126...reposting due to relevance

Quote :

" think it is relevant to the fact that neither Rmoney nor Obama have said ANYTHING about Afghanistan in their campaigning. And as more of these killings (Af -> US, Af -> Af, etc.) are reported, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the President has no friggin' clue what to do (nor does Rmoney), which is why neither of them are saying anything. Here's the point: We have US citizens (young men and young women) in a hostile and extremely volatile country DYING for a completely un-specified mission for an un-specified length of time, and the friggin' COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF has said NOTHING about what he plans to do to protect those citizens. And that makes you want to support him, or anyone like him? smh, people, smh"

8/14/2012 12:24:19 PM

no one cared on the last page, what makes you think this page will be any different?

8/14/2012 1:17:46 PM

so are they just sacrificing biden on the altar of craziness?

8/14/2012 7:47:28 PM

So romney is now saying (in an add) that obama tokk billions from medicade and put into obamacare. Now, wasnt that the result of the gop?

8/14/2012 7:52:39 PM

^ that's all true, because some of the Obamacare provisions overlapped medicare.

The GOP SHOULD take credit for that, because rather than have redundant services with double the cost, they streamlined it.

It's kind of like people getting mad at Romney's press sec for saying if the factory worker was in Mass, they would have likely been covered. This is a TRUE statement, AND a GOOD thing, but they are somehow afraid to admit this, calling for the woman to be fired?

It's literally bizarro world.

8/14/2012 8:57:45 PM

Yeah, but the GOP is now making it look like the dems took money away from entitlement programs. It's just weird.

8/15/2012 10:04:08 AM

They did take money away from entitlement programs...to put into entitlement programs.

8/15/2012 10:08:11 AM

Treau, but not to quote a political commentator, that is a pretty blatant misconstruction of the truth, amirite?

8/15/2012 11:11:35 AM

Yes it is. and that was my point.

8/15/2012 11:12:20 AM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-to-protect-ethanol-obama-seeks-to-inflate-meat-prices/article/2504906#.UCvHnqA5aIP

Quote :

""Prices are low, farmers and ranchers need help, so it makes sense," Obama explained. "It makes sense for farmers who get to sell more of their product, and it makes sense for taxpayers who will save money because we're getting food we would have bought anyway at a better price." None of this makes sense. In fact, Obama's move only harms American consumers while protecting a corrupt federal program. A drought is currently driving down corn production. The shortage of feed is forcing livestock producers to slaughter animals early, putting downward pressure on meat prices in the short run and guaranteeing shortages and higher prices next year. But nature is not the biggest factor in this crisis -- the government is. Specifically, the federal government's ethanol mandate, which requires that 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be produced in 2012."

Of course I know you guys don't care.

You don't care about anything that is critical of this idiot.

8/15/2012 12:15:35 PM

To quote a conservative I know: "Show me the numbers"

Sounds like a blanket statement to me.

[Edited on August 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM. Reason : f]

8/15/2012 12:38:19 PM

^^i just try to not pay too much attention to shills, idealogues, and hacks.
try being a little more rational and people might pay more attention to you.

[Edited on August 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2012 12:40:49 PM

Quote :

"National leaders of livestock and animal-feed producers yesterday filed a petition to the Obama Administration, to issue a waiver, suspending the Federal mandate for annual bio-fuels, because the Administration's backing of continued corn ethanol production, under circumstances of the severe drought and corn scarcity, is drastically threatening the livestock sector, the national meat supply, and livelihoods. The 19 groups petitioning, include all the top dairy, cattle, poultry, sheep, meat and feed processing sectors of the country. Besides making the point of the food supply threat, the groups stuck it to the Obama Administration on the pending loss of jobs, if nothing is done. "

http://larouchepac.com/node/23526

http://www.nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/20120730-mf-Final-RFS-Waiver-Petition.pdf

Quote :

