|
On October 05 2011 06:55 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 06:50 xDaunt wrote:
There's a difference between Congress passing laws that subsidize an entire industry and the president subsidizing one company who apparently is a major donor of his -- particularly where there are ample warning signs that the company is in big financial trouble and makes for an incredibly poor investment. Those are kind of outrageous claims. It was the DoE that provided the actual funding at the end of the day, and the link to George Kaiser is weak at best. The problem is they doubled-down on an already bad gamble, thinking the best solution to Solyndra's existing financial problems (thus improve the chances of taxpayers getting their loan back) would be to throw more money at them.
Yes, the claims are outrageous. However, that's what's being alleged by a lot of people and that's why this is a big story. It reeks of corruption.
Think about it. How does a company go out of business within a year of receiving $500 million in DoE grants/loans? How exactly does the lender (in this case, the Obama administration) "miss" any of the warning signs that would suggest that Solyndra is a bad company in which to invest -- especially when the Bush administration refused to loan money to Solyndra under the same program because of concerns about Solyndra's viability? I don't really see where the middle ground is between the Obama administration being corrupt or the Obama administration being grossly incompetent.
|
On October 05 2011 07:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 06:55 Bibdy wrote:On October 05 2011 06:50 xDaunt wrote:
There's a difference between Congress passing laws that subsidize an entire industry and the president subsidizing one company who apparently is a major donor of his -- particularly where there are ample warning signs that the company is in big financial trouble and makes for an incredibly poor investment. Those are kind of outrageous claims. It was the DoE that provided the actual funding at the end of the day, and the link to George Kaiser is weak at best. The problem is they doubled-down on an already bad gamble, thinking the best solution to Solyndra's existing financial problems (thus improve the chances of taxpayers getting their loan back) would be to throw more money at them. Yes, the claims are outrageous. However, that's what's being alleged by a lot of people and that's why this is a big story. It reeks of corruption. Think about it. How does a company go out of business within a year of receiving $500 million in DoE grants/loans? How exactly does the lender (in this case, the Obama administration) "miss" any of the warning signs that would suggest that Solyndra is a bad company in which to invest -- especially when the Bush administration refused to loan money to Solyndra under the same program because of concerns about Solyndra's viability? I don't really see where the middle ground is between the Obama administration being corrupt or the Obama administration being grossly incompetent.
It just goes to show you that badly-run companies will be just as badly-run when they have more money in their hands. It's politics and they just plain fucked up. I'm sure Obama and the Democrats had a hand in where the money would go (though, it's DoE funding - where else WOULD it go but Green companies these days?), since running a Green campaign and having a successful Green business story to show off in the next election would have been awesome for them. They took a gamble to funnel more money into them, in order to keep them solvent, but it wasn't enough. They took the risk and now they're paying the price for it, with millions in taxpayer dollars lost and a downright embarrassing tale to tell that their opponents will jump all over.
Of course its incompetence. This is the government we're talking about. I don't disagree that it was a braindead decision, I just think we should be honest about it.
|
I've been a fan of Cain for awhile now, but he lost a lot of momentum at the end of the summer, coupled with the weakness of his position to begin with (No political connections for fundraising/support, etc) I thought he was completely out of the race.
I like Perry fine, but his poor performance in the debates led me to question my stance, even though I feel he held up at a respectable level in a general sense, he should have done better. I like and respect Paul, but can never support him for President for various reasons. Bachmann never really impressed me, and I dislike Santorum, his personality grates in my opinion, beside me disagreeing on some of his stances. Romney is the best talker/politician, but he's a damned chameleon when it comes to policy and I'd rather have an honest fool than a clever liar in office. (At least I know what ends the fool is working towards.)
So, I'm back to Cain as my candidate as the field stands now. His policies appeal to me, and he isn't too establishment (Comparatively, Kansas Fed chief and older political runs aside) which I feel is a benefit at this point. His recent comments about Perry and his ranch sign disappointed me, I wish he had taken a different tact, or not mentioned it at all. (Seems like a cheap political gain...which I hate). But overall he might just be the best candidate for the country at this point. Real elections will be in the House and Senate regardless, so I'm looking forward to those in a more long-term sense.
|
On October 05 2011 07:28 Warsaurus wrote:
I've been a fan of Cain for awhile now, but he lost a lot of momentum at the end of the summer, coupled with the weakness of his position to begin with (No political connections for fundraising/support, etc) I thought he was completely out of the race.
