Also, you know what drives me nuts about politics? You guys didn't even catch the info dump on Friday done by the government which basically talks about the BILLIONS in tax dollars that were flushed in favoritism - including Solyndra. Yet - someone up there says that Obama hasn't don't anything wrong because Bush did more wrong.

He has, and his administration published it - on take out the trash Friday which is why none of ya'll care.

liverleef: 30 billion tax payer dollars lost in fraud related to the Iraq war?
Meh

500 million lost related to Solyndra

OMG Wharrgarbl!

It does seem unlikely that George W. Bush will win this coming election. Also unconstitutional.

But if you're bringing up the actions of past presidents to condemn current ones can we blame Obama for Vietnam? Because if so that was way worse.

Myfacewhen any of you think that 'the facts' matter to the American public in electing a President.

We are speaking about the same Americans who re-elected Bush 'because he seems like a decent guy to sit down with' and drink a beer or coffee with.

With all due respect to the facts, Americans are personality cult aficionados.

davynelson: why vote for any of them?

storm the gates and demand IQ tests for all political candidates
plus a psychological workup to make sure they're altruistic and sincere
not narcissistic psychopaths

Bad news. You need 532 non-narcissitic-psychopatchic-Americans to fill the bill. Good farking luck there as we've all turned into Patrick Bateman.

/greed & digust 2012

LasersHurt: lennavan: Obama's ad opens by citing "secretive billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts." It says that the president has added 2.7 million clean energy jobs while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, calling Obama's record on ethics "unprecedented."

The voiceover ends by saying, "President Obama. Kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America's energy economy."

I'm super excited to hear what this countering evidence is, considering none was presented by subby, or by the article.

Well you see, liberals,

/stealing someone else's schtick

"Corporations are people too." Over and over again.

LasersHurt: Still, his larger point was that "investing" in Solyndra seemed like a good idea to a lot of people, not just the government. It maybe was a bad choice, but it's far from the crony collusion people accuse it of being, as evidenced by the fact that it seemed desirable to all sorts of people.

Honestly, at this point I'm seriously wondering if the contemporary Republican party is genuinely some sort of Chinese front. Used to be I thought they were just in the tank for China, but some of this shiat is just too uncannily in favor of Chinese long-term interests -- and actively against American long-term interests -- to deny.

I mean, this Solyndra thing. An American company that hired Americans, who attempted a business model involving selling solar panels under-cost hoping the economics of scale would pick up and they'd turn a medium-term profit, that went under because their business model was unstable and unsustainable in the short term. The GOP really wants this to be a major, presidency-ending scandal...at the same time China's doing the same shiat, except they're subsidizing underselling solar panels on the global market through the teeth.

Iraq...who did all that oil that was supposed to magically flow into American gas tanks go to, again? While the American taxpayers footed the bill? Iran, well which country -- who's already a major consumer of Iranian oil -- benefits if the rest of the UN places an embargo on Iranian oil, for practical purposes granting most-favored nation status and an exclusive trade agreement at once?

Which country would the Republican pet cause du jour KeystoneXL pipeline service again? Hint: it's not the US.

Then...Bush. Yep, Bush. Who handed out a tenth of our total debt, which is fully a quarter of our foreign debt, to China on a silver platter, which they used to bankroll mass infrastructure growth and export production? Which they can then use by shortselling on the global market to tank the dollar once they've finally finished solidifying trade relations with the Russian Federation and established liquidity, basis for trade, and regional reserve currency status that is neither reliant upon nor uses the US dollar?

skullkrusher: when you invest, you take a risk in the hopes of a greater return.
The government didn't stand to make any money - it was done to support green energy tech. It isn't a valid comparison.

So if a number of investors were willing to take a risk to make money by putting in a billion dollars then the government shouldn't be perceived to be making a loan guarantee in bad faith.

PanicMan: HotWingConspiracy: bugontherug: Aarontology: And all Obama will have to do is counter with "Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do"

"And wants to cut his taxes, but not your taxes, even more."

