Quantcast

Government by extortion and blackmail?

disinter 2010/07/05 05:42:44
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Breaking: Obama shuts down 33% of the country’s oil refining capacity

This was the inherent threat that Obama had presented for months. Either give him Cap and Trade or we will shut everything down through the EPA.

Read More: http://colonel6.com/tag/httpwww-colonel6-combreaki...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Roy Duncan dallasg... 2010/07/05 14:39:35
    Roy Duncan
    +2
    That's right, taxes are the key, but not enough people have the balls to carry it off and too many fools still support him, because of the color of his skin. Nearly all the white fools who support him do so because of the color of his skin. Nobody paid any attention to what he said during the election because they were going to vote for him anyway because of his skin color. That's what the race card is all about. That's why barry soetoro bacame barrak obama.
  • Icono1 Roy Duncan 2010/07/05 15:43:24 (edited)
    Icono1
    +1


    0Bama's true color(s).
  • Kay 2010/07/05 10:29:19
    Yes
    Kay
    +2
    He just never stops.. partying that is. Nothing like entertaining far left liberal burnouts like McCartney while the oil is spewing. It's been months but all he's worried about is his re-election and he should be. November just can't come fast enough and just think.. it's only a couple of months away and the damage Obama has done is very apparent.
  • sue 2010/07/05 08:01:20
    No
    sue
    +1
    This post is so full of inaccuracies, it's hard to even comment on it.

    1. Obama opposes Arizona's recent law that enables law enforcement to check people's IDs if they are suspected of being illegal. While I personally don't think the law as written poses a real threat to anyone, opponents say that if not implemented properly, it could result in citizens who look hispanic being arrested if they have no ID with them.
    2. Clean up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico have been ongoing since the beginning, and the obama administration has not blocked efforts to assist.
    3. The border funding has not been cut off to Arizona. In fact it has been increased. The only evidence I could find to support anythint like this was that funding has shifted from an ineffective fence to more effective thermal imaging devices in Arizona in some places.
    4. The ban on drilling is only for deepwater drilling.

    Can anyone find out if anything in this article is actually true?
  • Roy Duncan sue 2010/07/05 14:48:05
    Roy Duncan
    +2
    You can the same as we can, just check many different news sources not just msnbc. cnn, hln, different news papers, just be aware that some are now controlled by this government. It's appalling, what msnbc has become. Then judge for yourself without predjudice. I don't mean just racial prejudice but party affiliation also. That prejudice has become of a problem than racial predjudice.
  • sue Roy Duncan 2010/07/05 15:06:41
    sue
    Well, from what I found, there is not one shred of truth. I was just asking if anybody found something different.
  • Sanibel sue 2010/07/05 15:28:10
    Sanibel
    +2
    Whose propaganda are you listening to? 1) The Arizona law was taken from the Federal Law. You aren't very familier with the law are you? 2) Clean up is ongoing from the beginning. Obama left this up to BP not to Federal Resources. 3) Can you tell us your source of information here? 4) I read and heard that there is no off shore drilling by America at this point, but Soros and Brazil stand to make money off of this drilling ban. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
  • Icono1 Sanibel 2010/07/05 15:37:36
    Icono1
    +2
    Yes, Soros and Brazil will make a pure mint from this.
  • sue Sanibel 2010/07/05 15:47:25
    sue
    Obviously, you didn't see where I said I don't have a problem with the law. Enforcing immigration law is not a problem. Requiring all citizens to carry an ID is a bit of an issue.

    I didn't say the cleanup efforts were funded by the federal government. Why should the taxpayer clean up what BP spilled? This article said the Obama administration prevented cleanup, and that is not the case at all. Here is an early article on clean up efforts that were clearly not prevented.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/U...
    Plus the EPA and DHS among others are coordinating to deploy private and foreign assistance.

    They have put a temporary ban on deepwater drilling at this point, until other stations can be inspected. This is wise. However, the thing about Soros, and Brazil is just BS. It refers to an ExIm Bank loan to Petrobras to buy US equipment for its off shore drilling project. The US has no right to agree or not agree to this project, Brazil will do it with or without the US equipment. The ExIm Bank exists to promote US exports, which will increase by millions with this equipment sale. ExIm Bank operates at no cost to the US taxpayer. If you want to know more about ExIm Bank, go to eximbank.gov. The project will not be ready to drill for years and by that time, the deepwater sites in ...
    Obviously, you didn't see where I said I don't have a problem with the law. Enforcing immigration law is not a problem. Requiring all citizens to carry an ID is a bit of an issue.

    I didn't say the cleanup efforts were funded by the federal government. Why should the taxpayer clean up what BP spilled? This article said the Obama administration prevented cleanup, and that is not the case at all. Here is an early article on clean up efforts that were clearly not prevented.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/U...
    Plus the EPA and DHS among others are coordinating to deploy private and foreign assistance.

    They have put a temporary ban on deepwater drilling at this point, until other stations can be inspected. This is wise. However, the thing about Soros, and Brazil is just BS. It refers to an ExIm Bank loan to Petrobras to buy US equipment for its off shore drilling project. The US has no right to agree or not agree to this project, Brazil will do it with or without the US equipment. The ExIm Bank exists to promote US exports, which will increase by millions with this equipment sale. ExIm Bank operates at no cost to the US taxpayer. If you want to know more about ExIm Bank, go to eximbank.gov. The project will not be ready to drill for years and by that time, the deepwater sites in the US should have been inspected and should have developed emergency plans, and should have been operating for years.
    (more)
  • Sanibel sue 2010/07/05 18:00:53
    Sanibel
    +1
    Sue, you are swimming in kool-aid. Get your nose out of Barry's behind long enough to check out the validity of your resources. I don't mean to be cruel but enough is enough. It is bad enought to listen to the Regime's lies without having their sheeple pass off their lies as the truth.
  • sue Sanibel 2010/07/05 19:23:35
    sue
    The first thing is opinion -- I don't happen to think it's righ to require citizens to carry ID at all times. I guess some people might disagree. OK.

    However, are you seriously going to say that the president prevented people from cleaning up the spill even though there is a ton of footage of people cleaning up the spill?

    I would think the ExIm Bank site would be the best site to tell you what ExIm Bank does. You can look it up on factcheck.org or any other fact checking site -- ExIm Bank does not cost the taxpayers money, and either gives or guarantees loans to companies overseas to promote US exports. If you're so sure I'm wrong, give any source that proves it -- a real one, not that same stupid article with all the accusations and no sources that has been disproven on factcheck.org a million times.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/05 17:20:14
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/05 19:37:57
    sue
    I didn't say that there would be check points. However, if a citizen is jogging without an ID and ends up jaywalking, or their dog gets off the leash, or if they get in a heated argument with a neighbor over the hydrangeas, the police could be called and without an ID a citizen could be picked up.

    The Obama administration had blocked offers from NO countries. Not one. It has evaluated offers and accepted some. Some were not accepted right away either because it was duplicative and they had a closer source for the same material. Others were not offers of assistance, but offers to sell services. The US is not allowed to pay a foreign government for services. The US also is not supposed to pay for foreign ships to do work in US waters. If they were offers of assistance, they could be accepted, but they are sales offers, so the administration is buying American, like they are supposed to. The offers that require a waiver are from US interests in foreign shipping companies, not from countries. This might clear some things up.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2010...

    I know that there is a temporary ban on deep water drilling, until they get the regulating agency and inspections in order and until they all have emergency back up plans. I don't think it's too much to ask that they are u...




    I didn't say that there would be check points. However, if a citizen is jogging without an ID and ends up jaywalking, or their dog gets off the leash, or if they get in a heated argument with a neighbor over the hydrangeas, the police could be called and without an ID a citizen could be picked up.

    The Obama administration had blocked offers from NO countries. Not one. It has evaluated offers and accepted some. Some were not accepted right away either because it was duplicative and they had a closer source for the same material. Others were not offers of assistance, but offers to sell services. The US is not allowed to pay a foreign government for services. The US also is not supposed to pay for foreign ships to do work in US waters. If they were offers of assistance, they could be accepted, but they are sales offers, so the administration is buying American, like they are supposed to. The offers that require a waiver are from US interests in foreign shipping companies, not from countries. This might clear some things up.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2010...