I like Perry fine, but his poor performance in the debates led me to question my stance, even though I feel he held up at a respectable level in a general sense, he should have done better. I like and respect Paul, but can never support him for President for various reasons. Bachmann never really impressed me, and I dislike Santorum, his personality grates in my opinion, beside me disagreeing on some of his stances. Romney is the best talker/politician, but he's a damned chameleon when it comes to policy and I'd rather have an honest fool than a clever liar in office. (At least I know what ends the fool is working towards.)
So, I'm back to Cain as my candidate as the field stands now. His policies appeal to me, and he isn't too establishment (Comparatively, Kansas Fed chief and older political runs aside) which I feel is a benefit at this point. His recent comments about Perry and his ranch sign disappointed me, I wish he had taken a different tact, or not mentioned it at all. (Seems like a cheap political gain...which I hate). But overall he might just be the best candidate for the country at this point. Real elections will be in the House and Senate regardless, so I'm looking forward to those in a more long-term sense.
I'm basically in the same boat. I've always liked Cain the most, but I never really considered him to be a serious candidate because I did not think that he had a chance to win. Now, it looks like he does have a chance to win, so he's the guy that I support.
|
You support blatant bigots?
|
On October 05 2011 07:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 06:55 Bibdy wrote:On October 05 2011 06:50 xDaunt wrote:
There's a difference between Congress passing laws that subsidize an entire industry and the president subsidizing one company who apparently is a major donor of his -- particularly where there are ample warning signs that the company is in big financial trouble and makes for an incredibly poor investment. Those are kind of outrageous claims. It was the DoE that provided the actual funding at the end of the day, and the link to George Kaiser is weak at best. The problem is they doubled-down on an already bad gamble, thinking the best solution to Solyndra's existing financial problems (thus improve the chances of taxpayers getting their loan back) would be to throw more money at them. Yes, the claims are outrageous. However, that's what's being alleged by a lot of people and that's why this is a big story. It reeks of corruption. Think about it. How does a company go out of business within a year of receiving $500 million in DoE grants/loans? How exactly does the lender (in this case, the Obama administration) "miss" any of the warning signs that would suggest that Solyndra is a bad company in which to invest -- especially when the Bush administration refused to loan money to Solyndra under the same program because of concerns about Solyndra's viability? I don't really see where the middle ground is between the Obama administration being corrupt or the Obama administration being grossly incompetent.
The claims aren't outrageous at all. I have no doubt that this is a case of mutual backscratching, to put it nicely. But that's the way it fucking works. Corporations figured out a long time ago that it's more cost-effective to just buy politicians. We can turn this thread into digging up all the examples of crony capitalism, but it just isn't news anymore. I bring up oil companies and banks because they are the most flagrant, but $500 million? Halliburton, Cheney's former company that scooped up contracts under Bush, wipes their asses with that much money. There are just too many examples, everybody is guilty and I hate it. Money runs our country.
What cost tax payers more? Solyndra or BP? Politicians were apologizing to BP after the oil spill! And they still pay next to nothing in taxes. I'm with George Carlin, it's a big club and we're not in it.
|
On October 05 2011 07:55 On_Slaught wrote:
You support blatant bigots?
I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is.
Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things.
|
On October 05 2011 07:55 On_Slaught wrote:
You support blatant bigots?
I'm not defending Herman, but I see that he gets called a bigot a lot. Is he really so much worse than his opponents though? The constituents they're courting mostly don't like gays and Muslims, and his comment about blacks being brainwashed was stupid but not groundbreaking.
|
New CBS poll has Cain tied for first with Romney among Republicans
|
On October 05 2011 09:04 Senorcuidado wrote:I'm not defending Herman, but I see that he gets called a bigot a lot. Is he really so much worse than his opponents though? The constituents they're courting mostly don't like gays and Muslims, and his comment about blacks being brainwashed was stupid but not groundbreaking.
true, but its just more sad when someone attacks his own race.
|
On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is. Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things.
So basically, you're a bigot. Got it.
|
On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:
Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not.
You don't say.
It might not involve outright killing people, but brainwashing and abusing children, continuously struggling to obstruct proper education and scientific progress, promoting some very controversial ideas and being heavily involved in the decision making process on top... certainly sounds like "problematic" and "complications" to me.
Frankly they're more of a consistent long-term problem in the US than any of the minorities with no real power or influence.
Though conceptually, there really isn't any difference as to the effects of more conservative forms of any religion on one's personality and his/her ability to make rational decisions. Which is why you normally don't want them making decisions that affect... anyone, really.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 05 2011 09:02 xDaunt wrote:I don't think that Cain's a biggot, and, quite frankly, I basically agree with what he was trying to say about appointing Muslims to courts or to his cabinet. If I were making appointments, I would feel compelled to scrutinize Muslims more than I would people of some other faiths. Conservative Muslims present problems and complications that conservative Christians and Jews generally do not. This difference is purely a function of their faith and beliefs when expressed in their more conservative forms. It is what it is. Whatever, flame away and call me a biggot like I know you probably want to. I don't really have time for being politically correct about these types of things.
