Republicans vote against their own self interests?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pretty cool picture Quad! I love it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you will find many Republicans feel Buffett is not a Republican. I think he is more of a traditional independent - not to be confused with the rabble of Republicans calling themselves independents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a necromancer - to mark how this dead thread has been dug up and resurrected from the grave.

Last I checked, Warren Buffett was a registered Democrat. Not sure where the idea that he's a Republican came from - I guess the fact that he's rich?

 

I must be one. I often remember an old thread exists so look for it instead of start a new one. Thanks for the correction on Warren's party - I probably did just assume he was Republican based on fact most with his wealth are, I think.

 

While SciForums does not have a specific rule against it, it is generally considered poor forum etiquette to reanimate dead threads.

In this particular case, you'd probably have been better off starting a thread on the Keystone XL pipeline and associated politics, than in digging a generic "Fuck you, Republicans" thread out of its grave. The material on Keystone XL politics is tangential to that, and you made no effort to materially connect it to the ostensible thread topic. So, I see no justification for the necromancy here.

 

Really? By whom? I tend to think it some what of an ego trip, bad etiquette, to start new thread if old one already exists, especially in cases where the point the new thread poster is making has already been discussed in the old thread.

I'm not saying that was the case with this example of the Republicans shooting them selves in the foot with their failed plan to cause trouble for Obama. Their "reply up or down in 60 days" law was just another new example of "Republicans voting against their own self interests." With their "60 day law" they got Keystone killed, which surely many of their biggest fund sources are not happy about. They can not make any "political hay" when doing anything other than killing keystone was impossible / against the law / for Obama.

 

A Colorado mayor is celebrating his 50th year in office in a position he says he never actually ran for.

Paoli Mayor Virgil Harms, 84, watches over a tiny northeast town of just 42 people according to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000.
But it's all his.

Yet he confesses, if someone ever challenged him for his seat,

'I'd say, 'Take it. It's all yours,'' he tells the Denver Post.

'He's pretty laid back. He doesn't get too excited about anything, and we kind of like that,' town clerk Marilyn Miller told the Post, who runs his office from a building attached to her house.

Mr Harms says that he was appointed as mayor pro-temp after the then-current mayor, Oscar Lohn, refused to sign a liquor license for the Paoli pool hall.

When Mr Lohn died in November of 1961, Mr Harms fell into his seat.

Since his political debut he has seen close to 62 per cent of Paoli's existence, according to the Colorado State Planning Division.
'He definitely is at the top of the heap,' Sam Mamet, the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League told the Post.

In memory, elections to challenge him haven't even come up in the town, according to Mr Harms.

He says there was a near-miss for him in 1978, but the town learned it would cost up to $6,000 to run an election so scrapped that idea.
And when it came to legal term limits for Mr Harms, signaling his time to quit, he says his town threw it out.


But on Mr Harms' successfully long political run he not only boasts a low crime rate but a new water and sewer system in 1978 he says the town paid off early.

'Sometimes people complain about the dirt roads in town,' Mr Harms says, 'but I always say, 'If you got the money to pave them, go right ahead.''
Attributing his success, beyond fiances, he adds: 'I've also been lucky to have some real sharp, good people to work with.'

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...4zvKu75W2KVDEVq6Q&sig2=itWj0YjUyKz7uXU6YNDHSg

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-seat-ran-dumb-agree-for.html#ixzz1k3IBIlLm

 

No he isn't well at least if he clearly smarter than you are. do you have any fucking idea how simple it is to put your small buisness as an LLC. no and I do mean no one actually has their buisness as a true sole propreitorship. their is a reason the owner of the place I work at when he decided to live out his rich guy dream of owning a restaurant made it an LLC. thanks for once again showing you have no idea how the real world works.

 

So the national debt didn't triple under reagan?

 

only to some one like you count and buffalo who prattle off on the virtues with your theories with all the humilty of egomaniac and your claiming those you go you know what your full of shit are arrogant.

 

and yet your the one whose political views on economics is based literally on a mathmatical immposibility

 

while bush's tax cuts were largely responsible for the single largest increase in debt in a presidents tenure I'd put the blame more on reagan for kicking off the clusterfuck of debt by triplling it. guess what decresing revenue and spending money like a coked out hooker creates massive amounts of debt. entitlements pay for them selves at least in part and probably in some cases in full.

 

an average person can't control directly how much they take in the government can.

 

This "old thread" is not that old - less than 1.5years dormant. I think it interesting and useful to see what people still active here had to say some years earlier, often proven false or silly, if 3 or 4 years ago. -That gives an index of their ability to judge, predict etc.

See post 227 for some other reasons why "reanimation" of old threads is desirable, not in bad taste.

