posted
Could explain to me where do the non-democratic and non-republican get their money from? No-one can possible believe they have a slightest chance of winning. So the real question is, what is those candidates' goal? To be recognized? I mean, if one gets like 5% it's a success, isn't it?
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan, I hope all the liberals in Ohio think and do the same thing.
Speaking as a Michigander, I am appalled at some of the ballot proposals that are aimed at making amendments to the state constitution (five out of the six ballot proposals), some of which which are really attempts at special interest power-grabs.
One of them (Proposal 2) pretends to be about collective bargaining, but in reality would call over 170 existing laws into question and make it difficult to dismiss bad teachers, cops, or firemen. Since it would be an amendment to the state constitution, it would be very difficult to repeal it later, once everyone realizes how it is really being used to provide a sweetheart deal for unions.
Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills. This is really not feasible, no plan to provide this much alternative power generation has even been proposed (there is already a law on the books mandating that 10% of energy be produced by alternative means by a set date), and this more than doubling of the percentage would probably require that many existing coal- or oil-burning plants be closed so that the mandated total energy production from alternative sources could be reached. Again, since this would be a constitutional amendment, rescinding it would be very difficult even when rolling blackouts become the norm.
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
[ November 03, 2012, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Could explain to me where do the non-democratic and non-republican get their money from? No-one can possible believe they have a slightest chance of winning. So the real question is, what is those candidates' goal? To be recognized? I mean, if one gets like 5% it's a success, isn't it?
They spend most of their time fundraising and the like. They never get near the ammount of money the big two get. But, if they get 5% of the vote they will get some public money. The gov't will match them up to 90 million dollars.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Its a *good* idea that coal plants are closed, they produce a truly massive amount of emissions and dangerous pollutants, for example acid rain is often associated with coal plants. Coal mining in particular requires strip mining and mountain top mining which results in significant mercury poisoning of the local water tables (see Virginia).
Green and alternate energy needs to be significantly and aggressively expanded if we're to meet the incoming "adjustment" as a soft bounce instead of a crash landing. You need to upgrade your energy grid anyways to a "smart" grid and this would simply be killing two birds with one stone.
IP: Logged |
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
We had that here in Washington. I'm not a fan.
Yet Tim Eyman keeps trying to bring it back.
Which reminds me, we have Tim Eyman in Washington. I'm not a fan.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills.
Oh noes! (Actually, Ontario, which is no environmental paradise and is slightly bigger than Michigan was only 2% short of 25% in 2005 and is probably over 25% by now, with no blackouts. We even export some power, so I give this a big *shrug*)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
posted
In other news, analysts predict a steady silence from Ron once again on being caught out as seriously full of s*#t when speaking about politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous. If Canada is really going to pay for it, then let them build it. Why does the governor of Michigan have to push for it to be built? The governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican, and I voted for him. But I still do not believe him on this issue. I think he is just pandering to some of his business cronies.
Michigan is not a good place to build alot of windmills. There is too much freezing rain, which can destroy windmills. Michigan does already have several nuclear power plants, so the reliance is not solely on coal and oil.
There are modern methods of burning coal cleanly. The fear-mongering of people opposed to the expansion of the use of coal is just unscientific propaganda. They really just want an excuse to charge a big carbon tax, and keep America dependent upon foreign petroleum. What they really have at heart is a desire to restrict "other" people from having enough energy. These are the same people who want bigger government to exercise tyrannical control over the masses.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stephan, I hope all the liberals in Ohio think and do the same thing.
Speaking as a Michigander, I am appalled at some of the ballot proposals that are aimed at making amendments to the state constitution (five out of the six ballot proposals), some of which which are really attempts at special interest power-grabs.
One of them (Proposal 2) pretends to be about collective bargaining, but in reality would call over 170 existing laws into question and make it difficult to dismiss bad teachers, cops, or firemen. Since it would be an amendment to the state constitution, it would be very difficult to repeal it later, once everyone realizes how it is really being used to provide a sweetheart deal for unions.