"The worst drought in over half a century has caused a more than 60 percent surge in the price of corn, and the rally is ultimately expected to drive up meat costs. But in the short-term, it is creating a glut of supply as producers rush to sell livestock they can no longer afford to feed. The slaughter rate of sows, which are typically kept for breeding, hit an eight-month high last week. On Monday, Chicago Mercantile Exchange hog futures for October rose more than 2 percent to 77.15 cents per lb, the highest in 10 days. But gains were also attributed by traders to a sharp retreat in corn prices, which have tumbled since setting an all-time high of $8.49 per bushel on Friday in a rally sparked by the government slashing its estimate of the U.S. crop. About 40 percent of this year's U.S. corn crop, the world's largest, will be used to produce ethanol -- more than the amount used to feed the country's livestock herds."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/usa-obama-meat-idINL2E8JDC2Y20120813

8/15/2012 12:51:11 PM

^Aren't farmers simply going to produce more corn as the price goes up, making this a short term problem anyways?

8/15/2012 1:11:38 PM

Plus, how do you expect the president to be able to predict that there will be a drought coming while he is passing legislation?

Seriously guys?

8/15/2012 1:45:54 PM

Quote :

"To recap, government is driving up the cost of food, animal feed and gasoline, and Obama's solution is to drive up meat prices as well. Obama could eliminate the entire problem overnight and reduce carbon emissions were he to waive the ethanol mandate in a time of drought. Instead, he is creating a new spending program to mollify livestock producers, who, were it not for the ethanol mandate, would be able to make an honest living without his help. Last week, Obama said he wants to do for other industries what he did for General Motors. If by this he meant waste taxpayers' money to preserve a lousy status quo, then bravo and mission accomplished."

Quote :

"Right, so the artificial purchase of the meat will keep prices high, not low. And then next year when ranchers really start having to pay through the nose for this year’s poor corn crop, what happens to meat prices?"

http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/15/will-nothing-slay-the-ethanol-dragon

[Edited on August 15, 2012 at 1:57 PM. Reason : -]

8/15/2012 1:56:50 PM

Reason.com

Lol

8/15/2012 2:25:17 PM

Quote :

"Aren't farmers simply going to produce more corn as the price goes up, making this a short term problem anyways?"

difficult with the drought they are facing

the easiest, healthiest, and most-locally patronizing thing you could do is buy local, grass-fed beef anyway

[Edited on August 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM. Reason : grass-fed BEEF]

8/15/2012 2:27:19 PM

again, Obama would probably say those short term problems don't trump a long term energy plan.

8/15/2012 2:37:51 PM

That plan being raise the prices of the only energy sources we have, in hopes that someone would spring into action and develop clean energy "for the good of the world."

Like Solyndra?

8/15/2012 2:42:24 PM

You can ask him about his energy plan, I don't know anything about that, I'm just pointing out that the corn shortage is a short term problem.

8/15/2012 2:44:48 PM

But this is not a long term energy plan. Corn Ethanol is not a long term solution. All it will ever be is short term government largess. This is a plan to subsidize an industry until it costs too much then have it all collapse after their political friends have sold out.

8/15/2012 3:00:27 PM

You could have said the same thing about ARPANET back in the 70's. Unless you have a crystal ball, it's tough to say what is government largess and what is good energy research.

8/15/2012 3:37:12 PM

I think lowering the production of ethanol, at least temporarily, would be good policy. Of course, that will create a fuel shortage for awhile and cost jobs in the ethanol industry, raising gas prices. Either way, it sucks. Hopefully, this will make us start developing some better way to feed our livestock that isn't so susceptible to drought.

Or we could all get on board the climate change train that's going to need to happen sooner rather than later.

8/15/2012 4:40:25 PM

Quote :

"I think lowering the production of ethanol, at least temporarily, would be good policy."

Yes!

Quote :

"Of course, that will create a fuel shortage for awhile and cost jobs in the ethanol industry, raising gas prices."

Yes, although this could potentially be alleviated by dropping the requirement for so many different blends nationwide. I'm not saying go with the cheapest and dirtiest one, just pick the best all round for standardization.

Quote :

"Either way, it sucks. Hopefully, this will make us start developing some better way to feed our livestock that isn't so susceptible to drought."

