Grade the executive

[dude1394]

So we elected a 7 year rep to run the most difficult executive position in the world...It's time to keep tallying up his scorecard. Right now it's amateur-hour. As you would expect from a first term senator who's never run anything. Hate to say Hillary told you so, but Hillary told you so.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/0...-incompetence/

How has this theme surfaced? It would be impossible to count them all, but we can get them into broad themes:

• Personnel - Barack Obama’s appointments have been a continuing source of embarrassment. His Treasury Secretary blamed Turbo-Tax for his tax evasion, but several more appointments also had tax problems. Obama nominated Bill Richardson to Commerce knowing full well of the pay-for-play probe in New Mexico that forced Richardson to withdraw his name a few weeks later. Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar, is just the latest example of fumbled vetting that has plagued this White House since the transition.
• Economics - Remember when Obama told the nation that a $787 billion stimulus package would keep unemployment from getting above 8%? Remember when Obama told the nation that his administration had shaved $2 trillion off of the projected ten-year deficit? Remember when Obama promised that he would speed up stimulus spending this summer? None of those came to pass, which is why Obama hopes you’ve forgotten all of that.
• Politics - One might have thought Obama would have learned from the debacle of the stimulus package that he needed to lead, rather than follow Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Instead, he passed the buck on health-care reform and wound up losing control of the health-care debate. Indeed, Obama made it worse by cheering on Pelosi and Reid, demanding that Congress bend to their wills and vote on an overhaul of 1/6th of the American economy with just a handful of days for debate. This week, seven months after his inauguration, Obama’s press flacks announced with great fanfare that Obama would finally draft a proposal himself — as if he were President, or something!

Who could have warned us that a man who served seven years in the state legislature and three years in the Senate would not have been prepared for the toughest executive position in the Free World? We did. Repeatedly. So did John McCain, and for that matter, so did Hillary Clinton.

[Dim499]

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by posting quotes on a Dallas Mavericks forum from people who share your right of right opinion?

[dude1394]

Why I'm posting something which highlights one of the biggest problems with barry(or any senator really). His lack of experience in much of anything except campaigning and community organizing. We are seeing those talents and just about only those talents on display.

Amateur hour is going to bite us in the rear end pretty quickly unless we can get an opposing force in our government to moderate this knucklehead.

[92bDad]

This like any other media forum, is a way to provide information which will help people gain a greater understanding in time for the next election, as well as our day to day governing.

Look we all know, those who support one side or the other will not change their views...however there are enough folks who catch bits and pieces of press coverage and thus this is a venue to read opinions and views from NON-Media people who share a common interest (The Mavs)

Albeit, most of us are linking or quoting articles...it helps to have healthy debate within our Mavs community.

That being said, it's interesting the level of attacking that takes place on this and other anonomous boards, versus the tact that is used on my own Facebook page. On Facebook, I know people face to face rather than just some cyber stranger. I have a very close friend from my HS days who is an Obama supporter. We have a great time together, while we continue to have healthy debates on our page.

What I find are many folks with closet political views...afraid to speak their mind because they don't want to hurt friendships.

My hope is that through the various methods of exchange we can find a healthy way to communicate, not just with those who agree with us, but also with those who disagree.

Again, disagreement is what makes America great!!!

[dude1394]

The NYTimes, WashPo, etc....wonder why they are losing readership and credibility...

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84710/

MICKEY KAUS on the Van Jones resignation. “I’ve been waiting for the day when a prominent pol resigns and for print MSM readers it appears to be out-of-the-blue, though everyone on the Web knows the whole story.”

Scott Johnson: “Jones was also a perfect symbol of the dereliction of the mainstream media in the Age of Obama. Those who rely on the New York Times for their news, for example, will learn of Jones’s departure some time soon, but it will come as a great surprise to them, and well after the shouting is over. Whatever Jones said is already heard indistinctly, like a distant echo, in the Times’s lame overnight report. Byron York’s tabulation of words devoted to the recent revelations about Jones in the mainstream media as of Friday and Saturday provided a notable marker.”