Another one (Proposal 3) would create a constitutional amendment that requires that 25% of electric power in Michigan be generated from alternative sources, such as solar and windmills. This is really not feasible, no plan to provide this much alternative power generation has even been proposed (there is already a law on the books mandating that 10% of energy be produced by alternative means by a set date), and this more than doubling of the percentage would probably require that many existing coal- or oil-burning plants be closed so that the mandated total energy production from alternative sources could be reached. Again, since this would be a constitutional amendment, rescinding it would be very difficult even when rolling blackouts become the norm.
I do agree with proposal 5, which would create a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state government from imposing any new taxes or expanding the base of taxation or the rate of taxation, without a 2/3 majority of both the State House and State Senate.
I also agree with proposal 6, which would require that no new international bridge (such as the governor is pushing for between Michigan and Canada) can be funded without a majority vote of voters in a statewide election. (There are already two such bridges, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.) Governor Rick Snyder is trying to get a second bridge built between Detroit and Windsor, despite the fact that most state citizens do not want another bridge (estimated cost is $2 billion), and no clear need for a second bridge in Detroit has been demonstrated. There is also the Detroit-Windsor tunnel that already exists.
Listen up good Ron because this is the only time this is going to happen: I actually agree with you on some of that.
As a fellow Michigander, I cast an incredibly critical eye on anything labeled a constitutional amendment, and I often find myself voting against things I agree with in principle because I don't feel our state constitution should be a chew toy for things that should be handled by the state legislature.
Off the top of my head I don't remember how I voted on each issue. I voted no one Prop 1 because the EMF law is terrible and ill-defined. Snyder shouldn't have the power to install czars in whatever city he deems necessary. Prop 2 was something I liked the idea of, enshrining collective bargaining rights and making it impossible to turn Michigan into a right-to-work state, but I don't remember if that overcame my dislike for constitutional amendments.
Prop 3 I left blank. I love the idea of 25 by '25. Economists say it'll create a ton of jobs in the state, and it's not much more aggressive than other states' portfolios, plus we already have one. But I can't see putting it in the constitution. It should be voted on by the legislature.
Prop 5 is incredibly stupid. Not only would that make it much more difficult for the legislature to balance the budget, most experts who have seen this law pass in other states say that two things happen: 1. States cut funding to local municipalities to make up the short fall, which means your property taxes go up as a result, and 2. states raise fees to make up lost revenue. So you'll still pay, it just creates a much more complicated system of who you're paying.
And man, if you're voting for Prop 6 you've totally drunk the Matty Moroun's kool-aid. Canada has already said they'd pay for everything except some of the Michigan-based facility upkeep and road construction. While we already have two bridges and a tunnel, the tunnel is for passenger cars only, not freight. Freight travel is expected to increase dramatically over the next couple years, and truck drivers already report long delays, even for the ones that take the inconvenient route up to the Blue Water to try to avoid Ambassador. The bridge is necessary at one of the busiest commercial border crossings in the world.
Plus, if you actually read the amendment, it creates a definition of "bridge" so widely defined that you could potentially be barred from building a bridge on your own property if it crosses a body of water, unless the state votes to approve it.
quote:There are modern methods of burning coal cleanly. The fear-mongering of people opposed to the expansion of the use of coal is just unscientific propaganda. They really just want an excuse to charge a big carbon tax, and keep America dependent upon foreign petroleum. What they really have at heart is a desire to restrict "other" people from having enough energy. These are the same people who want bigger government to exercise tyrannical control over the masses.
You're going to have to explain how a carbon tax would keep us using foreign oil as opposed to coal, as oil is also a carbon-based fuel source. Also, I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking, but 'clean coal' is a myth. Carbon sequestration has never been demonstrated as successful technology that can be applied en masse, and whenever the EPA comes out with new filter requirements to make smokestacks safer and release less pollution, your people have a nutty that the EPA is trying to throttle coal plants. You can't have it both ways.
I'll wait patiently for your response.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous. If Canada is really going to pay for it, then let them build it. Why does the governor of Michigan have to push for it to be built? The governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, is a Republican, and I voted for him. But I still do not believe him on this issue. I think he is just pandering to some of his business cronies.