    I know that there is a temporary ban on deep water drilling, until they get the regulating agency and inspections in order and until they all have emergency back up plans. I don't think it's too much to ask that they are up to spec, do you? If BP had met specifications, we would not be in this predicament. I had not heard about a white paper and a lie, if you want me to figure out what you are talking about, you should be a bit more specific.

    On the ExIm Bank think to Petrobras, I can't believe people are still spouting this lie. ExIm Bank give loans to foreign companies to promote US exports. They do not cost the taxpayers any money. On this particular loan, Brazil will do the drilling with or without US equipment. With the ExIm Bank loan, they will buy US equipment, generating millions for US producers. Without the loan, they would still drill, but woudl buy the equipment somewhere else. Here is a link to ExIm Bank:
    http://www.exim.gov/about/mis...
    Here is a link to the article that explains why you are wrong on this:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009...
    (more)
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/06 14:04:18
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/06 17:47:22 (edited)
    sue
    You are incorrect in what you are saying about the foreign ships. It would not be a problem if they were actually giving assistance instead of selling their services. The foreign countries sending foreign ships is ok, and several offers have been accepted. (You can say factcheck.org leans left if you like, but the sources are listed at the bottom and you can check them yourself.) It's foreign ships going from one US port to the other that's an issue, and we have plenty of for profit american companies willing to sell their services to the government.

    I don't know why the drilling has been stopped. Presumably because it so dangerous to the environment and the economy surrounding wherever the drilling takes place and it would be irresponsible to let these people continue with the inadequate emergency response plans they have now.

    Brazil is going to drill. ExIm bank has given primary commitment to give a loan to Petrobras in order to boost US exports. The deal with ExIm Bank and the government of Brazil was made a long time ago, and the new commitment to Petrobras is not finalized. Obama does not get directly involved in deciding what ExIm Bank does. In any case, what the US money supports is the purchase of US equipment. Brazil will drill with it or without it, but without i...

    You are incorrect in what you are saying about the foreign ships. It would not be a problem if they were actually giving assistance instead of selling their services. The foreign countries sending foreign ships is ok, and several offers have been accepted. (You can say factcheck.org leans left if you like, but the sources are listed at the bottom and you can check them yourself.) It's foreign ships going from one US port to the other that's an issue, and we have plenty of for profit american companies willing to sell their services to the government.

    I don't know why the drilling has been stopped. Presumably because it so dangerous to the environment and the economy surrounding wherever the drilling takes place and it would be irresponsible to let these people continue with the inadequate emergency response plans they have now.

    Brazil is going to drill. ExIm bank has given primary commitment to give a loan to Petrobras in order to boost US exports. The deal with ExIm Bank and the government of Brazil was made a long time ago, and the new commitment to Petrobras is not finalized. Obama does not get directly involved in deciding what ExIm Bank does. In any case, what the US money supports is the purchase of US equipment. Brazil will drill with it or without it, but without it they will buy equipment somewhere else. I know what you're talking about -- the question is, do you? Did you read any of the links? Do you understand that Obama had very little, if anything to do with this thin? Do you understand that the money will fund US exports? At no cost to the taxpayer? WHy do you have a problem with this?

    I don't like to watch Glenn Beck very much. He has become a charicature. He says himself that he is not a hournalist and that he does not feel compelled to base his commentary on fact, so I don't see a point in listening. His show is for entertainment only, and I don't find him entertaining.
    (more)
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/07 13:58:10
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/07 18:51:01
    sue
    I think you still don't understand what the prohibition is on the foreign ships under the Jones act. The US can pay for goods shipped from a foreign country to the US on a foreign ship. It is not allowed to pay for goods shipped from one US port to another on a foreign ship.

    In any case, no offers of assistance have been turned down, except one from France who wanted to give dispersants that are not allowed in the US, because they are classified as toxic. No ships have been turned away because of the Jones act. http://www.deepwaterhorizonre...