[dude1394]

Ha...this is rich....Wonder which Wendy's Van Jones will be working at.

http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275871.html

Speaking of YouTube videos and past statements, here are two minutes of Van Jones mocking Rumsfeld for being "out of work" and "serving behind the counter at Wendy's," much to the delight of the assembled sycophants. The full speech is 28 minutes and was posted at the time by these lefties but I took the liberty of clipping it down to the relevant 2 minutes.



If you have time for the full 28 minutes though, it really is a tour de force. Especially striking phrases: "slave ship on dry land," "a new Jim Crow," "you don't have to call someone the N-word if you can just call them a felon," and "in just 24 months 6 years of one party authoritarian rule would be shattered."

[Mavdog]

van jones has a job, has a best selling book, and unlike dick cheney van jones has proposals/ideas that america, and especially the poor inner city youth, would be better off listened and acting on.

I know the right is pleased at getting this person out of government. unfortunately america loses due to their self interested campaign. too bad they don't think about what is best for our country, they just think about how they can get a scalp to wave around.

[92bDad]

Mavdog, nice debate...heck you know come to think of it, Glen Beck has a job, has a best selling book and unlike Van Jones, has proposal/ideas that America and this includes ALL Americans, would be better off listened and acting on.

i know the left is pleased at getting the first "Black President" elected. Unfortunately America loses due to the left's self-interested campaigns. Too bad they don't think about what is best for the country, they just think about how they can manipulate public perception in an effort to gain an edge on the political power plays.



The radical right should take a lesson from this...this country doesn't need anything radical...that goes left or right.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for conservatives within the Democratic and Republican parties to band together and form a new 3rd party, thus gaining a quick majority away from both parties and actually truly serving the people.

[aquaadverse]

It's a severe blow for those who fight the good fight against a post racial America.

[dude1394]

It appears to me that one that that is happening is the delayed-vetting that should have gone on with cabinent appointments, not friends of barry. Before this dude becomes the "green-jobs-czar" don't you think someone should have some opportunity to find out what he's about? He may be eminently qualified...but I doubt it. I actually would expect an oil-man to be much more versed in green-jobs potential than Van Jones, even with his book.

Last I looked he has about 30 czars working for him, all unaccountable to anyone with budgets. Van Jones for example I believe had 35billion dollars in budegatary control with no confirmation, no constitutional requirements on his position. Does a czar even have to go before congress to explain what they are doing or is it all executive privilege.

Here is a review of his book.

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. As the "ecological crisis nears the boiling point," human rights activist and environmental leader Jones (president of the national organization Green For All) lays out a visionary, meticulous and practical explanation of the two major challenges the U.S. currently faces-massive socioeconomic inequality and imminent ecological catastrophe-and how the current third wave of environmentalism, the "investment" wave, can solve both. If industry players want to take advantage of growing consumer demand for green solutions, they'll have to follow principles of inclusiveness as well as conservation and inventiveness to create "broad opportunity and shared prosperity" for citizens at all levels of society. Rife with statistics, facts and history lessons, Jones introduces a "Green New Deal," a re-imagining of FDR's original New Deal that makes the government "a partner" (as opposed to a "nanny" or "bully") of the people, and sets about defining the principles of a "smart, supportive, reliable" partnership. Jones examines success stories from around the world (included close looks at Chicago and Milwaukee), defines government priorities at national and local levels and offers concrete solutions; one major positive step for any "significant U.S. metropolis" is to "invest massively in constructing buses, light rail cars, and mass-transit projects," creating good jobs while cutting greenhouse gases. With both caution and hope, Jones concludes that "tens of thousands of heroes at every level of human society" will be needed to carry off this third, and perhaps ultimate, green initiative.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

There is little there that I would agree with, especially "investing massively in constructing buses, light reail cars, and mass-transit projects". They continue to be shown to NOT be cost-effective or especially effective at moving people at all. I'd much rather invest in clean-coal and nuclear.

