Oxrock
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Oxrock
-
-
I just figured it out...every time you see something that tickles your little racialist fancy, you have to come running here and post it with some little meaningless quip and absolutely no thoughts of your own, as though we're all somehow your circle of friends and actually give a **** about what interests you.
Basically, you think this board is Facebook.
So why don't you just take your act to Facebook already? Did all your friends "unfriend" you when they got sick of your bigoted shtick?
Have to say that as kid who lived in the projects with 4 other siblings and a single mother receiving welfare, I'm truly offended. Terrible.
-
If Huntsman or Romney doesn't get the nomination, I'd vote for Obama.
Really? Logic fails me on that one. If Huntsman (Obama's employee) or Romney (Obama's role model) don't get the nomination your are going to go ahead an vote for the guy that ties the two together?
Oooooooooooo...... Don't think that one over too hard.
-
Yes, exactly. With one exception...infrastructure is designed to increase commerce for multiple parties while the pipeline will only directly profit one company in the long-term.
See above. The stimulus was aimed at the economy at large. The pipeline is aimed at one (albeit important) sector, or perhaps even one company (that isn't even based in the US)
Care to elaborate? What did I say that is incorrect? I did some quick research before I posted and I would like to know which portions are not factual.
Wrong. The pipeline itself is infrastructure. It will need to be maintained. It will lower the cost of oil and therefore the cost of transporting goods for the economy at large. Thus, it is exactly like how you describe the "stimulus".
-
I think you should set Crayonz straight.
I would, but I'm not sure of the level of political savvy that each of you old timers here bring to the table. Some have already erred with the assumption that we refugees are indeed not only "noobs" to this board, but to political observation as well. I'm not going to make the same mistake about the posters who have been here for a while.
So, no straightening of the Crayonz. I was just wondering if it is possible that someone might have been blissfully asleep at the time of the last Presidential election.
3 - 4 years ago is a long time ago to some. To me, seems like last week.
-
The pipeline may create some jobs, but they will be temporary. These pipelines are meant to basically run by themselves. So we may create a few thousand temporary construction jobs, but TransCanada - who would own and operate the pipeline - have said numerous times that the pipeline would only create a few hundred permanent jobs in the United States. TransCanada itself has issued a report saying the highest potential number of temporary jobs the project would create is just under 5,000. Talk about a drop in the bucket.
And as for reducing oil prices, the majority of the oil would be exported from Houston/Galveston/Port Arthur, Texas to markets in Central and South America and would thus have little impact on domestic gas prices. Additionally, these ports are designated Foreign Trade Zones, so we couldn't even tax the exports.
Oh, I see. Sort of like infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges.
-
Seriously? Someone hasn't heard of the 57 states gaff?
-
It's all a matter of scale.In 1970, the House reelection rate was the same as 2010.
The Senate reelection rate has been lower than 2010 many times, including 2008 and 2006.
2010 was not a watershed year. Maybe in 2012, we'll get 83% reelection. A real bloodbath.
All of those other years were the standard. Not the 87%, but over 98%. So, a reduction by a factor of 10 is progress. That was only two years ago. Perhaps 2012 will repeat 1970 and 2010 or surpass both. But the truth is the trend was broken. Will there be a new trend? We will find out in 1 year.
-
Nothin' to see here. Move along.
Hey! Look over there!
Caaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!
Hmm... I can see the image when I edit, but not when saved. Bummer.
-
87% House incumbents won in 2010. 84% Senate. Pretty much on average historically.
Used, abused without clues, I refused to blow a fuse. They even had it on the news.
You my friend believed the hype.
It's all relative. The last time the percentage of incumbents being reelected was that low was in 1970.
-
There hasn't been much turnover at a federal level.
It's just not happening. People don't vote out their own garbage officials.
Asleep 2 years ago were you?
Biggest House Turnover in 70 years
-
GOP goes back on their "No new taxes" pledge at their political detriment and offer up $300 Billion in tax increases. Kerry, says, "whatever, we have an election to worry about":
-
Bill Clinton was/is a genuine Rhodes Scholar. Also, the smarmiest, most misogynistic, narcissist we've ever had in the White House.
-
Finally! RightwingNutjob(™linda@bbmb), Retired Navy Chief, & Bar Owner checking in! I'll be back when I get home.
Climate Gate 2.0! Here we go again alarmists!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Here we go again ahead of the next IPCC meeting! More on the non-scientific scientist that have been waging a PR war for your mind and money:
News Story Here
And a whole lot of fun here:
Watts Up With That?
Ahhh, Penn State, what to do with Mr. Mann......