    I couldn't understand the part about the white paper -- it's kind of a run-on. From what I can tell, you think it would be worse to stop production than continue. I didn't read the white paper, but I'm sure that it would be safer for the workers to not be on the rig than to be on it.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/08 17:05:48
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/08 17:09:35
    sue
    Is that right? Produce a link to the list then.
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/06 17:50:39
    sue
    You can say what you want about requiring an ID. Let's face it, people who look brown would suffer serious delays if they were stopped and had no ID, and people who weren't would not. There is no way around it.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/07 13:53:03
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/07 18:53:51
    sue
    Of course you don't go through an airport without an ID. This would require that people have ID just walking around in their own neighborhood just in case anything happened and the police were called -- as I explained in ample detail.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/08 17:08:44
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/08 17:14:40
    sue
    It would require you to have an ID, just in case something happened and you were to be questioned. If you didn't have it on you, you would be taken in if they suspected you might not be a legal resident.

    I would solve the problem by making real punishments for people who employ illegal labor. First time, big fine. Second time, jail time for the HR manager, and possibly others implicated, third time mandatory closure. That would stop people from using illegal labor as a business model to undercut legally operating companies. With no illegal jobs, no illegal immigrants.

    Then, make it easier to hire immigrant legally if they are needed. Give them amnesty just to get out -- not to stay (so that they don't get stamped on the way out as having been here illegally so they could get another visa in the future). Give them a one or two month window. Then they could get visas legally if their employers want them back. Basically, you would have to make it more expensive for the employer to hire people illegal than legall.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/08 18:09:32
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/08 19:52:40
    sue
    I think that if there were no jobs people wouldn't come, and it would be a whole lot easier to secure the border.

    Children born in the US are US citizens (which is, in part, what makes this problem so complicated). In any case I wouldn't do anything to hospitals that treat patients (they are already paying for it) or to schools either.

    For companies that hire illegals on purpose, this is just what came up to the top of the list in a google search.

    http://www.breitbart.com/arti...
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/...
    http://www.washingtonpost.com...
    http://www.illawarramercury.c...

    I didn't say the illegal workers should get off scot free. Obviously, they should be deported when they are caught too. The companies should not go scot free, however, and the punishment should be enough that they start doing it legally. The only amnesty I suggested is that workeres should be allowed to get out during a finite period (one or two months) where they would not be detained on the way out of the country, and so that they would be allowed in if they were able to get a legal visa in the future. If it is expensive to hire illegal immigrants, companies will do whichever is cheaper: hire local workers or hire legal immigrants. Obviously the cheaper of the two is to hire local workers. O...
    I think that if there were no jobs people wouldn't come, and it would be a whole lot easier to secure the border.

    Children born in the US are US citizens (which is, in part, what makes this problem so complicated). In any case I wouldn't do anything to hospitals that treat patients (they are already paying for it) or to schools either.

    For companies that hire illegals on purpose, this is just what came up to the top of the list in a google search.

    http://www.breitbart.com/arti...
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/...
    http://www.washingtonpost.com...
    http://www.illawarramercury.c...

    I didn't say the illegal workers should get off scot free. Obviously, they should be deported when they are caught too. The companies should not go scot free, however, and the punishment should be enough that they start doing it legally. The only amnesty I suggested is that workeres should be allowed to get out during a finite period (one or two months) where they would not be detained on the way out of the country, and so that they would be allowed in if they were able to get a legal visa in the future. If it is expensive to hire illegal immigrants, companies will do whichever is cheaper: hire local workers or hire legal immigrants. Obviously the cheaper of the two is to hire local workers. Once the companies start having to pay legal wages and benefits, we will see how many local people want the jobs. If the companies still cannot fill them, then they can turn to legal immigration as an option.
    (more)
  • disinter sue 2010/07/08 19:53:48 (edited)
  • sue disinter 2010/07/08 20:35:48
    sue
    +1
    I do agree that the federal government does not enforce it's own laws. The INS doesn't follow up on people whose visas expire -- they don't have the manpower. I don't know that the video assesses everybody's agenda properly, but immigrants have always been blamed, especially in poor economies, for negative things that happen to other people. People have been complaining about immigrants for centuries.
  • disinter sue 2010/07/09 00:57:44
    disinter
    Exactly.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/12 00:06:54
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/12 07:02:42
    sue
    Schools generally require a proof of address and eligibility to attend there. I have not had a child in one of the border states, so I am unfamiliar with the documentatin they require. My kids' schools required birth certificates and proof of address.