"And actually wants to raise taxes so poor people have 'skin in the game'."

Poor people already have "skin in the game".

Modern conservatism says they do not.

The taxed enough already people advocated for a tax increase on the poor to illustrate the point.

But THAT article states Obama hasn't started airing ads yet. Restore Our Future assured me that Obama is behind ALL of the attacks on Romney, because he really wants to face Gingrich in the primary because Gingrich is the only person he can beat.....

Thanks, Citizens United!

pxsteel: Lost Thought 00: pxsteel: s2s2s2: Secretive Billionaires? Who are these Secretive Billionaires?

If that ad was aimed at the independants, it fails badly. Right or wrong, I got demogoguery, BS, BS, BS and who cares.

Independents don't start paying attention until roughly late August and early September.

Traditionally you're right. However, Independents like me know we put him over the top in 08 and have been paying very close attention for three years. The Saved or Created claim goes over like a lead balloon. The reported jobless rate is 8.5% and everyone knows the real rate is higher than that.

So if you're paying "very close attention for three years" then you'd also know that what the trend is. It's not like Obama was handed a perfect economy with no problems.

Only in this administration can they demonize Romney while seeking advice from Jeff Immelt

LasersHurt:
1.) The ad doesn't mention Solyndra at all 2.) he approved what he was told by others is a good idea 3.) it pales in comparison to almost all other forms of government waste over the last two decades.

It WAS a shiatty thing, yes. But by no means was it a corrupt action.

No, he was told it was a terrible idea.

On January 9, 2009, the Department of Energy's credit committee decided unanimously that although the project "appears to have merit, there are several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time." The committee "without prejudice" remanded the project "for further development of information."[12]
After Obama took office, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget questioned the loan, as one Energy official wrote in an e-mail of "a major outstanding issue": cash flow predictions showed that the Fab 2 subsidiary (the entity receiving the loan guarantee) it would be low on cash in September 2011, possibly needing help from the parent company until the cash flow recovered in subsequent months.[13]
One White House budget analyst nixed a planned Presidential announcement of the loan guarantee on a March 19 trip to California, writing in a March 10, 2009 e-mail "This deal is NOT ready for prime time".

So he pushed spending he was told would be a bad idea. It just so happened to coincide with some important funding and a key speech but I'm sure that's a coincidence.

Also if this were the only way he'd wasted money that would be different. You can always tally up a worse sum than whatever is being criticized. But I don't consider "pshaw, ignore that screwup because look how much worse we screwed up over here" to be a valid defense.

Ricardo Klement: The question isn't only whether the government's decision to offer loan guarantees to Solyndra was honestly determined, but also whether the government should be in the business of offerring taxpayer-funded guarantees to corporations at all.

Not according to the attack put forward by Koch and Fox news. That's a separate issue entirely and unless RON PAUL gets the nomination you're not going to see a difference regardless of what candidate gets picked.

Certainly not with Romney.

Approve loan to green energy company without sound financial analysis - Treasonous tragedy

Approve permit for pipeline carrying toxic sludge across aquifier without full environmental impact analysis- Job creating leadership

Aarontology: And all Obama will have to do is counter with "Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do"

...and while he's got you raging over "welfare queens", his Bain Capital put thousands of people in the welfare lines while pocketing millions for themselves...on the taxpayers' dime.

Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".

mrshowrules: 500 > 30 for many Conservative voters because they aren't very good with numbers

500 Million vs. 30,000 Million.

I'm sure they'd be more confused by this.

watson.t.hamster: liverleef: 30 billion tax payer dollars lost in fraud related to the Iraq war?
Meh

500 million lost related to Solyndra

OMG Wharrgarbl!

It does seem unlikely that George W. Bush will win this coming election. Also unconstitutional.

But if you're bringing up the actions of past presidents to condemn current ones can we blame Obama for Vietnam? Because if so that was way worse.

