• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Biden Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the government wants to run a jobs program, it can probably do a much better job with that money than just handing it over to oil companies as subsidy.
 
pgwenthold said:
Even if it is true, maybe Texas needs to be thinking about how to diversify it's industry and stop putting such a strong dependence on oil production.

They can't manufacture solar panels in Texas? Create wind farms? The west plains have a lot of oil fields (like down by Odessa) where they could install a wind turbine right next to the non-pumping oil wells.

Won't hurt the scenery in the landscape of Levelland and Plainview.

That's a lot of jobs that could be done.

Renewable energy is such a great industry opportunity. If Texas doesn't want to get in the game, that's their problem.
Click to expand...

Texas is already #1 in the nation in generated wind power, and there is a large tech base. It has a diversified economy.
 
This one isn't a "retraining" hollow promise.

Oil pipelines and windmills both need site surveyors, ground prep, fitters, welders, etc.

"Oil" and "coal" are not skills.
 
Steve said:
Posts by you in this forum objecting objecting to Trumps use of executive orders when he issued them are lacking.
Click to expand...
I believe that back then he was just spouting nonsense about the Kennedy assassination.
 
kookbreaker said:
And yet somehow posts the "It'll wreck the economy" GOP claims about a higher minimum wage when a higher minimum wage is a huge staple of Bernie's campaigns.

That mask doesn't fit very well.
Click to expand...
He needs to bend the wire....


Dr. Keith said:
Maybe his snout is too long. That happens on some of the larger breads of canine when they have tried to put on that mask in the past. I mean, not that he looks canine, maybe a 16.5% chance, though. Probably not, though.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'll put my money on dishonest, then. Let's see if I'm right:



Look! I was right.
Click to expand...


While you and several others have cited compelling evidence of dishonesty, it appears no one has commented on the evidence I highlighted below:

No Other said:
Your link went to a "fact check" and even though you and I do not necessarily see eye to eye on many issues... I just don't see you relying on "fact check" since they always pose a question to suit their answer and provide answers to suit their needs. Obama's nominations fell off during his last 2 years and that does not explain anything other than not keeping his eye on the ball. The Dems had the majority in the House, the Senate and the Executive Office... his nominations, if they were good, should have sailed through the appointment process but that was not his focus. Your chart does not show how many openings there were during the time span... only how many were nominated and how many were confirmed. Nominating 70 during his last 2 years does not show aggressiveness.
Click to expand...


No Other was blaming Obama for the falloff in nominations during his last 2 years in office. To blame Obama for that, No Other had to claim the Democrats held a majority of the Senate during that time. They did not. Obama's last two years correspond to the 114th Congress, 2015-2017, in which Republicans held the majority, 54 to 46 (where the 46 includes two independents that caucused with the Democrats).

So No Other's blaming of Obama was based upon the false claim that Democrats controlled the Senate during Obama's last two years in office. So No Other was simply ignorant of the relevant facts, or No Other was lying. Since No Other has repeatedly rejected suggestions that No Other's claim is based on ignorance of the relevant history, it seems fair to conclude No Other was lying.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
While you and several others have cited compelling evidence of dishonesty, it appears no one has commented on the evidence I highlighted below:




No Other was blaming Obama for the falloff in nominations during his last 2 years in office. To blame Obama for that, No Other had to claim the Democrats held a majority of the Senate during that time. They did not. Obama's last two years correspond to the 114th Congress, 2015-2017, in which Republicans held the majority, 54 to 46 (where the 46 includes two independents that caucused with the Democrats).

So No Other's blaming of Obama was based upon the false claim that Democrats controlled the Senate during Obama's last two years in office. So No Other was simply ignorant of the relevant facts, or No Other was lying. Since No Other has repeatedly rejected suggestions that No Other's claim is based on ignorance of the relevant history, it seems fair to conclude No Other was lying.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.

I guess I just assumed that others would note that, but it is much clearer the way you laid it out. I'm not so patient.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
While you and several others have cited compelling evidence of dishonesty, it appears no one has commented on the evidence I highlighted below:




No Other was blaming Obama for the falloff in nominations during his last 2 years in office. To blame Obama for that, No Other had to claim the Democrats held a majority of the Senate during that time. They did not. Obama's last two years correspond to the 114th Congress, 2015-2017, in which Republicans held the majority, 54 to 46 (where the 46 includes two independents that caucused with the Democrats).

So No Other's blaming of Obama was based upon the false claim that Democrats controlled the Senate during Obama's last two years in office. So No Other was simply ignorant of the relevant facts, or No Other was lying. Since No Other has repeatedly rejected suggestions that No Other's claim is based on ignorance of the relevant history, it seems fair to conclude No Other was lying.
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
You are absolutely correct.

I guess I just assumed that others would note that, but it is much clearer the way you laid it out. I'm not so patient.
Click to expand...
This was kind of funny too-
No Other said:
I am not countering that Republicans blocked nominees... that happens. What is being ignored is Obama had a friendly Congress his first two years... and HE did get nominees confirmed. What is irritating is the whining about the Republicans prevented it from happening. Isn't that what the Commander in Chief is elected to do... to make it happen?
Click to expand...

NO admits that the GOP blocked Obama's nominations for his last two years, but wonders why Obama, as a Commander in Chief elected to do things, didn't just "make it happen" over the Senate's legally (if not morally) defensible exercise of their right to block...in a thread where one of his complaints is that Biden, as a C-in-C elected to do things, is doing them, by means of legal EOs. Maybe Obama should have just used EOs to get his judicial appointments through- that would have both satisfied NO and given him another reason to complain, and doing both seems to make him happy.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Senator Ted Cruz tweets

@SenTedCruz
Don’t be fooled by President Biden's claim that climate day at the WH = jobs day. Just because he says it’s “jobs day” doesn’t mean it’s true. Today’s climate EO would result in the loss of over 80,000 blue-collar jobs in Texas -- the most of any state.
Click to expand...

He omits the number of jobs created by switching to green energy. The numbers I've seen suggest that there will be a net gain in employment.

I think Cruz embodies all the negative stereotypes of a bad politician. This misleading (at best) tweet is a good example.
 
SezMe said:
He omits the number of jobs created by switching to green energy. The numbers I've seen suggest that there will be a net gain in employment.

I think Cruz embodies all the negative stereotypes of a bad politician. This misleading (at best tweet is a good example.
Click to expand...

But he has the most slappable face in Congress.

amanda-bynes-gifs-movies
 
turingtest said:
This was kind of funny too-


NO admits that the GOP blocked Obama's nominations for his last two years, but wonders why Obama, as a Commander in Chief elected to do things, didn't just "make it happen" over the Senate's legally (if not morally) defensible exercise of their right to block...in a thread where one of his complaints is that Biden, as a C-in-C elected to do things, is doing them, by means of legal EOs. Maybe Obama should have just used EOs to get his judicial appointments through- that would have both satisfied NO and given him another reason to complain, and doing both seems to make him happy.
Click to expand...

It seems that there may have been a slew of Federal judges who have been intending to retire, but held off doing so until Trump was out of office so that Biden could pick their replacements.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fede...XXRfRJ-7n9IPenz4wAyr77Y9i3vrxsGlGda_v4pVop0Nn

I hope the Dems carry out "Operation Trans-warp Drive" - do the same thing McConnell did, and ram through as many Liberal leaning judges as they possibly can.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
True, but there's something about that smug SOB's face that just makes me want to slap him. The Germans have a word for it: Backpfeifengesicht ("a face that invites a slap").
Click to expand...

Smug? I thought he always had a whingy expression constantly complaining about how mean people around him are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom