I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

This was on the yahoo home page about layoffs at Dell in Austin.

WHY is this happening? Why is our dear leader not cracking the whip on this BS? What happened to "Yes we can" or did that mean yes we can ship your job to Timbuktu (Mumbai) and there ain't a dern thing you can do about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/17/AR2006031701127_pf.html

Looser Emission Rules Rejected
Court Says Changes By EPA Violated Clean Air Act
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 18, 2006; A01
A federal appeals court blocked the Bush administration's four-year effort to loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants, unanimously ruling yesterday that the changes violated the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with officials from 14 states, including New York, California and Maryland, who contended that the rule changes -- allowing older power plants, refineries and factories to upgrade their facilities without having to install the most advanced pollution controls -- were illegal and could increase the amount of health-threatening pollution in the atmosphere.

The Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Review policy was formally issued in 2003 but has never taken effect because of legal challenges by state officials and environmental groups. The administration has long argued that the existing standards are too stringent and have discouraged utility plants and other industries from upgrading and expanding their facilities. But opponents have characterized the rule changes as a favor to administration allies in the utility and coal-producing industries that would greatly add to public health problems.

New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer, who led the court fight to block the administration's New Source Review policy, called yesterday's ruling a major victory for clean air and public health and a rejection of a flawed policy.

It will encourage industry to build new and cleaner facilities, instead of prolonging the life of old, dirty plants, Spitzer said.

In a statement, EPA spokesman John Millet said: We are disappointed that the Court did not find in favor of the United States. We are reviewing and analyzing the opinion and cannot comment further at this time.

Some studies have linked pollution from coal-fired power plants to as many as 20,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. Environmental activists have made curbing this type of pollution one of their most pressing legislative and legal priorities, and yesterday they celebrated the ruling.

Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier -- with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day, said John Walke, director of the clean-air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is about as thorough a rebuke a court can give.

President Bush took office in 2001 promising to ease regulations on coal-fired power plants as part of a larger energy production initiative. Three successive administrators of the EPA have tried without success to alter the rules and policies adopted during the Clinton administration that cracked down on aging power plants and refineries that were not equipped with modern air pollution equipment when they were upgraded and when their output was expanded.

Under the revised policy that was rejected by the court yesterday, power plants and other industrial polluters would not have to install new pollution technology if they modernized less than 20 percent of their operations.

The central question in the case focused on what constitutes an industrial facility modification, because that is what triggers the federal requirement to cut down on the smog or soot emitted by utilities, oil refineries, incinerators, chemical plants and manufacturing operations. Previous administrations, including Bill Clinton's, had interpreted that phrase to encompass any physical activity that increases pollution from a given facility, with the exception of routine maintenance.

EPA officials in the Bush administration sought to broaden this exemption by asserting that routine maintenance is any activity that amounts to less than 20 percent of a plant's value. But the ruling, written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, rejected that reasoning as illogical.

EPA's approach would ostensibly require that the definition of 'modification' include a phrase such as 'regardless of size, cost, frequency, effect,' or other distinguishing characteristic, Rogers wrote. Only in a Humpty Dumpty world would Congress be required to use superfluous words while an agency could ignore an expansive word that Congress did use. We decline to adopt such a world-view.

The EPA's statement did not indicate whether the administration intends to appeal the ruling. Both Walke and Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the utilities industry, said it would be difficult for the administration to forge ahead in light of the appeals court's strong ruling. Walke said the decision is tantamount to the court burying the rule six feet under, where before it was just in a casket.

Segal said the ruling will make it more costly for plants to operate. This is a missed opportunity for reform that would have made it easier to improve power plant efficiency and workplace safety, and that's bad news for consumers and the environment, he said. We believe it is a step backwards for the protection of air quality in the United States.

Obama put too much trust in both parties. They are old hats at political gameplaying. The stimulus will not work and Obama screwed that up by handing it over to the wrong people to write in the first place. He will learn that NONE of them can be trusted and maybe then, he will flush their opinions and rely more on his own intelligence and goodwill. THAT gives me hope. He will have to act more like W - pass legislation while Congress is out and pound his chest and claim he is "The Decider!"

about terrorists. If he did, he'd START by securing our borders to help keep them out. Instead, governors are forced to declare states of emergencies because BUSH DOESN'T CARE.

Instead, we are now dealing with terrorists who are much better at their "trade" now, gratis Bush, who has enabled them to hone their skills in Iraq. I personally think Bin Laden should send Bush a thank you note. Iraq was NOT a terrorist's haven before it was invaded by America. Bush did that.

We are DEFINITELY less safe, and we're losing the respect of the entire world a little more every day, especially with the likes of Pat Robertson and those of his ilk publicly advocating the assassination of a president of another country.

