DescentBB

Greatly revered or reviled. What was your take on this South American leader?

He was Sean Penn's friend and that's all that I need to know.

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was...a friend of mine…he would….ehhh never mind.

complex guy, largely bad, but some of his people revered him. I wish there were multiple choices on this one, but have to go to the negative....

No reason to hate him at all. No better or worse than other leaders.

That's a good enough reason to hate him if you're an American.

Nah, we are told to hate him because he doesn't bow down to us. I actually have a bit of respect for that.

Has nothing to do with his attitude toward our government, but that's where my commentary ends, because I really don't know much about the man.

CobGobbler wrote:No reason to hate him at all. No better or worse than other leaders.

Lol, you mean like Obama?

CobGobbler wrote:Nah, we are told to hate him because he doesn't bow down to us. I actually have a bit of respect for that.

You must also respect the leaders of North Korea and Iran then.

Did you also respect him for the 2 bil he accumulated in his private bank acct.? Did you respect him for closing down newspapers and TV stations that were critical of him? Or just the fact he used his fake anger against the US so he could divert the attention of his people from what he was doing?

++ to what Woody said.

Since I'm not Venezuelan, why would I really care about what they do? Our last leader bankrupted our economy and gets to live the rest of his life with a golden diaper, how is Chavez any different? One of the leaders oversaw the deaths of over a hundred thousand civilians, which leader is that?

And yeah Spidey, I guess it's like Obama. Not really different than the other presidents we've had, so why does your side hate him so very much?

Oh I don't know. Why did your side liken Bush to Hitler??? And yet you have respect for a man just because he "Didn't bow down to us" yet he stole from his people crushed any opposition, how Stalinesque. And yet you freely admit that while having respect for him you don't know anythig about him. That doesn't seem like rational thinking to me.

No, I said that since I'm not Venezuelan, why would I really care about what some despotic ruler does in his own country? Forgive me if I care about my own countrymen before some other country on a different continent. I didn't say I like the man, nor did I say what he did was perfectly acceptable, I only said I respect someone that stands up to the biggest bully on the playground.

And, as for the Hitler comparisons, I think they are completely out of line on all sides.

Chavez was nothing but a pipsqueak dictator that came from a long line of overused rhetoric blathering militaristic South American pipsqueak dictators. They're all the same, rightist or leftist. All he did was use national pride and hatred of the U.S. as a wedge to gain power over his people and steal lots of national money to enrich himself and polish his image.

tunnelcat wrote:Chavez was nothing but a pipsqueak dictator that came from a long line of overused rhetoric blathering militaristic South American pipsqueak dictators. They're all the same, rightist or leftist. All he did was use national pride and hatred of the U.S. as a wedge to gain power over his people and steal lots of national money to enrich himself and polish his image.

+1

the difference between us and them is we demand a dinner before we get bent over....

Isn't that what Obama's doing right now with the House Republicans? A little wine and dine schmoozing with the GOP to form some kind of deal, which I'm sure he'll have to bend over for them to make things work.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... thumbs-up/

tunnelcat wrote:Isn't that what Obama's doing right now with the House Republicans? A little wine and dine schmoozing with the GOP to form some kind of deal, which I'm sure he'll have to bend over for them to make things work.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013 ... thumbs-up/

Looking at how Obama greets foreign dignitaries like the king of Saudi Arabia, bending over is a well polished method that I'm sure Obama will put to good use with the House Republican. Thanks for the segue TC

woodchip, we all take it in through the out door with respect to saudi arabia. that country is our lifeline. really sucks

CobGobbler wrote:woodchip, we all take it in through the out door with respect to saudi arabia. that country is our lifeline. really sucks

Well don't leave, make it better.
Tell someone who depends on your vote that you want to harvest american oil first then shop around for the rest...

Or we could just figure out something other than oil and tell them all to ★■◆● off? If we spent half as much on r & d as we do on oil I think we'd be able to figure something out.

CobGobbler wrote:Or we could just figure out something other than oil and tell them all to **** off? If we spent half as much on r & d as we do on oil I think we'd be able to figure something out.

The liberals say we should put a huge tax on gasoline so they can spend it on that r&d. Would you like to pay $10 per gallon for gas and all the associated price increases to everyday items such as food and hard goods that would come from giving the politicians the extra money they say would be spent on r&d for alternative fuels?

I know the extra money in taxes that cigarette smokers pay was supposed to offset healthcare costs associated with smoking...never happened....well the taxes are definitely being collected but there is no sign the politicians sent it to offsetting healthcare expenses.

I know the money they collect for social security is nothing but IOU's on a ledger that they count as assets instead of debts, certainly isn't there for you and I to retire on...

So I'm not investing any faith in government leading the way to an alternative fuel source

I think the only way we will see alternative fuels brought on line is when the people in the fuel finding business determine that it is cost effective to supply an alternative. When they forcast that inevitability you will see them spend the r&d money themselves. Until then politicians are going to bring it up simply to cash in on the issue and deliver diddly squat.

Will Robinson wrote:I think the only way we will see alternative fuels brought on line is when the people in the fuel finding business determine that it is cost effective to supply an alternative. When they forcast that inevitability you will see them spend the r&d money themselves. Until then politicians are going to bring it up simply to cash in on the issue and deliver diddly squat.

They are already spending craploads of money on R&D. The Fuel Industry isn't stupid, the are rabidly trying to find the next best thing so they can corner the market. I hear stories from a friend who works a BP and they are pretty much 100% committed to finding something to use other than fossil fuels and budgets to reflect that commitment. The problem is, alternatives haven't crossed the energy barrier yet. Unfortunately, there is currently nothing out there that can replace fossil fuels in the near future. However, there are several technologies that are all on the verge of breaking the curve in the next decade or two. Then it will be a free for all with several competing types of energy sources. It's going to be interesting. And as far as the politicians are concerned, eliminating fossil fuels should be humanity's #1 priority, so let them speak in that direction.

If "humanity" should have one priority, it should be to educate themselves so that they know better than to accept political/governmental bull**** at face value.

Fossil fuels are basically liquid (ancient) sunlight, so it is a pretty tough act to follow. But who knows, 10-15 years from now things could look very different. Either we run out of sufficiently exploitable fossil fuels, or we invent something that is actually superior.

vision wrote:... And as far as the politicians are concerned, eliminating fossil fuels should be humanity's #1 priority, so let them speak in that direction.

Speaking about it is fine. Taxing us to death at the gas pump under the false premise that the extra tax revenue will speed up the development of alternative fuel was what I'm not happy with.

Like I said, and you then confirmed, we'll get alternative fuel when the petroleum czars decide it is time.

They could cut 100 billion from defense. Solved. So we don't have those new stealth destroyers, I think we'll be just fine with the rest of the fleet.

CobGobbler wrote:They could cut 100 billion from defense. Solved. So we don't have those new stealth destroyers, I think we'll be just fine with the rest of the fleet.

Or we could just stop giving money to worthless green energy companies like Solyndra.

nice comparison, Woodchip.....you're providing an example that is maybe 1% of the costs that were cited by Cob, and that is a high estimate. Further Green-energy investments will, ultimately, mean American jobs for something other than weapons production. One would think most citizens would find that a responsible long-term plan.......

You do realize weapons production is only a very small part of our GDP. Something like 4.7% (which includes a lot more than weapons production)

woodchip wrote:You do realize weapons production is only a very small part of our GDP. Something like 4.7% (which includes a lot more than weapons production)

and you realize that subsidies to green-energy represent less than 2% of that amount?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:You do realize weapons production is only a very small part of our GDP. Something like 4.7% (which includes a lot more than weapons production)

and you realize that subsidies to green-energy represent less than 2% of that amount?

Which would be fine if the money wasn't subsidizing failed businesses with a hint of the owners using the funds to help Obama's election campaign.

ridiculous charge, and if you don't think alternate energy is something our nation should be investing in HEAVILY, you either don't understand the trajectory of the energy business world-wide, the global economy or long-term planning.

I want the stealth destroyers…we should build them while we still can. Soon enough China will be the only country on the planet with enough industrial capacity to build anything.

Maybe we can survive another 50 years, until we would be forced to use nukes to defend ourselves. (if they still work)

Oh. By the way, you deserve cheap consumer goods…go buy another Korean TV.