[chumdawg]

I think you meant to say "eminently" qualified. Immenently is another thing altogether.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Mavdog, nice debate...heck you know come to think of it, Glen Beck has a job, has a best selling book and unlike Van Jones, has proposal/ideas that America and this includes ALL Americans, would be better off listened and acting on.

i know the left is pleased at getting the first "Black President" elected. Unfortunately America loses due to the left's self-interested campaigns. Too bad they don't think about what is best for the country, they just think about how they can manipulate public perception in an effort to gain an edge on the political power plays.



The radical right should take a lesson from this...this country doesn't need anything radical...that goes left or right.

Perhaps this is an opportunity for conservatives within the Democratic and Republican parties to band together and form a new 3rd party, thus gaining a quick majority away from both parties and actually truly serving the people.

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

It's a severe blow for those who fight the good fight against a post racial America.

a "post racial america"?

are we somehow going to be absent of race someday?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It appears to me that one that that is happening is the delayed-vetting that should have gone on with cabinent appointments, not friends of barry. Before this dude becomes the "green-jobs-czar" don't you think someone should have some opportunity to find out what he's about? He may be eminently qualified...but I doubt it. I actually would expect an oil-man to be much more versed in green-jobs potential than Van Jones, even with his book.

Last I looked he has about 30 czars working for him, all unaccountable to anyone with budgets. Van Jones for example I believe had 35billion dollars in budegatary control with no confirmation, no constitutional requirements on his position. Does a czar even have to go before congress to explain what they are doing or is it all executive privilege.

Here is a review of his book.

There is little there that I would agree with, especially "investing massively in constructing buses, light reail cars, and mass-transit projects". They continue to be shown to NOT be cost-effective or especially effective at moving people at all. I'd much rather invest in clean-coal and nuclear.

van jones proposes to teach skills to inner city minority youth that today can't seem to get any training beyond working behind the counter at mcdonalds. the concept is to bring these untrained unemployed youth into the 21st century by giving them skills which not only provide them with employment but also provide a second benefit of a "green" economy.

how anyone can be against kids learning how to build solar and wind power equipment, weatherizing old residences to reduce energy consumption is beyond understanding.

so light rail, buses and mass transit projects are all "not cost effective"?
what? you advocate passenger cars as being the most "cost effective"? what is more effective and efficient in "moving people" than these do?

btw clean coal and nuclear produce the electricity that powers light rail, so you seem to be arguing against your own points.

[dude1394]

Clean coal and nuclear would be used to power PHEVs. Yes...passenger cars are definitely the most cost effective imo. There is a reason that amtrak can't make money, nor does dart nor do many bus lines. However bus lines are more efficient than the other two I think. They are really nice to have in a city because some folks do not have autos.

If all people lived in manhattan you'd be correct, but certainly for dallas mass transit is very inefficient.

[Thespiralgoeson]

I don't really have an opinion of Van Jones, but I have to say that I am honestly shocked at how much Obama has shown his inexperience over the past month or two, or really since he took office. Throughout his whole campaign he seemed like the ultimate smooth talker, and now he has the perpetual foot-in-mouth syndrome. This situation with Van Jones, sure it's a trap set by the right, but it's a trap that Obama should have seen from a mile away, but instead he walked right into it. He's been doing that a lot lately.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

a "post racial america"?

are we somehow going to be absent of race someday?

No, but it would be nice to not have filter actions by the ethnic makeup of the actor.
Let me help:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6049031.story

"Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Clean coal and nuclear would be used to power PHEVs. Yes...passenger cars are definitely the most cost effective imo. There is a reason that amtrak can't make money, nor does dart nor do many bus lines. However bus lines are more efficient than the other two I think. They are really nice to have in a city because some folks do not have autos.

