WELFARE SCHILL files for bankruptcy and has the feds on his case! he owes between 100-500m! should he leave ESPN?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingham Hammer. Show Hingham Hammer's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : My brief experience reading some of your thought provoking posts here i can understand how  Dr. Krauthammer doesn't measure up. He would be shattered if he only knew. Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders and now you, VT has so much to be proud of.
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]I thought working stiffs like you supported the Dem's. Be careful. If Mitt gets in you might not have your SS checks deposited every month.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]Is Charles Krauthammer's column considered an editiorial? Gee he seems to echo a few of the points I made: Obama boasts that, on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]

    He certainly isn't a reporter.  See the big headline 'Insight' at the top of the page - that indicates an editorial.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : He certainly isn't a reporter.  See the big headline 'Insight' at the top of the page - that indicates an editorial.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Not a reporter a national syndicated columnist who writes and appears on political venues of all stripes and btw one who has won a pulitzer award for journalism.

    The Wall Street Journal beyond repute and the most highly read daily in the entire country but information from neither is good enough for you.

    Dismissing editorials is one thing but to discredit a column or editorial by disproving it's content with conflicting proof is altogether different and something that you and your friend from the socialist republic of VT cannot and will not be able to do.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : I'm waiting for an answer why Obama couldn't pass a budget. With the help of a Democrat majority in the Senate and House he rams through Obama-care not needing any votes from republicans. But in the same time frame he can't pass a budget because of the obstructionist republicans..
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]

    My best guess is that passing a budget prior to seeing a stabilization in GDP was useless - in late 2008, you saw pundits and economists falling to tears on air.  How many times did we hear the economy was falling off the cliff?  How do you pass a budget under those conditions.  

    Look at US GDP between 2008 and 2010.  If that was a chart of your household income, what would your own budget look like during that period?  



    I don't know if this is the case, but it makes sense to me.  I couldn't find anything via google, so I think you're in the minority when it comes to caring about this issue.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : My best guess is that passing a budget prior to seeing a stabilization in GDP was useless - in late 2008, you saw pundits and economists falling to tears on air.  How many times did we hear the economy was falling off the cliff?  How do you pass a budget under those conditions.   Look at US GDP between 2008 and 2010.  If that was a chart of your household income, what would your own budget look like during that period?   I don't know if this is the case, but it makes sense to me.  I couldn't find anything via google, so I think you're in the minority when it comes to caring about this issue.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]



    Yeah it was the economy's fault.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Not a reporter a national syndicated columnist who writes and appears on political venues of all stripes and btw one who has won a pulitzer award for journalism. The Wall Street Journal beyond repute and the most highly read daily in the entire country but information from neither is good enough for you. Dismissing editorials is one thing but to discredit a column or editorial by disproving it's content with conflicting proof is altogether different and something that you and your friend from the socialist republic of VT cannot and will not be able to do.
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]

    If you change pulitzer for journalism to nobel prize for economics, you have just described Paul Krugman.  Do you take his columns as gospel?

    You can't disprove opinions, but there's plenty to refute.  For one thing, Obama has already approved sections of the pipeline, so what he really vetoed was the GOP timeline, not the project itself.  That's a big one.

    Another point of debate is the futility of finding alternative fuel sources.  Is algae as an energy source really more ridiculous than dinosaur bones?  Are the failures of Solyndra and the Chevy Volt reasons to stop trying to find better solutions?  Do you really think that history will see the people holding onto big oil with all their might as the visionaries here?

    Krauthammer has a bit of a split view on gas prices - he starts the article by conceding presidents have little control over gas prices, and concludes the article by stating high gas prices are the result of Obama's energy policy.  Regardless, oil has dropped nearly $15/barrel since the article was published.  Gas prices won't be far behind.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : If you change pulitzer for journalism to nobel prize for economics, you have just described Paul Krugman.  Do you take his columns as gospel? You can't disprove opinions, but there's plenty to refute.  For one thing, Obama has already approved sections of the pipeline, so what he really vetoed was the GOP timeline, not the project itself.  That's a big one. Another point of debate is the futility of finding alternative fuel sources.  Is algae as an energy source really more ridiculous than dinosaur bones?  Are the failures of Solyndra and the Chevy Volt reasons to stop trying to find better solutions?  Do you really think that history will see the people holding onto big oil with all their might as the visionaries here? Krauthammer has a bit of a split view on gas prices - he starts the article by conceding presidents have little control over gas prices, and concludes the article by stating high gas prices are the result of Obama's energy policy.  Regardless, oil has dropped nearly $15/barrel since the article was published.  Gas prices won't be far behind.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    Look, if you have a problem with the credibility of either facts presented in an article by Charles Krauhammer or the on eidtorial page of the Wall Street Journal I can't help you, I have better things to do unless you can come up with a link or story to debunk/dispute what both have said which I know to be true regarding Obama's deceit in taking credit for the recent oil and gas boom.