    I did not say there was no cost to hospitals. They suffer losses due to unpaid emergency treatment costs all the time. If they do admit a patient who is identified as illegally in the US, they can have them deported. The law supports them. However, sometimes they do not because of the person's medical condition, etc. In any case, they do pass the costs on in the form of higher prices for everyone else, and higher insurance premiums.

    I think it is unlikely that people would make the harrowing trip to sneak in just to go to school or to get medical treatment (for one thing, if you're really sick, you couldn't make the trip.) However, I absolutely think people would overstay a legal visa to do those things. With more INS agents, they would be deported. As it is now, the INS has to focus on illegal aliens who have committed crimes, because they don't have enough to do more. I think our tax dollars would be better spent enforcing employment rules for employers and increasing/improving the efficiency of the INS in identifying peopl...



    Schools generally require a proof of address and eligibility to attend there. I have not had a child in one of the border states, so I am unfamiliar with the documentatin they require. My kids' schools required birth certificates and proof of address.

    I did not say there was no cost to hospitals. They suffer losses due to unpaid emergency treatment costs all the time. If they do admit a patient who is identified as illegally in the US, they can have them deported. The law supports them. However, sometimes they do not because of the person's medical condition, etc. In any case, they do pass the costs on in the form of higher prices for everyone else, and higher insurance premiums.

    I think it is unlikely that people would make the harrowing trip to sneak in just to go to school or to get medical treatment (for one thing, if you're really sick, you couldn't make the trip.) However, I absolutely think people would overstay a legal visa to do those things. With more INS agents, they would be deported. As it is now, the INS has to focus on illegal aliens who have committed crimes, because they don't have enough to do more. I think our tax dollars would be better spent enforcing employment rules for employers and increasing/improving the efficiency of the INS in identifying people who have overstayed their visas. If people thought they would be caught and deported, they might behave differently.

    On Obama's father's half-sister, I don't really know the details of her case, just that she came legally in 2000 to join her son, and then applied for asylum which was denied. Then she didn't leave. I don't know how she managed to get into public housing, but it may be that she received access while she was still legal. Also, some cities provide housing without delving too deeply into a person's immigration status, because it causes greater social problems for the city to have people living in the streets. (WHy they don't deport them, I don't really understand.) I think she was subsequently granted asylum, because of her higher target value now that her half-brother's son is president. I don't know how they decided, and I'm not sure how I feel about it. If her son is still in the US, where the hell is he? That's the thought that occurs every time the topic comes up. What kind of man leaves his mother living in public housing without a visa?

    On the AZ case, I did read a summary of the law, and on it's face it doesn't seem so bad. However, it does leave a lot of room for abuse. A person could be stopped for a minor infraction like jaywalking just because they look Mexican, fi an officer wanted to check the person's status. It may result in Mexican-looking citizens being stopped more, and it may result in Mexican-looking citizens being accidentally picked up if they don't have an ID on them. It will all be in the implementation. I have not read the basis for the federal case against the law. I general, I think lawsuits by the state against the federal govt and by the feds against the state are a waste of time, and they should work things out in a less costly way.
    (more)
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/12 11:13:10
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/12 12:01:08
    sue
    I'm pretty sure they ask for a birth certificate too for schools. In andy case, hospital costs are passed on to the other patients, absolutely. Hospitals have to treat people, but they can call the INS once they do. They don't though. I don't know why.