Tell that to Norway.
How about closer to home in the U.S.? Army of God, KKK, Lambs of Christ, Scott Roeder murdering a doctor, Centennial Olympic Park Bombing, and many more.
Don't kid yourself, there are nuts in every religion, and every religion has its terrorists.
You don't say.
It might not involve outright killing people, but brainwashing and abusing children, continuously struggling to obstruct proper education and scientific progress, promoting some very controversial ideas and being heavily involved in the decision making process on top... certainly sounds like "problematic" and "complications" to me.
Frankly they're more of a consistent long-term problem in the US than any of the minorities with no real power or influence.
Though conceptually, there really isn't any difference as to the effects of more conservative forms of any religion on one's personality and his/her ability to make rational decisions. Which is why you normally don't want them making decisions that affect... anyone, really.
Bingo.
|
As long as we're talking about conservative religious idealogues...if someone believes that the earth is 6000 years old despite volumes of evidence to the contrary, if they believe evolution is "just a theory", if they think gays will destroy the family unit and corrupt children despite the APA explicitly rejecting that idea, if they think their religion is somehow more correct than everyone else's, then their judgment and critical thinking skills should definitely be called into question.
For Christians, conservative Muslims are scary; for the secular folk, all religious fundamentalists are scary.
|
I don't really feel like having this debate, because it's largely immaterial to the thread. I'll just say that equating the "extremes" of Christianity or Judaism to the "extremes" of Islam, as these religions exist today, is stupid and dishonest, if not a sign of madness.
|
On October 05 2011 12:07 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really feel like having this debate, because it's largely immaterial to the thread. I'll just say that equivocating the "extremes" of Christianity or Judaism to the "extremes" of Islam, as these religions exist today, is stupid and dishonest, if not a sign of madness.
Lol. I call BS.
What?? The religions that I grew up with is just as bad as others??? Madness I tell you, MADNESSSS! I don't even want to have a immaterial debate about religions...but still our immaterial stuffs are better, just how it is man, don't be a fool.
I won't judge you or anything, but really don't be surprised if you get called an idiot or "insert what's wrong with America"...Humans are programmed to see other people's shortcomings before their own. Just sayinig.
|
On October 05 2011 12:07 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really feel like having this debate, because it's largely immaterial to the thread. I'll just say that equivocating the "extremes" of Christianity or Judaism to the "extremes" of Islam, as these religions exist today, is stupid and dishonest, if not a sign of madness.
So you think it's alright to go against the constitution?
|
On October 05 2011 12:20 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 12:07 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really feel like having this debate, because it's largely immaterial to the thread. I'll just say that equivocating the "extremes" of Christianity or Judaism to the "extremes" of Islam, as these religions exist today, is stupid and dishonest, if not a sign of madness. Lol. I call BS. What?? The religions that I grew up with is just as bad as others??? Madness I tell you, MADNESSSS! I don't even want to have a immaterial debate about religions...but still our immaterial stuffs are better, just how it is man, don't be a fool. I won't judge you or anything, but really don't be surprised if you get called an idiot or "insert what's wrong with America"...Humans are programmed to see other people's shortcomings before their own. Just sayinig.
Fair enough. Keep in mind that this is a thread about the republicanpresidential nominees, but probably 4/5 of the posters range from moderately liberal to rabidly liberal. This thread is often about as productive as a thread about the merits of pork chops where 4/5 of the posters are vegetarians.
|
Are people seriously trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism as it exists today with some bible thumping Christians? ...
Going to have to strangely agree with xDaunt on this one. Lefties are all too eager to make excuses for Islam they won't for a much more benign modern Christianity.
|
On October 05 2011 12:43 Romantic wrote:
Are people seriously trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism as it exists today with some bible thumping Christians? ...
Going to have to strangely agree with xDaunt on this one. Lefties are all too eager to make excuses for Islam they won't for a much more benign modern Christianity.
Christianity in the United States is much more dangerous than Islam in the US. Islam has how many americans committing crimes? Now look at Christianity.
When looking at the world, I agree that islam is more dangerous to the average citizen, but I don't care about muslims outside the US
Edit: if cain wins the dems will win again. I'll be voting for the candidate who has the proven track record for doing his best to stay in office by appeasing those voting for him, Romney. Because when a candidate is following popular opinion more than his own idiotic ideals, I feel this country will be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