If all people lived in manhattan you'd be correct, but certainly for dallas mass transit is very inefficient.

first, the context of the quote you were lampooning is about urban areas, where cars are not only the less efficient they are also contributors to poor air quality. it is not only about improving the mobility of these urban areas it is also about putting idle unemployed people to work building infrastructure, both of which improve our country.

mass transit is more efficient, it reduces by about 1/3 the amount of emissions/passenger. the fuel consumption/passenger is even more efficient.

the trend in housing/development is not the low density spreading out of the past 50 years, it is for more dense vertical projects. mass transit is idela for this.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

No, but it would be nice to not have filter actions by the ethnic makeup of the actor.
Let me help:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6049031.story

"Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in."

steele is wrong. obama wasn't elected because he is a black american, he was elected in spite of being a black american. steele's conclusions show a great deal of presumption about racial "guilt" he projects on the vast majority of white america that doesn't exist.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first, the context of the quote you were lampooning is about urban areas, where cars are not only the less efficient they are also contributors to poor air quality. it is not only about improving the mobility of these urban areas it is also about putting idle unemployed people to work building infrastructure, both of which improve our country.

mass transit is more efficient, it reduces by about 1/3 the amount of emissions/passenger. the fuel consumption/passenger is even more efficient.

the trend in housing/development is not the low density spreading out of the past 50 years, it is for more dense vertical projects. mass transit is idela for this.

I believe you are just mistaken. PHEVs would greatly eliminate emissions from autos. And as afar as mass transit economics, they just are not more efficient unless you take government subsidies into account.

If the only goal is to reduce emissions as much as possible, then yes mass transit wins, but really only rail wins it really seems. Whereas bus lines win when you consider the massive building costs of rail.

But if the goal is to move people the most places, the most efficiently, quickest(time on a bus over a car is wasted time) and economically the automobile cannot be beat. IMO reducing emissions will occur with a movement towards PHEVs, fuel cells and/or probably natural gas.

As far as putting people to work on infrastructure for mass-transit...I see little or no difference in mass-transit construction versus road construction/maintenance.

Again I'm not completely advocating no mass transit, but the desire for mass transit is not economically driven imo nearly as much as a desire to have it. It is very,very useful to allow folks to have other means of transportation if they desire. My argument is that it is less efficient than the personal auto.

In trying to find numbers pro/con..I ran across this little ditty.. A very interesting read called "why people don't use mass transit" which provides analysis to support most of my thinking on this.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/masstransit.htm

[Mavdog]

yes, without a doubt if we all drove electric vehicles there would be a dramatic reduction in emissions. there would also be a dramtic reduction in our oil consumption as well.

good to see that you support the policy of our current administration of advocating/investing in the use of alternative fuels such as electricity to power our cars.

but that is easily a few generations away, and in urban, densley populated areas it is still mass transit which makes the most sense.

[dude1394]

Who says I necessarily agree with our government investing in alternative fuels to power our cars. This would happen automatically as oil becomes more expensive. I might agree with basic research in batteries, etc., but mass-transit is nothing like that.

Right now this is another way of the government taking money from it's citizens and dolling it out, typical inefficiency and the grabbing of more power by our government.

I find it troubling that you cannot use logical economic analysis for public policy.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

steele is wrong. obama wasn't elected because he is a black american, he was elected in spite of being a black american. steele's conclusions show a great deal of presumption about racial "guilt" he projects on the vast majority of white america that doesn't exist.

The mere hint of being labeled a racist is terrifying for any white male if they have a public profile. If you want to maintain Obama wasn't elected primarily because of the symbolism you're wrong. The vast majority of the inauguration was devoted to it. He won by 7%. 96% of Black voters with similar, though not as wide a percentage for Hispanics and Asians.

First time voters broke 75% to %25.

I really doubt you would find a Caucasian with the same resume beating out Hillary Clinton. He had very little experience in anything unless you wanted a Judge or perhaps a Czar. If we ever had a President with zero private sector or military or executive experience I can't think of him.