Or start developing some alternatives to corn in general (considering it's literally in almost everything). The documentary King Corn is worth a watch if you haven't seen it, and I believe it's free to stream on Netflix.

Quote :

"Or we could all get on board the climate change train that's going to need to happen sooner rather than later."

I was going to suggest this when it was mentioned that "the corn shortage is a short-term problem," but I figure I've already agreed with you enough today.

8/16/2012 7:52:16 AM

"What these comments do underscore is why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women." - Obama

Said without the slightest bit of irony.

8/20/2012 10:03:18 PM

because giving women a choice as opposed to restricting their choice is totally the same

8/20/2012 10:17:52 PM

^^ seriously?

What's wrong with you.

8/20/2012 10:33:21 PM

^,^^ Wow, you guys didn't pick up his point, like, what-so-ever.

8/20/2012 10:41:04 PM

[Edited on August 20, 2012 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2012 11:20:49 PM

his point is like your pizza

half baked and nobody's buying it

8/20/2012 11:21:49 PM

zing!

8/20/2012 11:22:19 PM

If only you would put half the amount of research into his point than you do in knowing my pizzas, which you know nothing, you may start to begin to dawn on uncovering the clear and present point of his post.

8/21/2012 12:10:35 AM

"Hey syria, I know you like killing people and all, and thats cool, but if you use ONE chemical or biological weapon, we're coming after you!"

8/21/2012 12:52:10 AM

it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

[Edited on August 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2012 11:24:09 PM

Quote :

" US manufacturers are being significantly impacted by the escalating volume of federal regulations, according to a new report from NERA Economic Consulting on behalf of the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation. The average number of major federal government regulations promulgated under President Obama in the past three years has been twice as many, or 72 per year, than the 36 per-year average promulgated during the Clinton presidency and the 45 per year average under George W. Bush. The cost of complying with those new regulations — and all other major federal regulations — will reduce the gross domestic product by anywhere from $240 billion to $630 billion in 2012, and also decrease both the value of manufacturing shipments and manufacturing exports this year, "

http://www.prw.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?cat=1&id=1393

8/25/2012 5:03:08 PM

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/republican-in-obama-ad-is-a-democrat

8/25/2012 10:41:37 PM

She said in the ad that she used to be a Republican.

8/25/2012 11:22:08 PM

Oh...she USED to be a Republican.

When? In 2011?

Oh, in 2006?

Wasn't Obama a brand new Senator in 2006?

I mean, if the Democrats wanted to use anyone to make a statement, they should have used Arlen Specter.

He at least switched parties more recently (well, first LESS recently, then more recently).

8/25/2012 11:36:49 PM

How does this matter at all? It's not being the least bit nitpicky?

8/26/2012 12:37:31 AM

8/26/2012 12:54:16 AM

It's just a funny how no matter which side things aren't what they seem. Kinda like the Time's article about Twitter and how you can buy followers. Romney's 100,000 bump in followers over one weekend or 70% of Obama's followers are supposed to be fake. Just funny that's all

8/26/2012 4:16:59 AM

Quote :

"because giving women a choice as opposed to restricting their choice is totally the same "

who is restricting choices? Pretty soon if you oppose being forced to buy someone elses vibrator you will be on the front lines of the WAR ON WOMEN!!! ba ba baaaaa. Ridiculous

"but I have a right to happiness...and that makes me happy...so you have to pay for it." = logical

8/26/2012 8:33:41 AM

cool use of the smiley

8/26/2012 10:03:37 AM

^^ Surely you jest.

8/26/2012 10:50:00 AM

It burns me to no end knowing that some of my tax money goes to WIC.

8/26/2012 2:59:15 PM

[Edited on August 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM. Reason : nevermind]

8/26/2012 3:42:17 PM

8/31/2012 8:43:20 PM

Quote :

"Romney's 100,000 bump in followers over one weekend or 70% of Obama's followers are supposed to be fake."

Wouldn't surprise me. This is nothing new with politicians. What makes me sick is when someone accuses only one party of doing it. Fuck, they're all politicians.

8/31/2012 8:52:57 PM

set-em-sup-da-bomb

8/31/2012 11:54:02 PM