    WSJ and CK are both beyond reproach, you might not like the article but to imply that the facts they use in a particular article or opinion piece are not true just based on your opinion is a bunch of baloney.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In response to "Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :     Charles Krauthammer is a Republican stooge.  You just like voting for draft-dodging cowards like Mitt Romney and George W. Posted by vtfanofcs[/QUOTE] He is a brilliant MD who is quadraplegic. You are the stooge.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Yeah, yeah, you want to use some magic formula that measures the people who have stopped looking, but you didn't want to use that same formula prior to January, 2009.   Didn't you say something about personal attacks?
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    It's not a magic formula, it's the truth.  The unemployment rate is much higher than the numbers indicate. 
    9:58 AM, May 4, 2012ι Abby W. Schachter

    The unemployment rate is 8.1% but is that the real number of people out of work in America? Not even close.

    As reported, 115,000 jobs were added in April, which is considerably lower than previously predicted. But still the number of jobs added brought the jobless rate down by .1 percent, which sure seems like things are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

    But the devil is in the details, and the truth is that the numbers hide a disturbing trend of people exiting the work universe by not even trying to find a job.

    "The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month's decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.

    "In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years."

    So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.

    "Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent," writes Peter Morici.

    President Obama thinks the holy grail for his reelection is getting the unemployment rate under 8 percent. And that may just be the number come November. But if the reduced jobless number actually happens because of people giving up rather than getting into the job market, then we'll be facing four more years of sustained, high unemployment and the consequences of that damage, both domestically and internationally, ought to concern every American.



    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/the_real_unemployment_rate_Dz8PweHqsH1MVVwgkK51mI#ixzz1vo4jVpLp
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : If you change pulitzer for journalism to nobel prize for economics, you have just described Paul Krugman.  Do you take his columns as gospel? You can't disprove opinions, but there's plenty to refute.  For one thing, Obama has already approved sections of the pipeline, so what he really vetoed was the GOP timeline, not the project itself.  That's a big one. Another point of debate is the futility of finding alternative fuel sources.  Is algae as an energy source really more ridiculous than dinosaur bones?  Are the failures of Solyndra and the Chevy Volt reasons to stop trying to find better solutions?  Do you really think that history will see the people holding onto big oil with all their might as the visionaries here? Krauthammer has a bit of a split view on gas prices - he starts the article by conceding presidents have little control over gas prices, and concludes the article by stating high gas prices are the result of Obama's energy policy.  Regardless, oil has dropped nearly $15/barrel since the article was published.  Gas prices won't be far behind.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    It's all about politics. Obama want's to make sure that he doesn't totally alienate any one group until after the election.

    Remember that 'private' conversation he had with the Russians, he will have more freedom after he is re-elected.  He will push his green energy on us, jack up the price of gas and destroy our economy.  All of this will push us closer to becoming a socialist country.

    "Obama recognizes that the devoted environmentalists who represent a critical portion of the Democratic party base need some motivation to turn out for him in the fall. But he also understands that centrist voters who support him on a range of other domestic and foreign policy matters could be lured away by a Republican opponent who either promises relief at the gas pump or who can lay blame at the White House doorstep for those higher prices. Even more complicated is the role of organized labor, which has poured immense amounts of support into Obama’s re-election but also prioritizes the job-creation potential of the pipeline.



    The result of these competing political and policy pressures brought Obama to Ripley, Okla., where he tried to satisfy the needs of these various audiences without alienating any of them. First, the president endorsed the southern portion of the Keystone project in order to relieve the glut of domestically drilled oil that is now unable to make it to refineries near the Gulf of Mexico in a timely manner. This had the effect of irritating his environmental allies but failed to mollify the project’s advocates, who pointed out that the review process that the president called for was already underway."