    I travel internationally a lot. You need a visa to get into the US. Showing an ID is not enough. Even US citizens need a passport to get back in now -- though it used to be enough for them to show a US driver's license. I know a lot of immigrants and a lot of people who spend a lot ot fime denying visas in Latin America every day.

    As I said. INS does not follow up on people who come with legal visas and overstay. Universities are supposed to report if people on student visas don't show up. I'm not sure if they do or not, but it's pretty clear that INS doesn't follow up on that either. It is expensive to do it the legal way, absolutely. That's why so many employers hire illegal immigrants rather than legal workers - US or foreign. If they hire legal workers it's way more expensive. That's why I think they need to make it more expensive to hire illegally than legally.

    I don't think the AZ law will actually affect many citizens because most people do have IDs on them. However, it is possible that someone might go running or t...
    I'm pretty sure they ask for a birth certificate too for schools. In andy case, hospital costs are passed on to the other patients, absolutely. Hospitals have to treat people, but they can call the INS once they do. They don't though. I don't know why.

    I travel internationally a lot. You need a visa to get into the US. Showing an ID is not enough. Even US citizens need a passport to get back in now -- though it used to be enough for them to show a US driver's license. I know a lot of immigrants and a lot of people who spend a lot ot fime denying visas in Latin America every day.

    As I said. INS does not follow up on people who come with legal visas and overstay. Universities are supposed to report if people on student visas don't show up. I'm not sure if they do or not, but it's pretty clear that INS doesn't follow up on that either. It is expensive to do it the legal way, absolutely. That's why so many employers hire illegal immigrants rather than legal workers - US or foreign. If they hire legal workers it's way more expensive. That's why I think they need to make it more expensive to hire illegally than legally.

    I don't think the AZ law will actually affect many citizens because most people do have IDs on them. However, it is possible that someone might go running or to pay in the park or walk the dog without an ID. A citizen that looks white doing those things might get stopped for something, but would not be picked up. A citizen that is Mexican-looking might get picked up. Like I said, on it's face it seems fair, but if it leaves the opportunity for one citizen to be treated differently from another in the same situation, I can see why some would protest the law. Do I think illegal immigrants should not be deported? No. Do I think the INS is doing all it can? No.
    (more)
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/12 15:58:40
  • sue 1206720 2010/07/12 19:21:16
    sue
    Where did I say it was fine? WHy don't you read what I wrote? I said that illegal immigrants should be deported. I don't know why hospitals don't report them. They have to accept patients, because it's the law. But they could pass them on down the road if they find out they are in the US illegally once they are in stable condition.

    If you actually read what I wrote, I said that in practice, I didn't think the AZ law would inconvenience too many citizens, because most people do travel with an ID. However, you can, without stretching too much, think of scenarios where citizens that look a certain way would be treated differently because of how they look. Treating some citizens differently is not constitutional, and I can see how someone could make a case. I do think different parts of the government suing each other is a waste of money.

    You do need a visa to get into the US unless you are from Europe, Australia, or a couple of other countries. Once again, I do think people in the US illegally should be deported. I think the INS is underfunded and cannot do it unless that changes. I think we should divert wall-building money to catching people who overstay their visas. I also think we need to make it more expensive to hire illegal workers than legal ones by making the penalties higher and including jail time in the picture.
  • 1206720 sue 2010/07/12 22:12:44
  • Alan_Scott 2010/07/05 07:52:32
    Yes
    Alan_Scott
    +2
    Here's hoping that there is another Federal Judge out there with the guts to lay a smackdown of this out of control administration.
  • urwutuis 2010/07/05 07:28:21
    Other
    urwutuis
    Good. I agree with LouOlson. We don't need any more oil. The technology has existed for years that would allow us to eliminate our oil dependence . Clean, renewable energy that would cost far less than 2 wars
  • Sanibel urwutuis 2010/07/05 15:30:19
    Sanibel
    +1
    That's great! Please tell us what alternative energy has existed for years. Why has no one harnessed this energy or profited from it?
  • Icono1 Sanibel 2010/07/05 15:40:28
    Icono1
    Because it was/is cheaper to refine oil than to invest in new unproven energy technology.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 13:01:48

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals