicero was the elected leader of the republic and cataline was the one that lost the election. If anything it would be more appropriate if the roles were reversed but its a pretty brilliant way to accuse the president of subverting the legislative process because he doesn't have the votes. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
On November 21 2014 08:14 Sermokala wrote: I have to hand it to whoever thought up that move by him. Its about cicero exposing a plot by cataline to organize an army to kill much of the senate and shroud it in a made up insurrection making cataline a hero of the republic and a shoe in to win the majority of the new senate. Ted cruz is no cicero and obama is no cataline, Cicero was the elected leader of the republic and cataline was the one that lost the election. If anything it would be more appropriate if the roles were reversed but its a pretty brilliant way to accuse the president of subverting the legislative process because he doesn't have the votes. no. first part is correct but it's one of 4 speeches against Cataline, who plotted to kill Cicero and subvert the republic. Making it about subverting the legislative process is mental gymnastics of the highest level. who would have thought that having to translate latin in school would pay off one day :p //edit: I mean Obama is the conspirator and tyrant in chief using powers given to him by the consitution. wait what? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
On November 21 2014 07:36 Introvert wrote: You already missed it. Well, at least you missed one. Source That just looked like bad stagecraft... I guess you could call that a prebuttal though? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On November 21 2014 08:19 Doublemint wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 21 2014 08:14 Sermokala wrote: I have to hand it to whoever thought up that move by him. Its about cicero exposing a plot by cataline to organize an army to kill much of the senate and shroud it in a made up insurrection making cataline a hero of the republic and a shoe in to win the majority of the new senate. Ted cruz is no cicero and obama is no cataline, Cicero was the elected leader of the republic and cataline was the one that lost the election. If anything it would be more appropriate if the roles were reversed but its a pretty brilliant way to accuse the president of subverting the legislative process because he doesn't have the votes. no. first part is correct but it's one of 4 speeches against Cataline, who plotted to kill Cicero and subvert the republic. Making it about subverting the legislative process is mental gymnastics of the highest level. who would have thought that having to translate latin in school would pay off one day :p //edit: I mean Obama is the conspirator and tyrant in chief using powers given to him by the consitution. wait what? This is the part that's wrong. At least IMO. Liberals will justify any new type of action if they like it, but to be consistent, one must acknowledge that granting some sort of legal status out of thin air isn't exactly part of the democratic process. Just months ago the president and liberal columnists were saying "no executive action, you can't do it!" but when it failed to pass through the legislature Obama decided to get started on his own. For instance, they've just invented some strange wording and say it's "temporary" which actually means "permanent" because every time it is about to expire it will be extended by the same fiat that created it in the first place. And that's just one aspect. Constitutionally his job is to enforce the laws, not come up with ways around it. Remember when the liberal got all angry at Bush's signing statements? Congress really should defund any actions taken in pursuit of these orders. If they have any guts. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22373 Posts
On November 21 2014 08:31 Introvert wrote: This is the part that's wrong. At least IMO. Liberals will justify any new type of action if they like it, but to be consistent, one must acknowledge that granting some sort of legal status out of thin air isn't exactly part of the democratic process. Just months ago the president and liberal columnists were saying "no executive action, you can't do it!" but when it failed to pass through the legislature Obama decided to get started on his own. For instance, they've just invented some strange wording and say it's "temporary" which actually means "permanent" because every time it is about to expire it will be extended by the same fiat that created it in the first place. And that's just one aspect. Constitutionally his job is to enforce the laws, not come up with ways around it. Remember when the liberal got all angry at Bush's signing statements? Congress really should defund any actions taken in pursuit of these orders. If they have any guts. It can also not be forgotten that this is for a large part happening because Congress isn't doing its job. There would be a whole lot more support for action against these Executive Actions if he was undermining the democratic process and not just doing the job of Congress because their to busy throwing shit at each other. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
Obama already knows he is too late anyway, Reps already got the majorities in the house and senate when the new chambers are constituted. now or never to take action. my guess is just more cock blocking and drama/hyperbole. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4951 Posts
On November 21 2014 08:39 Gorsameth wrote: It can also not be forgotten that this is for a large part happening because Congress isn't doing its job. There would be a whole lot more support for action against these Executive Actions if he was undermining the democratic process and not just doing the job of Congress because their to busy throwing shit at each other. About half of all Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's incoming executive action on immigration despite agreeing with Obama on principle, according to a recent poll. Nearly six in 10 Americans support creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., but just 38% approve of the President's plans to use his executive power to act on immigration, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Wednesday. Another 14% said they were unsure about or had no opinion on Obama's planned executive action on immigration. Source Besides being flat out wrong, Obama himself admitted this wasn't a good reason. But I'm fascinated by this idea that if the legislature doesn't pass a law, then the president is free to act anyway. Why even have a Congress? Focusing resources isn't the same as a legal status. Just seems to me to be slight of hand. You have to remember that just a year or less ago that there were many liberals opposed to the idea of EA. They all changed their tune as soon as it became obvious that it wasn't going anywhere in Congress. Just one example + Show Spoiler + And we have a system right now that allows the best and the brightest to come study in America and then tells them to leave, set up the next great company someplace else. We have a system that tolerates immigrants and businesses that breaks the rules and punishes those that follow the rules. We have a system that separates families, and punishes innocent young people for their parents’ actions by denying them the chance to earn an education or contribute to our economy or serve in our military. These are the laws on the books. Now, I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books, but that doesn't mean I don't know very well the real pain and heartbreak that deportations cause. I share your concerns and I understand them. And I promise you, we are responding to your concerns and working every day to make sure we are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. (Applause.) And believe me, right now dealing with Congress -- AUDIENCE: Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! THE PRESIDENT: Believe me -- believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. (Laughter.) But that's not how -- that's not how our system works. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it! THE PRESIDENT: That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written. So let’s be honest. I need a dance partner here -- and the floor is empty. (Laughter.) http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/remarks-president-national-council-la-raza But I guess I'll stop trying. No point in trying to convince a liberal that executive power needs containment. There's always a reason that this or that particular action is justified. It's actually just like Obamacare! if you torture the wording and the logic enough, something that's never been done before fits right into the "normal" mode of operation! On November 21 2014 08:58 Doublemint wrote: yes the world is black and white. libtards are the devil. the world(view) is at peace. I didn't say that and I've never said that. This is probably the most times I've used the word "liberal" on the same day. It just works here because of the opposition that used to exist from places like the Washington Post. Obama himself ran on reining in the Executive Branch. So much for that. Edit: Actually, speaking of The Washington Post.... Edit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/ Final edit: It might be technically legal (perhaps, though I don't think so), but to call it "normal" is entirely wrong. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8745 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14128 Posts
On November 21 2014 08:19 Doublemint wrote: no. first part is correct but it's one of 4 speeches against Cataline, who plotted to kill Cicero and subvert the republic. Making it about subverting the legislative process is mental gymnastics of the highest level. who would have thought that having to translate latin in school would pay off one day :p //edit: I mean Obama is the conspirator and tyrant in chief using powers given to him by the consitution. wait what? Well the election was done by the senate who legislated the office of consol which cicero and cataline were fighting over. Hes using powers given to him by the constitution but hes subverting the checks and balances that are the core of the constitution by useing his executive order power to make laws. | ||
| ||