Nobody is blaming Obama for Vietnam. Well possibly some tea baggers are but thats not the point. The point is it's curious how the same people who are crying about the1/2 billion in losses from Solyndra had no complaints directed at Bush about the 30 billion in fraud lost. Where was the outrage then. Put a black man in the white house and all of a sudden they're counting every penny.

lennavan: Obama's ad opens by citing "secretive billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts." It says that the president has added 2.7 million clean energy jobs while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, calling Obama's record on ethics "unprecedented."

The voiceover ends by saying, "President Obama. Kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America's energy economy."

I'm super excited to hear what this countering evidence is, considering none was presented by subby, or by the article.

If you look closely, you'll see that Obama is still black.

Ricardo Klement: sprawl15: lennavan: Obama's ad opens by citing "secretive billionaires attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts." It says that the president has added 2.7 million clean energy jobs while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, calling Obama's record on ethics "unprecedented."

The voiceover ends by saying, "President Obama. Kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America's energy economy."

I'm super excited to hear what this countering evidence is, considering none was presented by subby, or by the article.

If you look closely, you'll see that Obama is still black.

Chris Rock said that he would be called half-white unless he totally farked up, then he'd just be called black.

Grouse yarn, mate!

skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".



IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".



IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".

that post didn't make much sense to me in single and even less so in triplicate... so?

You'll figure it out. Whoa, deja vu.

Lando Lincoln: Dhusk: The GOP? Rely on 'evidence'?

It certainly would be a nice change of pace. I mean, for them to rely on actual evidence and not "evidence."

Evidently, there's a difference between evidence, 'evidence' and "evidence."

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: Jackson Herring: IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".



IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".



IlGreven: Also, the Koch Brothers paid Americans for Prosperity more to make the Solyndra attack ads than Solyndra "stole from the taxpayers".

that post didn't make much sense to me in single and even less so in triplicate... so?

You'll figure it out. Whoa, deja vu.

it's plain English, it's the point I'm missing.

I still think you are fully capable of figuring it out. In fact, I take that back, you have already figured it out, you know what his point is and you're being a pedantic douche again. I am completely sure of this. The only thing I'm missing out on is why?

lennavan: I still think you are fully capable of figuring it out. In fact, I take that back, you have already figured it out, you know what his point is and you're being a pedantic douche again. I am completely sure of this. The only thing I'm missing out on is why?

And for clarity - thus far you've just been a douche pretending to not get what his point is. I have no doubt if he were to reply and clarify, you'll go down one of your pedantic arguments. I skipped a few steps in your pattern to conclude that one.

skullkrusher: No, I don't see what private citizens paid for an attack ad has to do with what the government lost in taxpayer money by backing a bad loan.

How on earth do you have a reply like this when his post didn't make much sense to you? Remember when I said I knew you knew what he meant? Looks like I was right. Recall you actually wrote:

"skullkrusher: that post didn't make much sense to me

But that's different than writing "private citizens paying for an attack ad has nothing to do with lost taxpayer money" now isn't it? You knew what he meant, you had a point to eventually make but you decided to be a douche about it and pretend you didn't understand him first before you would spring the "private citizens paying for an attack ad has nothing to do with lost taxpayer money" point you had to make.

Recall yesterday, when the exact same pattern happened. You disagreed with my point but spent probably a dozen posts pretending you didn't understand it first. Fine, disagree but no one forces you to be a pedantic douche first. Is this like your idea of an internet 1-2 combo? Jab em lightly with the pedantic bullshiat and finish them off with your actual disagreement?

So again I ask, why do you choose to be a pedantic douche?

skullkrusher: That means "I don't see the point".

Yes you did. You even disagreed with it and had your own counter-point:

skullkrusher: I don't see what private citizens paid for an attack ad has to do with what the government lost in taxpayer money by backing a bad loan.

It was like there was an actual discussion to be had there but instead you were being held back by an internal need to be a douche.