    I believe this is from the wall street journal.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : My best guess is that passing a budget prior to seeing a stabilization in GDP was useless - in late 2008, you saw pundits and economists falling to tears on air.  How many times did we hear the economy was falling off the cliff?  How do you pass a budget under those conditions.   Look at US GDP between 2008 and 2010.  If that was a chart of your household income, what would your own budget look like during that period?   I don't know if this is the case, but it makes sense to me.  I couldn't find anything via google, so I think you're in the minority when it comes to caring about this issue.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    They are required by law to pass a budget, so please don't make excuses for them, it sounds lame.

    If there isn't a budget then obama can tax and spend, and spend he has.  Next month he will have spent 6 trillion dollars, 6 TRILLION DOLLARS, in less than four years.

    When obama was campaigning in 08' he said that bush was unpatriotic for  spending 4.9 trillion in 8 years. If bush was unpatriotic what does this make obama? I say a socialist.

    He has increased the debt more than any other president, more than any other president in the history of the united states!

    He doesn't want a budget because he enjoys spending your money and mine.

    Again, they are required by law to pass a budget.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : I thought working stiffs like you supported the Dem's. Be careful. If Mitt gets in you might not have your SS checks deposited every month.
    Posted by Hingham Hammer[/QUOTE]

    This post shows how little you know about the problems our country is having including the problems with SS.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : If you change pulitzer for journalism to nobel prize for economics, you have just described Paul Krugman.  Do you take his columns as gospel? You can't disprove opinions, but there's plenty to refute.  For one thing, Obama has already approved sections of the pipeline, so what he really vetoed was the GOP timeline, not the project itself.  That's a big one. Another point of debate is the futility of finding alternative fuel sources.  Is algae as an energy source really more ridiculous than dinosaur bones?  Are the failures of Solyndra and the Chevy Volt reasons to stop trying to find better solutions?  Do you really think that history will see the people holding onto big oil with all their might as the visionaries here? Krauthammer has a bit of a split view on gas prices - he starts the article by conceding presidents have little control over gas prices, and concludes the article by stating high gas prices are the result of Obama's energy policy.  Regardless, oil has dropped nearly $15/barrel since the article was published.  Gas prices won't be far behind.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    Paul Krugman was also for all this out of controlled spending and claims that we need more.

    I didn't say researching alternative sources was a bad idea I said it should be left to private industry not by a President with tax dollars given to companies who contributed to his election campaign.

    The market will drive the demand for green energy when it is feasible, when the price comes down, it won't be and can't be driven down our throats like Obama-care was.

    I agree with Boone Pickens with all of the above, but all American.

    Obama deep sixed the Keystone XL with one stroke of a pen you must be the only person in the country who thinks otherwise. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : This Krauthammer piece sums up the whole situation accurately.   http://jewishworldreview.com/c...mmer031512.php3 Read the piece & people will learn  more about the energy situation than listening to an obama campaign speech
    Posted by bald-predictions[/QUOTE]

    Great article, thanks.
    Krauthammer is brilliant, I always enjoy listening to him.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Look, if you have a problem with the credibility of either facts presented in an article by Charles Krauhammer or the on eidtorial page of the Wall Street Journal I can't help you, I have better things to do unless you can come up with a link or story to debunk/dispute what both have said which I know to be true regarding Obama's deceit in taking credit for the recent oil and gas boom. WSJ and CK are both beyond reproach, you might not like the article but to imply that the facts they use in a particular article or opinion piece are not true just based on your opinion is a bunch of baloney.
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]

    Well said.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? :     Charles Krauthammer is a Republican stooge.  You just like voting for draft-dodging cowards like Mitt Romney and George W.
    Posted by vtfanofcs[/QUOTE]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

    Here is some 'light reading' for you. If you think this man's a stooge I would like to know your credentials.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer Here is some 'light reading' for you. If you think this man's a stooge I would like to know your credentials.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    Began his career with the Carter administration then a speechwriter for Walter Mondale.

    Jumping Jim Jeffords probably more to his liking.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : They are required by law to pass a budget, so please don't make excuses for them, it sounds lame. If there isn't a budget then obama can tax and spend, and spend he has.  Next month he will have spent 6 trillion dollars, 6 TRILLION DOLLARS, in less than four years. When obama was campaigning in 08' he said that bush was unpatriotic for  spending 4.9 trillion in 8 years. If bush was unpatriotic what does this make obama? I say a socialist. He has increased the debt more than any other president, more than any other president in the history of the united states! He doesn't want a budget because he enjoys spending your money and mine. Again, they are required by law to pass a budget.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    Bush inherited a budget surplus.  His spending was in unnecessary wars and tax breaks for the wealthy.  Obama's spending is an attempt to re-start the economy that Bush pushed off the cliff.  The time for austerity in Government is when the private sector is spending freely.  