Everybody else except the one guy who makes money from the existing bridge agrees with the gov on this, but somehow Snyder's the one pandering to cronies? I guess in a sense that's true, if you define "Snyder's cronies" as the citizens of Michigan. Moroun, on the other hand, is certainly not pandering to anyone but himself.
On a related note, let me introduce you to your new best buddy, Adam Dobrin. I think you two will get along fine. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge.
Eh?
quote:Canada’s chief envoy in Michigan is taking a public role in a political debate that is playing out across the Great Lake State: whether to embrace a new bridge project between Windsor and Detroit that would broaden the most important conduit in Canadian-American trade. ... “Canada bears all costs and all liability for the project and ... Michigan bears none,” Mr. Norton told a crowd of 300 on Oct. 15 at the Crystal Gardens Banquet Center in a Detroit suburb.
“That, of course, is not what the Moroun-financed TV advertisements say. But nothing in those advertisements is true. Nothing,” he said. ... “In no developed country have I ever seen such blatant and comprehensive efforts by a single special interest to bend an entire population to its will,” he told his listeners.
“Perhaps I am just a naïve Canadian diplomat, but I find the Morouns’ willingness to spend any amount of money to tell any lie to be both shocking and reprehensible.”
posted
What Canadian officials tell their own people about funding a new bridge seems to be different from what Mich. governor Rick Snyder is telling Michiganders. And as a Michigan resident, it does not seem to me that the majority are in favor of a new bridge. If they are, then having it put to a vote will not stop the building of the bridge, would it? So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Lyrhawn, America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil. Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problematic thing about "putting it to a vote," Ron, is that people like Moroun who are willing to spend a great deal of money to propagate a lie can pretty much buy the votes of the ignorant and misled. And once people have been misled, they become emotionally invested in their false position. As an example: are you willing to concede that, yes, Canadian leaders have said they will pay for the bridge?
And no, carbon taxes do not come down harder on coal plants because people believe coal cannot be burned cleanly; they come down harder on plants which produce more atmospheric carbon, and coal plants -- because coal cannot currently be affordably burned cleanly -- produce a great deal of atmospheric carbon.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Becoming like California, where a referendum is needed to get anything done.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What Canadian officials tell their own people about funding a new bridge seems to be different from what Mich. governor Rick Snyder is telling Michiganders. And as a Michigan resident, it does not seem to me that the majority are in favor of a new bridge. If they are, then having it put to a vote will not stop the building of the bridge, would it? So what are the opponents of Prop 6 afraid of?
Lyrhawn, America has enough coal reserves to supply all its energy needs for centuries. America has been called the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Cut back on coal, and it would be necessary to import more oil. Carbon taxes come down much harder on coal burning power plants, because of the mistaken belief that coal cannot be burned cleanly. There is so much politics involved here, that science is totally shoved aside.
Ron, this is either a lie or an implicit admission of ignorance. The United States does not have "centuries" of coal, you have in fact hit "peak coal", you cannot extract any additional energy whatsoever from every additional tonne of coal mined, because of the increased energy cost for extracting that tonne of coal.
The energy mined from American coal has flatlined, coal extraction has gone up, and significantly so, exponentially in fact. But there is no additional energy to be gained.
Thus the United States cannot maintain complex society from the non existent energy surplus from coal. Which as other have pointed out, cannot be burned cleanly and still puts significant amount of pollutants into the water tables, such as mercury.
Thus why the United States needs to invest into upgrading the energy grid and to acquire alternate energy from renewables and from nuclear power (which also has problems with 'peak uranium' but can be put off for longer through proven technology, such as thorium processing).
The point is Ron, you already have to import more oil from foreign sources because coal isn't keeping up the slack but is actually falling relative to American energy consumption. So Green energy is needed to meet the difference, there's simply no way out of it.
IP: Logged |
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Tom and Blayne, the "facts" you cite are untrue. I stated it the way it is. Factually.
Except mine I know for a fact; here's a video that should be sufficiently enlightening: Link he gives his sources on his webpage and they're first tier sources.
