Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Big GOP Win a Rebuke of The President

Polly1 Wrote: Nov 08, 2014 7:36 PM
Yep. Roberts said that it's not the Court's job to correct the mistakes of the voters. He has now seen the voters' apparent intent, so he should be comfortable interpreting the law AS WRITTEN. My understanding is that the provision that only the states' exchanges would be eligible for subsidies was the Democrats' attempt to force the states to set up their own exchanges. Oops. But hold 'em to it, Chief Justice Roberts; maybe next time they'll think twice before they try to force their will on the states. Meanwhile, Republicans, develop an alternative! Something that is market-based and has a chance of working.
In response to:

So It Was About Obama After All

Polly1 Wrote: Nov 06, 2014 12:46 PM
Sigh. I appreciate your feelings regarding 0, but impeachment really isn't an option. It takes too long, it would cost Republicans in 2016, it could cause mass race riots (really not a good thing for anyone, but the Ds would ramp them up as quickly as possible), and there aren't enough Republicans in the Senate to convict Obama even if the House did impeach him. There are plenty of other ways to turn back 0's agenda and that's where the Republicans need to go on day 1--and stay till 2016.
Funny, when Ebola was in the news, they lied to us so that we wouldn't panic. But for global warming/climate change/climate chaos/global climate disruption, they're more than angry that we AREN'T panicking. My head swims.
But consider all the jobs created in building & maintaining those solar arrays, in clearing the land upon which they stand, in manufacturing & distributing/applying whatever chemicals are required to keep it pristine, and in laying the lines to transport the power to wherever it is needed. Sure, one coal-fired, natural gas, or nuclear plant could have done the job more cheaply, in a more esthetically pleasing manner that would fry fewer of our flying friends, and with less pollution, but solar is just so... CLEAN & RENEWABLE.
Before the election I heard of polls that found Global Warming/Climate Change/etc. to be one of the very last things Americans were concerned about. I'd say the word is out to a majority of Americans; now if we could just convince the politicians.... Say, do you suppose Ben might consider this very election confirmation of America's view of this hoax? Or is that exactly what he's complaining about, all of the voters' stupidity?
In response to:

If They Can’t Win Now, Then When?

Polly1 Wrote: Nov 01, 2014 7:53 PM
You sound like someone just itchin' for a visit from by IRS.
In response to:

If They Can’t Win Now, Then When?

Polly1 Wrote: Nov 01, 2014 7:51 PM
The campaign ad of every Republican Senate candidate should have begun with, "Do you dislike a do-nothing Congress? The House of Representatives, now controlled by Republicans, has sent _______ bills, many of them very much bipartisan, to the Senate, which is now controlled by the Democrats. The Senate leader, Harry Reid, controls which legislation is voted upon, or even discussed, and he has allowed only _____ of the bills to be heard. Some of those bills would have increased employment, but Sen. Reid didn't care; he wanted Republican failure and didn't care if Americans suffered because of it. If you want good things done in Congress, get rid of Harry Reid by voting Republican, and when we have control of the Senate, we can begin to move America forward." Then maybe a few state-specific programs that would create jobs and make that state's population more prosperous. More people do NOT know anything about how Congress works than do. While spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political ads, why the heck not teach them??
In response to:

Biden (Brutally) Leaves Obama Behind

Polly1 Wrote: Oct 29, 2014 3:52 PM
Who knew Joe Biden was a racist?!!
In response to:

No Risk in Global Warming!

Polly1 Wrote: Oct 27, 2014 11:26 AM
Inadvertently? I have to question that. See, e.g., Saul Alinsky, Cloward & Piven. Destruction of our economy is a goal, not a side effect.
In response to:

No Risk in Global Warming!

Polly1 Wrote: Oct 27, 2014 11:23 AM
I think you're off just a little. Religion IS faith, not reason. So AGW does qualify as a religion. Or maybe a very large cult.
In response to:

No Risk in Global Warming!

Polly1 Wrote: Oct 27, 2014 11:16 AM
Too bad we can't get "separation of church and state" in the religion of AGW. I think we'd find that the problem of AGW is instantly solved.
Previous 11 - 20 Next