What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[Extrafire]

Really, Firstfire? Show me even one post where I have slavishly praised any of these people.

As to Obama, show me even one post of mine where I praise him. I have said it repeatedly, I am ambivalent about his economic stimulus, I take the word of the economists that it was necessary. I have also said repeatedly, I don’t know if Obama will succeed.

I may have praised one or two things that these people did. For instance I have respect for Gore for the way he brought the issue of global warming to world’s attention, he did stellar work there. But as to Gore the man, I just don’t know him well enough to form an opinion. The fact that I support the environmental work done by Gore and Suzuki does not mean that I agree with everything they do or say, that I admire them as human beings.

So as I said, show me even one post of mine where I slavishly praise or support Gore, Suzuki or anybody else. Unlike the dittoheads (who have godlike devotion to drug addict on loan from God), I am not into hero worship, I am well aware of the limitations of the different politicians.

My loyalty is to the principles (liberal principles), not to personalities.

You said :

Right is big on hero worship, left isn't.

which is total nonsense. The left are the ones who idolize heros, and I mentioned a few.

I only refered to your slavish devotion to Obama, not the rest. That is evidenced by your posts supporting him, going so far as to make up reduculous nonsense about his opponents in order to do so. Show you one? Take your pick.

 

[Extrafire]

In this respect, it is interesting to note that when Campbell introduced carbon tax in BC, he got a lot of flack for that. In the recent election, NDP ran on the platform of getting rid of the carbon tax (it sounds hypocritical, but when it comes to getting votes, hypocrisy is one of the milder sins that political parties commit). However, Liberals won another majority; BC citizens were OK with carbon tax.

No they aren't OK with that, they're PO'd about it. The only reason we held our noses and voted for Campbell is because we know how much worse an NDP government would be.

As I said, these days many people are environmentally responsible, it is only the religious right (and Catholic extremists) who think that polluting to one’s heart’s content is fulfilling God given mandate to subdue the earth.

Actually they don't think that at all. Just more of your imaginings in order to demonize your opponents.

But when it comes to "global warming" and CO2 emissions, keep in mind that CO2 isn't pollution, it's the staff of life.

 

[captain morgan]

Right is big on hero worship, left isn't. - SJP

You said : which is total nonsense. The left are the ones who idolize heros, and I mentioned a few.

You forgot Chairman Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Che, Fidel and Kim Jong....


Real winners, just ask them, they'll point to the laws that demand it.

 

[Extrafire]

I am glad to hear about the Green/clean tech/energy plan Obama's promotin'.Maybe there's still a chance..Still some hope for the future..would be a Dream come true..True balance and sustainability..Green means Green more and more green with out the greed!..

Obama is playing to fools. If he really believes what he's saying he's the biggest fool of all.

This guy is in touch with reality. Obama should take note.

Now, I was told back in the 1970s what you‟re being told today: that wind and solar power are „alternatives‟ to fossil fuels. A more honest description would be „supplements‟. Taken together, wind and solar power today account for just one-sixth of 1% of America‟s annual energy usage. Let me repeat that statistic – one-sixth of 1%.

Here‟s a pie chart showing total U.S. primary energy demand today. I “asked” PowerPoint to show a wedge for the portion of the U.S. energy pie that comes from wind and solar. But PowerPoint won‟t make a wedge for wind and solar – just a thin line.

Over the past 30 years our government has pumped roughly $20 billion in subsidies into wind and solar power, and all we‟ve got to show for it is this thin line!
Undaunted by this, President Obama proposes to double wind and solar power consumption in this country by the end of his first term. Great – that means the line on this pie chart would become a slightly thicker line in four years. I would point out that wind and solar power doubled in just the last three years of the Bush administration. Granted, W. started from a smaller baseline, so doubling again over the next four years will be a taller order. But if President Obama‟s goal is achieved, wind and solar together will grow from one-sixth of 1% to one-third of 1% of total primary energy use – and that assumes U.S. energy consumption remains flat, which of course it will not.

6
The problems with wind and solar power become apparent when you look at their footprint. To generate electricity comparable to a 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant you‟d have to build a wind farm with at least 500 very tall windmills occupying more than 30,000 acres of land. Then there‟s solar power. I‟m holding a Denver Post article that tells the story of an 8.2 MW solar-power plant built on 82 acres in Colorado. The Post proudly hails it “America‟s most productive utility-scale solar electricity plant”. But when you account for the fact that the sun doesn‟t always shine, you‟d need over 250 of these plants, on over 20,000 acres to replace just one 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant that can be built on less than 40 acres.

http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/newsreleases/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf

 

[Extrafire]

That is your opinion, Captain and you are entitled to it. The fact is, nobody has ever caught me in a lie, because I don’t lie.

Hahahahahahahaha! Hooooeeeeehahahahahahaha! ROTFLMAO! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ohhhhh, my gut hurts from laughing so much....

 

[captain morgan]

Obama is playing to fools. If he really believes what he's saying he's the biggest fool of all.

This guy is in touch with reality. Obama should take note.


http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/newsreleases/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf

I received that speech in an email a few weeks ago. It puts the issue into perspective so clearly.

 

[Extrafire]

Lincoln makes a lot of sense, ironsides. He was truly a great man.

Uhhh, Joe, did you read those statements by Abe? They are all part and parcel the tennets of current conservative members of the Republican party.. And of conservatives everywhere. They are completely opposed to leftwing beliefs, tennets and policies. They are the very things that conservative posters have been saying on this forum is so many words. They are the very things you've been so against.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You have been busy as a bee, haven’t you, Extrafire? Anyway, I trust you had a good vacation. I will try to answer your points if and when I can.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I only refered to your slavish devotion to Obama, not the rest. That is evidenced by your posts supporting him, going so far as to make up reduculous nonsense about his opponents in order to do so. Show you one? Take your pick.

Take my pick, really Extrafire? Well, as I said before, show me even one post of mine where I praise Obama

You wisely refrained form giving me an example because one doesn’t’ exist. Talk is cheap, show me a concrete example, show me even on post of mine.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
That is your opinion, Captain and you are entitled to it. The fact is, nobody has ever caught me in a lie, because I don’t lie.

Hahahahahahahaha! Hooooeeeeehahahahahahaha! ROTFLMAO!

Again Extrafire, laughter is cheap. Give me even one example where I have been caught in a lie, one doesn’t exist.

 

[JLM]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
That is your opinion, Captain and you are entitled to it. The fact is, nobody has ever caught me in a lie, because I don’t lie.

Hahahahahahahaha! Hooooeeeeehahahahahahaha! ROTFLMAO!

Again Extrafire, laughter is cheap. Give me even one example where I have been caught in a lie, one doesn’t exist.

I don't make a habit of it either BUT I have been guilty of unwittingly giving false information and I guess that's up to the recipient to analyze it how he chooses. AS I discussed in another thread, I don't think NEVER LYING is necessarily a good thing. I, for instance don't feel I have to answer a question truthfully that I don't feel is any of the questioner's business.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

JLM, when I say that nobody ever has caught me in a lie and somebody challenges it, he must be able to produce at least one example where I have been caught in a lie. Otherwise that poster is exposed as no more than a clown, who laughs for no reason at all, who does not know how to argue substantive points, who does not know how to carry out rational argument, but who is only out for empty laughter.

So how about it, Extrafire? Can you produce even one example where I have been caught in a lie?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

JLM, not answering a question is not same as lying. If somebody asks me a personal question here, I probably would say that it is none of his business, but that is not lying.

And we all tell little white leis from time to time. But I don’t see any need to lie in these forums, it is so pointless.

 

[Cannuck]

JLM, when I say that nobody ever has caught me in a lie and somebody challenges it, he must be able to produce at least one example where I have been caught in a lie. Otherwise that poster is exposed as no more than a clown, who laughs for no reason at all, who does not know how to argue substantive points, who does not know how to carry out rational argument, but who is only out for empty laughter.

So how about it, Extrafire? Can you produce even one example where I have been caught in a lie?

I guess that is one of the drawbacks of putting people on ignore.

 

[YukonJack]

L Gilbert opined:

"Same with your opinion. Rush Limbaugh has been on tv all across Canada. I've watched him a couple times over here in BC. And I will go one step farther than Colpy: the guy is a fat, lazy, loud-mouthed shnook. It's how he makes his money."

Limbaugh was on TV more than ten years ago. Your info is slightly out of date.

If you feel justified calling Limbaugh "a fat, lazy, loud-mouthed shnook" would you be fair enough and call others with whom you agree politically, the same? Or denigrating one's physical appearence is only cool if the subject is worthy of your vile bile?

Presumably: Rosie O'Donnell. Michael Moore. Ed Asner. George Clooney. Alec (the child abuser) Baldwin. Any of the beasts on the TV show "The Beauty and the Beasts" (not including Elizabeth Hasselhoff, you know, the Beauty) also known as "The View" the same? How about Chris Matthews on MSNBC?

You and these heroes of yours would be happy to earn as much in a year as Limbaugh spends in any of the Charity Golf Tournaments he attends. Did I say Charity? Oh, my, your above-mentioned heroes (and perhaps even you need) a dictionary to discover the meaning of that word.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No they aren't OK with that, they're PO'd about it. The only reason we held our noses and voted for Campbell is because we know how much worse an NDP government would be.

That is your take on BC elections, Extrafire. No doubt some people voted for Liberals as the lesser of the two evils. However it is a safe bet that most of them voted for Liberals because they liked Liberal policies (whatever they are, I don’t know much about BC Liberals) and the way they are running the province.

It is very difficult to win an election on a purely negative basis; people would not have reelected Liberals just because they are not as bad as NDP.

Actually they don't think that at all. Just more of your imaginings in order to demonize your opponents.

Nothing of the sort. Religious right (and some extreme Catholics) find support for their anti-environmentalism in the Bible (but then one can find support for practically anything in the Bible).

But when it comes to "global warming" and CO2 emissions, keep in mind that CO2 isn't pollution, it's the staff of life.

In small amounts, yes. In large enough amount, it can kill you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

[FONT=&quot]Quoting SirJosephPorter [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But let me ask you something. Can any Republican say anything unflattering about Limbaugh, disagree with Limbaugh about the smallest detail and get away with it? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Absolutely, yes. They do it all the time. - Extrafire
[/FONT]​

Really Extrafire? Again, talk is cheap, give me an example where a national politician (Senator, Congressman or a Republican leader with aspirations for running for federal elections) criticized Limbaugh and did not have to apologize for it.

 

[Cannuck]

It is very difficult to win an election on a purely negative basis; people would not have reelected Liberals just because they are not as bad as NDP.

Happens all the time here in Alberta with the PC Party.

In small amounts, yes. In large enough amount, it can kill you.

So can water. Hell, even oxygen given medically can have adverse effects.

 

[ironsides]

This thread was prompted by a discussion I had with a poster (probably a Republican, but I am not sure). It is well known by now that many Republicans want Obama to fail. There is the famous yell by the de facto Republican leader, Rush Limbaugh, ‘I hope he fails’.

I think Republicans have a simplistic idea what is meant by of Obama failing. It goes something like this. As a result of Obama’s policies, we slide into a depression, unemployment 25%, inflation 20%.

As a result of that, Republicans win control of Senate and House in 2010, win the Presidency in 2012. Then unemployment falls to 4%, inflation falls to 2% and every body lives happily ever after.

But let us really look at what happens if Obama fails. Here I am assuming the rosiest scenario for Republicans. So let us say that Obama’s policies are a total failure and by October 2012 unemployment has shot up to 15%, inflation 10%. Of course Republicans win control of Senate and House.

What will be the first action of Republicans? What did they do the last time they controlled the Congress and there was a Democratic President, Clinton? They started impeachment proceedings, of course. And that is what they will do this time as well.

So in 2011 nothing will be done about economy, USA will remain glued to TV sets and internet to follow the impeachment proceedings. There are really no grounds for impeachment, but there are plenty that can be trumped up by Republicans. Some of them are:

Obama is not a US born American citizen and hence, not eligible to be the President.

Treason. He purposely violated the constitution by running for President.

Economic mismanagement. These are not grounds for impeachment, but that won’t stop the Republicans.

Anyway, so most of 2011 will be spent in impeachment. Obama will be impeached in the House on a partisan vote, but Republicans will fail to convict him in the senate (no way they are going to end up with 67 Senators after 2010 elections, no matter how bad the economy).

So the start of 2012 will see Obama and Republican Congress both standing, both bloodied. There will be plenty of bad blood between them and of course, nothing will get done in 2012.

Now let us say the Republican dream comes true, by October 2012, inflation is 20%, unemployment 25%. There is plenty of misery in the nation, people are literally begging for food in the streets. Of course Obama loses the election, Republicans win the Presidency.

Now we are into 2013 and economy is an absolute mess. Then let us say that by end of 2013, Republicans implement their agenda (more tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich, deregulation on a massive scale, more budget deficits, scrapping of all the environmental laws to encourage businesses etc.). Even if they control Presidency and Congress, it takes time to pass a bunch of legislation.

By now the economy has been going down hill for 5 years (it started in 2008 . Even if Republican cure works like a miracle, we are looking at at least three years before we see a significant improvement. That takes us to end of 2016, or beginning of 2017.

So if Obama fails, the earliest economy will recover is 2017, or eight years from now. This assuming everything goes smoothly for Republicans, if it isn't smooth going, it may take ten or more years.

If Obama succeeds, economy will start recovering next year. Democrats will lose a few seats in 2010, but not enough to change the balance of power. Then Obama can get on to the next phase, reducing the deficits.

So one year as opposed to eight or more years. It is only the most partisan of Republicans, somebody who doesn’t care how much misery, how much poverty Americans suffer, how much misery is caused, it is only someone like that who would wish Obama to fail.

Any reasonable person (of whatever persuasion) would hope that Obama would succeed and we will have a recovery next years, and not Obama fails and the economic meltdown continues for eight or more years.

Here is a simplistic answer to your question: Depends when he fails, if he fails now we will still recover. (he would be replaced and life would go on under the Democrats) If he fails in 3-4 years, it would be catastrophic for the world, because there is no one who could pull the economy out of the major depression that would result. Republicans have no one yet, and it looks like they won't be ready by 2010.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here is a simplistic answer to your question: Depends when he fails, if he fails now we will still recover. (he would be replaced and life would go on under the Democrats) If he fails in 3-4 years, it would be catastrophic for the world, because there is no one who could pull the economy out of the major depression that would result. Republicans have no one yet, and it looks like they won't be ready by 2010.

How will he be replaced, ironsides? He has been elected for four years, and there is no mechanism to remove him except impeachment. And poor, bungling economic performance is not a valid ground for impeachment. At least not when Democrats control the Congress, when Republicans control the Congress, anything is ground for impeachment (like having sex with an intern).

So the earliest impeachment proceedings can begin is in 2011, assuming Republicans get control of both the House and the Senate (unlikely as of now).

There is really no mechanism to replace Obama until 2012.