Energy Returned On Energy In is a real concept Ron regularly used by the industry itself (EROEI).
So I have provided my sources Ron, I trust you will provide yours?
The final ore composition for copper for instance, is actually down to 0.02% per tonne or earth extracted. It costs massive amounts in energy to extract that pittance of copper, same for coal as we're no longer mining anthracite coal but now down to essentially bittuminous. Coal production gorws by 2% per year since the 1940's, but the energy extracted has ceased its growth, this is a fact Ron.
quote: Taking reserves into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe.
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Actually, to me this is a reason to keep the electoral college (although I'm in favor of a somewhat modified version).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus and others, let's use a little common sense here.
1. If no public funds from Michigan will be used to build the bridge, and the whole thing will be paid for by Canada, then proposal six would not stop it. The proposal does not prohibit the building of the bridge, it only prohibits expenditure of public funds without a vote of the people statewide.
2. If the majority of Michigan voters are in favor of a new bridge, as someone has claimed here, then again, proposal six would not stop the bridge, since only a majority vote would be required to approve the bridge.
I have a copy of the ballot before me. Here is the complete text of proposal six:
quote:PROPOSAL 12-6 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS
The proposal would:
* Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
* Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."
Should this proposal be approved?
So you see, like I said, the only prohibition is against spending Michigan taxpayers' money to bring about construction of the new bridge. If Governor Snyder is telling the truth that no Michigan taxpayers' money will be used to build the bridge, and it will all be paid for by Canada, then proposal six would not stop it. What would be the problem?
One thing that might be noted, is that the proposal stipulates that the bridge must be approved not only statewide, but also by the local municipality where the bridge would be built. In other words, not only must voters statewide approve the bridge, also the majority of voters in Detroit must approve of the bridge--since it is to be located in their city. But that only seems reasonable. It is the people of Detroit who would be most impacted by the construction, etc. Also the statewide voters can veto the bridge if they do not want to finance a new bridge in Detroit.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
This is interesting, but I wonder how much a deal the media will make of it on election night. It might get a temporary conversation going about the electoral college, which would set my heart a flutter, but temporary is all it'd be.
Actually, to me this is a reason to keep the electoral college (although I'm in favor of a somewhat modified version).
I can see the pro argument, that it ensures we don't go through weeks of counting and waiting after the election to see the final results.
But their argument, and often mine, would be that it doesn't reflect the final will of the people. To me that still gets the greatest weight. Not including the half dozen or so other good arguments in favor of getting rid of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, one additional consideration in eliminating the Electoral College is that it is the final vote of the Electoral College that really, legally establishes the winner of the presidential and vice-presidential contests. So if we do away with the Electoral College, at what point do we say the election is a done deal? 12:00 noon on the day following the election, when hopefully all the ballots have been counted? This could be complicated if there are serious challenges and legal wrangling over recounts like there were in the 2000 election. And as I think you are raising, the question also remains about who would pronounce the election a done deal? Who would be given the authority?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ron Lambert, are you under the impression that you've given an example of what Canadian officials tell their own people?
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What Canadian officials tell their own people ...
Give an example of this.
It's a very straightforward question.
Watch him never answer it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Virginia seems to have shifted blue
IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, Canadian officials have emphasized to their own people in articles I have read that Canada was not going to pay the full cost of building the bridge, and the money extended by Canada to Michigan to cover Michigan's required contribution for matching funds (from the U.S. government) would be a loan, to be repaid from tolls. Later it was claimed that this was not a loan, they called it something else, but still it is to be repaid from tolls. According to Crain's Detroit Business:
quote:Instead, Canada would pay any of the state's capital costs for the Detroit River International Crossing that are not covered by the private sector or the U.S. government, up to the $550 million limit.
Those costs then would be recovered by Canada assuming Michigan's share of bridge toll revenue for as long as it took to pay off the capital costs.
Here is the breakdown of expenses for the bridge according to Crain's Detroit Business:
quote:The overall price of DRIC is $5.3 billion, and that includes Canadian highway work linked to DRIC but not officially part of the partnership's work. The work on the bridge, plazas, interchanges and approaches is estimated at $2.1 billion. It's broken down by MDOT [Michigan Department of Transportation] as:
• U.S. bridge and approach: $501.6 million.