 

While I think GWB's many errors including tax relief for the already rich did make a depression in US & EU inevitable, there is a seldom mentioned cause of the deficit - the underground / untaxed cash economy/ is not paying its fair share of the taxes needed to support Federal (and state) spending. This by almost all plausibe estimates is a large loss of revenue GREATER than the sum GWB's lower taxes on the rich has caused.

It is not just a US problem. It has been estimated that Greece would have a surplus, not a debt, if Greeks had been paying taxes due. In the US honest tax payers would have a tax bill about 1/3 less if all were paying taxes. There is a simple solution to end this tax evasion:

Stop printing paper money, over about two decades, but with $100 and larger bills no longer "legal tender," just green paper, in only two years or less and all printing of them stopped immediately to make it hard for suitcases of $100 bills to leave the US to pay for the importation of hard drugs. Most honest people rarely use $100 bills as most large payment are by check or credit cards. Thus these bill exist primarily for the drug dealers, the underground cash economy to avoid taxes, but getting them phased out will be hard to do as they also facilitate the bribes Congressmen receive. Read the specifics of my phase out plan at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=937774&postcount=1 plus about three pages of discussion of it where various suggestions / clarifications are made.

 

Except what you added: … Congress must change this legislation or the Alberta oil flow into the Lower 48 is not possible by statute. …”

Except you are wrong Billy.

Section 526 of the EISA of 2007 does NOT prohibit what you claim it does.

It is part of Subtitle C and only deals with procurement of Alternative or Synthetic fuels by FEDERAL AGENCIES.

It has no prohibitions about importation of shale based oil.

Subtitle C – Energy Efficiency in Federal Agencies

Includes Sections. 521. through Sec. 528


“ Sec. 526. Procurement and Acquisition of Alternatives Fuels

• Prohibits agencies from entering into contracts for procurement of alternative or synthetic fuel, including fuel from non-conventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than research or testing. An exception is made if the contract specifies that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to emissions from equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources. ”

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/eisa_femp.pdf

There is nothing in this Statute that makes Keystone illegal.

 

No I did not add that. It is a direct quote from the link I gave. I made it explicitly clear when I was the source of a statment or comment by puting my text inside these brackets {.......} You are again putting words in my mouth. But I know it is against your policy to admit errors and appoligize. You have a long history of putting words in others mouths, they did not say and then being critical of what you claim they said.

To make it easy for you to find the text you falsely claim I said, I reproduce below that section of the link I quoted, which is easy to spot in a quick scan as it is first part of a new section begining with large bold type like this:

The Future of Canadian Imports

Whether Keystone XL is ultimately approved, Congress must change this legislation or the Alberta oil flow into the Lower 48 is not possible by statute.


However you may well be correct that some rich organization, getting zero assistance from the US government (if such exist when special tax breaks are considered) may be able to legally (from that law´s POV alone) import shale oil - they would no doubt have many local NIMBY state laws to over come and the Federial government could not use its powers to force states to back off with their legislative probitions, I think, as probably that assistance to importation of shale oil is illegal - might even need a Surpreme Court rulling to clarify whether or not Federal assistance to rich shale oil importer is forbidden by section 526 Law. I.e. can taxpayer money be spent to facilate what is illegal for the government to do itself? - I suspect not.

 

I'm not putting words in your mouth Billy, your "Note {...} are Billy T inserts in the quote." was misleading, I took it for what was separated by the three ... on both ends.

As in: … Congress must change this legislation or the Alberta oil flow into the Lower 48 is not possible by statute. …

Those Three ...s are something YOU put in to that quote as they are NOT in your link, and that's what I scanned for.

Yeah, can you not see the difference between that and why your EDITED original quote with the inserted "..."s was misleading?

More BS.

526 has nothing to do with any NIMBY laws and it imposes no restrictions on importing Shale oil for any purpose by private industry, nor does it preclude the Federal Govt offering assistance towards the pipeline.

It has only to do with procurement contracts for SYN FUEL, and the clause is limited just to Syn Fuel for use in mobile applications by Federal Agencies.

 

No. In almost all of my post (which are not simple replies) of something new I have read, I do what many who are careful do, namely I indicate that I have omitted some of the text I am quoting by three periods where text has been omitted. Inserting three dots / periods is also exactly how Sciforum´s computer indicates that it has omitted part of a long internet link.

Usually I clearly indicate where my comments begin with Billy T comments: but sometimes when my comment is brief and tied to a particular part of the text I am quoting I either do as I did here (use curly brackets around my inserts) or less frequently make my inserts into the quoted text a different color from the quoted text. You have seen many dozens of my posts have always understood this very consistent practice I have used for years. Why do you in this one post think differenetly? what is intended by ... and by my insert into the quoted text like this one

{But the republicans will not be able to do much of that as they forgot:}

Few are as careful and consistent in this as I am. look at almost any post where I quote what I have read. I also am very careful to end the quoted section with: From: (the link to the source.) I think only S.A.M. is equally careful to give her sources and clearly mark off her inserts from text she is quoting.