“responsible long-term plan” lol, isn’t it about time we had some actual consumer education if we want some long term viability?

The Democrats won’t do it because they are invested in demonizing business, and the Republicans won’t do it because…well I’m not really sure about that one, probably the same reason they stink at politics so much.

(btw, just kidding about the destroyers, green energy wouldn’t be so bad if we actually built the equipment here…but we don’t)

Spidey, the only way we are going to be able to build here, competitively is to subsidize at the development stage. How do you think China came to dominate the solar panel market? I agree with the consumer ed thing....to many Americans are wedded to cheap goods that ultimately prop up foreign economies. Why don't the Repubs deal with it, you wonder? Because their cash supporters are making big money overseas, that's why.

callmeslick wrote:ridiculous charge, and if you don't think alternate energy is something our nation should be investing in HEAVILY, you either don't understand the trajectory of the energy business world-wide, the global economy or long-term planning.

It certainly isn't a ridiculous charge to suggest Obama gave Solyndra around half a billion dollars in guaranteed loans when he knew he shouldn't have based on his own administrations rules and reports!
And by "knew he shouldn't have" I mean there is an email trail between Solyndra and the administration that proves it and those same administration officials in the email chain blatantly claim they 'don't remember working to approve the loans'. The way they ignored their own policy to push the loans through in spite of their own budget team reporting it was a bad deal was criminal, literally...

Of course it would have required an objective media to make that glaring offense an issue during the campaign or to get the congress to do something about it. And we all know that didn't happen.

Obama basically applied the same ill fated approach to Solyndra that he wants to apply to the economy at large. Spend it into success by pumping tax payer money into it until it somehow becomes vibrant...or at least appears to be.

The problem is, in Solyndras case, the Chinese started building the same product for 1/3 the cost and in spite of smart people telling him Solyndra was doomed he decided to prop them up with millions of our dollars for just that, a prop, a campaign green-job-smoke-and-mirror-prop that he let drop as soon as his campaign needs for its appearance were met!

Ridiculous is certainly an appropriate description, but not of the charge Woody makes. It is a perfect description of the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars simply to give Obama's campaign a measly talking point. Over half a billion discarded like a soiled tissue.

sorry, will, but you don't understand the concept......you have to float money to a LOT of ventures. Many of them will fail. The goal is to have one or two, or at best a handful, emerge and become vibrant businesses. That is what is being attempted, although whining putzes nay-saying every attempt to form a vital 21st century economy isn't much of a help.....

callmeslick wrote:sorry, will, but you don't understand the concept......you have to float money to a LOT of ventures. Many of them will fail. The goal is to have one or two, or at best a handful, emerge and become vibrant businesses. That is what is being attempted, although whining putzes nay-saying every attempt to form a vital 21st century economy isn't much of a help.....

That is laughable slick. I understand the concept perfectly. And I understand you completely glossed over the BIG DIFFERENCE.
The company Solyndra went through the governments process to see if it qualified for the money that team Obama was going to "float" them. They FAILED the test. Members of the Obama team brought it to the attention of the leaders in the administration and instead of doing the right thing those Obama fools rushed to give them the money anyway because Solyndra was a pet project that Obama had touted in numerous campaign speeches. They actually broke the law by giving them the money knowing full well the company was going under. Of course the top dogs at the company got their big payday from the loan money first though...quid pro quo for campaign donations maybe?

Your denial is typical and quite sad. If this had been a republican administration doing it you would own the Impeach Bush for Paying Off his Cronies at Solyndra T shirt by now and Bill Mahr would have been doing a whole list of 'New Rules' on just this one event!!
Instead we get guys like you doing the Wizard of Oz routine....'Pay no attention to the scandalous man behind the whitehouse curtain!! I am the great and powerful slick! I know better!!'

callmeslick wrote:sorry, will, but you don't understand the concept......you have to float money to a LOT of ventures. Many of them will fail. The goal is to have one or two, or at best a handful, emerge and become vibrant businesses. That is what is being attempted, although whining putzes nay-saying every attempt to form a vital 21st century economy isn't much of a help.....

That’s not the government’s job…that’s your job as an investor.

I don’t wish to be gambling with my tax dollars.