I find it eminently better than people voting against him because of complexion, but I really hope it stops being an issue one way or the other.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who says I necessarily agree with our government investing in alternative fuels to power our cars. This would happen automatically as oil becomes more expensive. I might agree with basic research in batteries, etc., but mass-transit is nothing like that.

Right now this is another way of the government taking money from it's citizens and dolling it out, typical inefficiency and the grabbing of more power by our government.

I find it troubling that you cannot use logical economic analysis for public policy.

you mean like when the government "invested" billions to build the highway system?

the money for research cannot come from solely private sources. the investment in research is a role that government fulfills nicely.

I find it troubling that you cannot understand government research has not resulted in its "grabbing of more power" and history tells us it is just the reverse. the very thing that we are using to communicate, that has proven to increase our efficiency in both personal and business activities, the internet....begun by the government.

public policy is not to look at short term cost/benefit but long term cost/benefit. you dwell on the former and ignore the later.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

The mere hint of being labeled a racist is terrifying for any white male if they have a public profile. If you want to maintain Obama wasn't elected primarily because of the symbolism you're wrong. The vast majority of the inauguration was devoted to it. He won by 7%. 96% of Black voters with similar, though not as wide a percentage for Hispanics and Asians.

not too much different than in prior elections, about 93% of blacks voted for kerry.

First time voters broke 75% to %25.

and what tells you these voters cast their ballot for obama because he was black as opposed to his platform? what, you can't?

you've put forth a supposition not a fact.

I really doubt you would find a Caucasian with the same resume beating out Hillary Clinton. He had very little experience in anything unless you wanted a Judge or perhaps a Czar. If we ever had a President with zero private sector or military or executive experience I can't think of him.

I find it eminently better than people voting against him because of complexion, but I really hope it stops being an issue one way or the other.

you underestimate the glass ceiling a woman faces to be president. it is even stronger than what a black american faced.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you mean like when the government "invested" billions to build the highway system?

the money for research cannot come from solely private sources. the investment in research is a role that government fulfills nicely.

I find it troubling that you cannot understand government research has not resulted in its "grabbing of more power" and history tells us it is just the reverse. the very thing that we are using to communicate, that has proven to increase our efficiency in both personal and business activities, the internet....begun by the government.

public policy is not to look at short term cost/benefit but long term cost/benefit. you dwell on the former and ignore the later.

Sorry a highway system is nothing like investing in mass-transit or alternative feul technologies. One is pretty damn certain, solid and of tangible use, the other is speculative at best, political at worst.

That you will not and can not put pen to paper to determine objectively if mass-transit is an expedient use of tax dollars leads me to think your religion( climate control/enviromentalism) is over-ruling your reason.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not too much different than in prior elections, about 93% of blacks voted for kerry.



and what tells you these voters cast their ballot for obama because he was black as opposed to his platform? what, you can't?

you've put forth a supposition not a fact.



you underestimate the glass ceiling a woman faces to be president. it is even stronger than what a black american faced.

Next time you can find civil rights veterans weeping, when international media is celebrating his election, and again you saw person after person exulting in the election and an inauguration that was 99% about a barrier falling let me know. That full out celebration of his racial status tells me it was his race. I must have missed all the joy of his platform getting him in office.

Speaking of suppositions:
12 fortune 500 companies have female CEOs. 4 have African American.

It must be a terrible burden to know everything and have to regurgitate it in such a condescending manner.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Next time you can find civil rights veterans weeping, when international media is celebrating his election, and again you saw person after person exulting in the election and an inauguration that was 99% about a barrier falling let me know. That full out celebration of his racial status tells me it was his race. I must have missed all the joy of his platform getting him in office.

you have a habit of confusing cause and affect.

Speaking of suppositions:
12 fortune 500 companies have female CEOs. 4 have African American.

yeah, bubba doesn't select the ceo, other wise there would be fewer.