• Canadian bridge and approach: $447.4 million.
• U.S. toll plaza: $150.6 million.
• U.S. General Services Administration plaza: $270 million.
Let me just reiterate the logic you have not responded to:
If Michigan taxpayers will not be paying any of the cost of building the bridge, and it is all going to be paid by Canada, then why should proponents of the bridge care if there is a constitutional amendment that requires a majority vote before any taxpayer money can be used for the project? Proposal 6, which I quoted earlier, only prohibits expenditure of taxpayer money; it does not prohibit building the bridge.
And if the majority of Detroiters and Michigan voters statewide are in favor of the bridge, then when there was a vote, they would approve it, wouldn't they?
Something that costs $5.3 billion should be brought to the vote of the people. Why should anyone disagree with that?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I could care less about the internal politics of Michigan. What I am curious about is that you've claimed that Canadian officials have said one thing to Americans and one thing to Canadians.
For example, "Canadian officials have said Canada will not pay for the bridge. The idea that such a bridge linking Detroit and Windsor would not cost Michiganders lots of money is utterly ridiculous" and now you've quoted something from your Crain's newspaper which indeed confirms that Canada will be paying for the bridge. I fail to see a contradiction here.
Are you disturbed about the prospect of motorists paying tolls to the Canadian government? What gives?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, the proposal as worded would prevent Michigan from expending "state funds or resources," even if those were to be paid back from Canada. As written, it would not permit anyone in Michigan to help coordinate the building of the bridge.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Canadian authorities--at least in some reports--have said they would give money to Michigan to cover Michigan's required contribution to qualify for matching funds from the U.S government (up to $550 million), this is why earlier this year it was being called a loan. But since then they have been spinning it, saying it was not a loan, because the money would be paid to the proposed joint authority, and Canada would be paid back for this from tolls. From the same article in Crains I referenced earlier:
quote:"Let me be very clear — the additional $550 million is not a loan," Chuck Strahl, Canada's minister of transport, infrastructure and communities, wrote in a statement provided to Crain's this week.
The money would go to a joint authority that would be set up to operate the bridge, and Canada would have an increased equity stake in the authority while the money is paid back.
They must realize that they are quibbling, and that there really would be Michigan taxpayer funds used somewhere in the project, or they would not be acting as if Proposal 6 would prevent the building of the bridge. Because, as I have pointed out several times, the proposal only prohibits use of taxpayer funds, it does not prohibit the building of the bridge.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The proposal prohibits the use of any state resources, which includes employee time and stationery. They couldn't even make a phone call to Canada to ask about the status of the project.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that sounds like one of those opportunities to employ lawyers to argue over exactly what is meant by the term "state resources." You can't just assume it means whatever you arbitrarily say it means. And does it prohibit use of City of Detroit resources, as distinct from State of Michigan resources?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, what are you talking about? What environmentalism fight? I do still question global warming, especially the brand that would blame it on human activity, if that is what you are referring to. But this does not seem like anything currently at issue. It would, I think, greatly help the environment if Obama were cast out of the White House.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you simply not recall him talking to you about coal and oil issues? It happened literally on this page.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Apparently I have knocked him... *puts on sunglasses* outcoaled.
IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my prediction for the presidential election: Romney will win 56% of the popular vote, and over 300 electoral votes. He will win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.
I also predict that the large margin of victory will only make Obama madder, and he may actually refuse to give a concession speech, telling the media it is because he regards the election process as corrupt and racist. He will bitterly denounce the Tea Party and all other conservatives, and will try to put much of the blame for his defeat on Fox News Channel.
This will stir up some of his followers to violence.
Once Romney has been inaugurated, I believe that the FBI and other investigative agencies will be able to discover and reveal all the dark secrets Obama has been covering up--and some of them will be real doozies.
Come on, Blayne, Samprimary, Orincoro, TomDavidson, et. al. Let's see your predictions.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