I want our borders sealed so these animals can't get in here. And when they do get in because our president couldn't care less if Americans die, I want them KILLED. I have no sympathy for terrorists, and the fact that some people on this board think if someone is liberal and against this unethical war, they love terrorists. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and these people apparently believe it. Nobody can debate or reason with skewed thinking like that.

The best we can do on this board is to continue to politely, intelligently debate with and inform each other of issues, ignore the ones who want to do nothing but start trouble, and maybe the respect and intelligence and civility will bore them to tears and they'll go back to ripping wings off of baby birds or whatever fun stuff they do to pass the time.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=ajuZsQQbuwl4#

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- What if former President Bill Clinton had nominated his White House counsel, Bernie Nussbaum, to the Supreme Court? I can hear Bill Frist now. What does Slick Willy think he's doing -- filling a job at FEMA?

At first glance, there seems to be no other reason for Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court other than that she is President George W. Bush's Bernie Nussbaum. The notion that a careerist corporate lawyer would have risen to the top of Bush's list if she weren't down the hall is preposterous.

Unlike famous self-selector Dick Cheney, no one suspects the modest Miers looked in the mirror and saw the best replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor staring back at her. Only Bush could see the ``heart'' and ``character'' in Miers that made her the perfect selection. She's been his consigliore, fixer and confidante for more than two decades, and she thinks the way he does.

The fact that Miers is a woman helps enormously. It looks as if Bush listened to wife Laura, who publicly suggested he should replace a woman with a woman. It's far more likely that Laura publicly suggested it because he already had decided to do so. The choice prompts automatic praise from some liberals, excites Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and placates Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.

And notice how tongue-tied a potential critic, Senator Edward Kennedy, was two days ago trying to criticize her.

Miers satisfies a number of Bush's proclivities: his inability to distinguish an insider job from an outside one (White House counsel is the most partisan legal job in government), his desire to reward loyalty and his love of surprise.

Ambitious Republicans should be on notice that the best way to get ahead in the Bush years is to work anonymously inside. It was only because the White House floated Miers's name that she was on anyone's list.

This is not to say that Miers isn't a decent, competent (she may be a crony, but she's no Michael Brown) and respected person. She's devoted to her mother and brothers, a regular churchgoer, an early riser, an avid celebrator of birthdays.

In Dallas, she broke the glass ceiling for female lawyers (although she lived the life of a nun to get there). After meeting Bush in 1989, she represented him in matters ranging from his purchase of a fishing cottage in East Texas to questions about his National Guard service.

At the same time, she climbed a steep corporate ladder, becoming co-manager of a huge Dallas firm and chairwoman of the Texas Bar Association, specializing in commercial transactions for large corporations.

She served on the Dallas City Council and headed the Texas Lottery, where, some say, she cleaned up Powerball. She moved with the president to the White House, where the only complaint against her was that she lingered over paperwork too long.

She became counsel to the president when Alberto Gonzales was promoted to attorney general. Gonzales is another loyalist who proved himself to Governor Bush by speed-reading through death row appeals in Texas and redefining torture in the White House for purposes of allowing more of it in Iraq. With her nomination, Miers has gotten an even bigger promotion than her predecessor.

Some conservatives are loudly shocked that Bush ignored the long list of known quantities among conservative jurists in the mold of his favorites, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. It depressed Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Rush Limbaugh was so agitated Cheney gave him an interview to calm his listeners.

What those conservatives are missing is what Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel to the American Center for Law & Justice, see in Miers: a fifth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush even got Dobson's approval beforehand.

Like Bush, Miers had a late-in-life born-again moment, joining a conservative evangelical church in Dallas where she taught Sunday School.

In an interview in yesterday's Dallas Morning News, Miers's former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, said Miers told her when running for city council in 1989 that she had been ``pro-choice in her youth.'' Then, according to Bartos, Miers said she underwent ``a born-again, profound experience'' that caused her to change her mind and oppose abortion.

That conversion fits with her $150 contribution to Texans United for Life in 1989 and her successful effort to get the American Bar Association to move from support for abortion rights to neutral in 1991. After the ABA switched back to a pro- abortion-rights position, Miers in 1993 failed in a bid to have the endorsement put to a vote of the full membership.

At his press conference yesterday, Bush claimed that in all the years he's known Miers he never learned her view on abortion. Dobson and Sekulow will have their hands full reassuring the base about that comment. It's one thing for Chuck Schumer to be left in the dark, quite another for Bush to say he purposely kept himself there.

Didn't he promise the base he'd turn the light on and give them a selection sure to reverse Roe?