It must be a terrible burden to know everything and have to regurgitate it in such a condescending manner.

just read your verbosity as a manual.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sorry a highway system is nothing like investing in mass-transit or alternative feul technologies. One is pretty damn certain, solid and of tangible use, the other is speculative at best, political at worst.

That you will not and can not put pen to paper to determine objectively if mass-transit is an expedient use of tax dollars leads me to think your religion( climate control/enviromentalism) is over-ruling your reason.

there is no doubt an alternative fuel source needs to be completed. it is best for our environment, and it is best for our economy. it is critical for our country long term imo.

the highway system is very comparable. the $ were spent not for the short term but the long term. the residual return has been realized for over 50 years. so too will the investment in improving the efficiencies of our transportation system.

many studies have shown that the development of mass transit results in about a 3x return in collateral property development. coupled with the decrease in emissions, improvement in cost/transit passenger, it pencils out.

[dude1394]

We are going to be so screwed....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090602033.html

In the go-go years of the U.S. housing boom, virtually anybody could get a few hundred thousand dollars to buy a home, and private lenders flooded the market, aggressively pursuing borrowers no matter their means or financial history.



Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Only one lender of consequence remains: the federal government, which undertook one of its earliest and most dramatic rescues of the financial crisis by seizing control a year ago of the two largest mortgage finance companies in the world, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
While this made it possible for many borrowers to keep getting loans and helped protect the housing market from further damage, the government's newly dominant role -- nearly 90 percent of all new home loans are funded or guaranteed by taxpayers -- has far-reaching consequences for prospective home buyers and taxpayers.

[aquaadverse]

Yeah, It'll be great when Texas gets a female Governor to break the glass ceiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

31 women have been Governors as opposed to 4 African Americans.

200 women have been elected to Congress, 123 African Americans.

40 females have held Cabinet positions. 17 have been African Americans.

A number of the females were double dippers as African Americans.

You forgot the Bubbettes. Hillary didn't lose the nomination because she was female, it was because she was Shrillary.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Yeah, It'll be great when Texas gets a female Governor to break the glass ceiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

31 women have been Governors as opposed to 4 African Americans.

200 women have been elected to Congress, 123 African Americans.

40 females have held Cabinet positions. 17 have been African Americans.

A number of the females were double dippers as African Americans.

You forgot the Bubbettes. Hillary didn't lose the nomination because she was female, it was because she was Shrillary.

51% of the American population are female, 14% are African-American.

I'm no math-magician, but I see a completely different picture once you adjust the numbers to match the percentages...




EDIT: not that I'm taking sides in this debate, just pointing out that your statistics are a bit misleading (but then again, that generally seems to be the point of using statistics...)

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

....
Last I looked he has about 30 czars working for him, all unaccountable to anyone with budgets. Van Jones for example I believe had 35billion dollars in budegatary control with no confirmation, no constitutional requirements on his position. Does a czar even have to go before congress to explain what they are doing or is it all executive privilege.

.....

I don't understand this one....?

aren't all of these "Tsars" just "Assistant secretary for bla bla bla" at the Dept of Commerce, or on on the NSC or what ever... just like for any other administration...?

But because people call them "tsar of bla bla bla" they are more sinister?


i really don't know if there is something more that i am missing here...?

[dude1394]

It appears that Van Jones for example had dollars to spend. Lot's of them it appears. The car czar is making decisions, payroll czar is making decisions, others making decisions. If Barry needs a green-jobs czar the correct way to do it would be to put it under the Energy Department, but it appears that would involved a little too much scrutiny. Certainly Van Jones wouldn't have passed any kind of congressional vetting.

It appears to me to be a way to get your appointees in and not have them accountable to congress (I'm not even sure they have to appear if barry wants to claim executive privildege).

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is no doubt an alternative fuel source needs to be completed. it is best for our environment, and it is best for our economy. it is critical for our country long term imo.

the highway system is very comparable. the $ were spent not for the short term but the long term. the residual return has been realized for over 50 years. so too will the investment in improving the efficiencies of our transportation system.

many studies have shown that the development of mass transit results in about a 3x return in collateral property development. coupled with the decrease in emissions, improvement in cost/transit passenger, it pencils out.