    There's no law requiring Congress to pass a budget.


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Bush inherited a budget surplus.  His spending was in unnecessary wars and tax breaks for the wealthy.  Obama's spending is an attempt to re-start the economy that Bush pushed off the cliff.  The time for austerity in Government is when the private sector is spending freely.   There's no law requiring Congress to pass a budget.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    Bush did overspend but 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war in Afghanistan is what any President would have done.

    This country, the city of NY, Washington DC and the airline industry were a basket case  for a long time after 9/11.

    Bush had a Democrat congress too, they spent right along with him, they approved the budgets and the invasion and war in Iraq.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : Paul Krugman was also for all this out of controlled spending and claims that we need more. I didn't say researching alternative sources was a bad idea I said it should be left to private industry not by a President with tax dollars given to companies who contributed to his election campaign. The market will drive the demand for green energy when it is feasible, when the price comes down, it won't be and can't be driven down our throats like Obama-care was. I agree with Boone Pickens with all of the above, but all American. Obama deep sixed the Keystone XL with one stroke of a pen you must be the only person in the country who thinks otherwise. 
    Posted by ThatWasMe[/QUOTE]

    That's a reasonable position, if you take it across the board - are you prepared to privatize utility companies and eliminate all energy related subsidies, tax breaks and R&D grants?  

    Maybe you will believe something if you see it on foxnews.com ...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?:
    [QUOTE]No one is more in trouble of defaulting than El Presidente's deficit and trillion dollar debt loading Democrat Party's something for nothing to indolent peoples republic plan.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    You know the deficit was 10 trillion when Obama took office, right?  You know that Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter", right?  You know that Boehner, McConnel, Cantor, etc.... all voted repeatedly to increase the debt ceiling while Bush was in office, right?

    The Republicans didn't care one iota about the debt until a Democrat got in the White House.  It is political hypocrisy of the highest order.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble? : You know the deficit was 10 trillion when Obama took office, right?  You know that Dick Cheney said "deficits don't matter", right?  You know that Boehner, McConnel, Cantor, etc.... all voted repeatedly to increase the debt ceiling while Bush was in office, right? The Republicans didn't care one iota about the debt until a Democrat got in the White House.  It is political hypocrisy of the highest order.
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

      Obama said bush was unpatriotic for adding so much to the deficit.  Obama has added more to the deficit than any other president.  So it follows then that obama is the most unpatriotic president that this country has seen.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING'S firm is in trouble? :   Obama said bush was unpatriotic for adding so much to the deficit.  Obama has added more to the deficit than any other president.  So it follows then that obama is the most unpatriotic president that this country has seen.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    Yawn.....
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    True. And I guess more voters in Florida aren't buying into sustaining entitlements off more taxation of the rich. Of course, they could take every penny of private property and never provide the entitlements that Obama is a prostitute for. It will take exponentitally more worthless debt promises to sustain entitlments for a few more months.

    Frankly, let's face it. America is a Nation that hs changed into a majority of people who want something for nothing and are stupid enough to believe they can get somethign for nothing until they rot. The next step is a State that controls every aspect of all property and all people. Obama is the Democrat "we made racial history to retain minority pandered to voting block" token puppet that represents that next step. Come on Mr. Buffet, why weren't you socially intimate back in the 60's and 70's with those fine brilliant men who agree with you that you don't pay enough taxes but still won't make a gift to the IRS.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?

    In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SCHILLING wants TAXPAYERS beanballed to bankroll more of his sinking firm, should OBAMA give him a bailout? : That's a reasonable position, if you take it across the board - are you prepared to privatize utility companies and eliminate all energy related subsidies, tax breaks and R&D grants?   Maybe you will believe something if you see it on foxnews.com ... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/obama-plans-to-fast-track-oklahoma-oil-pipeline-amid-criticism-over-keystone/
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]


    That 485 mile stretch Obama took credit for did not cross international boundaries so it didn't require his/a US state department approval.

    It was all show, political posturing. Surprise.



    http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/transcanada_reapplies_for_oil_pipeline/27809

    After Obama rejected the pipeline in January, TransCanada said it will build a portion of the line from Oklahoma to Texas. That 485-mile line from Cushing, Okla., to Port Arthur, Texas, does not require State Department approval because it does not cross a U.S. border. Another portion of the pipeline, connecting Steele City to Cushing, is already in place.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share