I'm reading various views on this whole "Public Transit"

As it stands today, I'm in favor of a more diverse rail system, especially here in the Metroplex. I'm also in favor of alternative fuels...such as electric cars. I'm a big fan of Tesla Motors and can see a future in which the automotive industry has been radically changed so that we rely less and less on "Gasoline"

However, I believe that all this can be realized throught he private sector and that it will be more efficient and higher quality than anything the Government would try to do.

The government should find ways to provide more incentives to private corporations to invest in these new technologeis and innovative ideas to promote alternative fuels. They should also, promote the private sectors efforts to provide more local/domestic fuels by allowing companies to drill off U.S. shores.

The government should serve in the way a "Group Facilitator" serves...Any Support group belongs to the group and the facilitator simply guides and keeps the group on track, but ultimately has no authority.

What we are witnessing is a Government that is trying to take over the very lives of the people it serves.

Providing incentives is much better way to guide these companies into providing what nearly all of us would agree on...but madating and regulating, with punishment is so counter productive.

The sad part is that we are seeing over and over, that despite there being some good people in both parties, their are several in charge who are only in it for the power and control. Barry is one of them...although, I would argue that he is not, but rather that he is an empty suit being controlled by others.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Underdog

51% of the American population are female, 14% are African-American.

I'm no math-magician, but I see a completely different picture once you adjust the numbers to match the percentages...




EDIT: not that I'm taking sides in this debate, just pointing out that your statistics are a bit misleading (but then again, that generally seems to be the point of using statistics...)

The point isn't the relative percentage of the population demographic of the person, it's "Bubba doesn't select them in or there would be less". Looks like Bubba doesn't just vote them in, he also appoints them.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

The point isn't the relative percentage of the population demographic of the person, it's "Bubba doesn't select them in or there would be less". Looks like Bubba doesn't just vote them in, he also appoints them.

what? you attempt to make the claim that women are more represented in elected positions than blacks, and when it is correctly pointed out the ratios of population to number of elected politicians your response is "it isn't relative"???

yikes. selective to say the least, irrational and illogical as well. as a % of the population blacks are well represented in elected positions, women not so much.

national polls show that almost 3x as many respondents state they will not vote for a woman than those who say they will not vote for a black candidate.

this pales in comparison to the majority of people who say they won't vote for a mormon btw.

[dude1394]

Elections have consequences...

UPDATE:
It now appears that this may be yet another example of a rules of engagement problem.

GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.
“We will do to you what we did to the Russians,” the insurgent’s leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.
“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.
Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander’s Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border.
Three Americans and 19 Afghans were wounded, and U.S. forces later recovered the bodies of two insurgents, although they believe more were killed.
The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village’s first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.

I said it would happen, and only recently “officials” have admitted that the new Afghanistan ROE have opened up new space for the insurgents. Now it has cost the lives of four more U.S. Marines. How many more Marines will have to die before this issue is addressed? The new ROE should have been dealt with as a classified memorandum of encouragement and understanding to consider holistic consequences of actions rather than a change to formal rules by which our Marines and Soldiers are prosecuted by courts. Yet the damage has been and continues to be done by poor decisions at the highest levels of leadership.
Damn the ROE.

[mcsluggo]

we are in danger of losing the WAR because of civilian casualties. The WAR.

we cannot win there unless we have the support of the people. the support of the people has waned and threatens to continue to wane... that cannot happen if we are going to win the WAR (rather than a battle).

[alexamenos]

Kill more ragheads, thereby reducing support amongst the locals, or get mire marines killed losing more support in the US.

Quite a dilemma...I wonder if the Russians or the Brits dealt with similar issues as those mighty empires got their asses kicked by humble little Afghanistan.

Whatever, I'm sure we'll do much better than them.