I used to think the younger Bush was like his dad on abortion -- pro-life for purposes of getting elected, pro-choice otherwise. But I now see him as a victim of Stockholm syndrome, adopting as his own view that of his right-wing captors. My money is on Dobson knowing what Bush claims not to. Assuming Miers is confirmed, it won't be long before we all know.

I can remember when republicans attacked Hiliary and Chelsea big time. Dont you remember? So, now that someone has attacked Bush, his daughters and wife (seems like quite a bit is not attack but truth), the poster is wrong. Geez, I can remember when I would read awful attacks on Chelsea, who was only a child while in the White House, and I often thought all this is gonna affect her self esteem. Hiliary has been a punching bag and continues to be from the right wing. So, can we all get over it? Politics is tough and yes both sides attack, even personally (really..wow??) the other side. From the posts I have read between these two (GT and MT), me thinks one has a grudge against the other and that to me is ridiculous and tiring to read. So, kiddies, can we all play nicely in the sand box?

This is from an article before the elections. This sure would be a good start in the right direction.

The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.

Temptations resisted

To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.

House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?

Can it work?

No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.

But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.

Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.

Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.

This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.

They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.

Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.

These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.

The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.

the only way I can see that actually making a difference is if somebody went in completely undecided, but had prayed for God to show them a sign.

I sure hope everybody has a clear picture in their mind of who they want to vote for and why before they drive to their polling place and punch that card.

So by your reasoning if a child molestor had molested a child many years ago....you would be okay with the person teaching young children? Because that person has a right to privacy and if they are qualified to teach...their prior history should not be of any concern?

I'm sorry but there are exceptions to every rule here. A person who willingly, knowingly, and admittingly helped blow up several buildings while running a terrorist group should have no right to be a teacher or instructor to any students......period.

What I'm tired of - denial. Widespread total denial, even as live as we've known it crumbles to ashes.

Take the healthcare mess. Lobbyists of insurance and pharmaceutical companies buying the vote of every senator and congressman in Washington to keep the status quo. The people we elected to office taking bribes to betray the very people that elected them. I am sick of knowing that no matter how much I pay in insurance premiums, when the time comes for a claim to get paid, big business will find any loophole to deny the claim and bankrupt me - and they get legislated more loopholes every day by anybody I vote for. And if I am unlucky enough to have a disease that requires a procedure to save my life, the "loss prevention" department at any insurer I pay will diligently seek reason to deny that procedure as "unnecessary" so I will do without the procedure and die. All Washington can do is lie and deny about the healthcare situation.

The lie that the more the government spends on "defense", the safer we are. I found out after Katrina just how safe I was, just how much my government would take care of me, and just what fun living under martial law is. I have learned just how much respect for our enlisted men the government has as they deny insurance claims to their families if they die in action, and force them to pay back sign-on bonuses if they are careless enough to get hurt on the job and have to be removed from duty before their stint is up. I have learned how much are government cares for our other heros, as they deny 9/11 rescue workers healthcare, while providing the best healthcare that can be bought for the terrorists they have incarcerated. Whatever the government claims to be defending, it is not you and me, it is the interests of the big businesses that have bought their vote. Oh, and PLEASE, search every sweet little grandmother that gets on any plane going anywhere - that'll make me feel real safe, because nothing can possibly go wrong with a flight if all the American passengers are treated like criminals before they board it. Keeping the sky safe is all we need, since our borders are so secure that no terrorist could possibly sneak into the country by any other means, like our illegal aliens do!

I am sick of profiteers getting bailed out at the expense of the little guy. I am disgusted to watch incompetence be rewarded and responsibility punished. I am tired of watching people lose their homes, jobs and way of life - while we legislate billions to keep the corporate profits strong, and swallow the propaganda that offshoring our jobs to other countries is a good thing.

I am sick of the war on drugs. How many years and how much mony have been spent on this, yet we are not winning it, so lets just keep throwing money at it and surely someday we'll win. Certainly a DEA agent would never take a bribe or feel any greed like the folks in Washington do.

I am tired of the welfare system and the corruption within it. I am tired of reporting fraud just to be shushed because it causes too much paperwork for them to investigate. I am tired of hearing how anyone can get a government check for threadbare reasons such as questionable mental disabilities, drug/alcohol addiction, or simply the desire to breed irresponsibly until their reproductive organs give up the game. I'm sick of us giving welfare to anyone that strolls into our country illegally and sticks out their hand. I'm 49, I am assured that there will be nothing left for me when I am old and ill, and I have paid into the system all my life. I am also assured that no matter how much wealth I may amass to try to pay my own way, health care costs will continue to skyrocket past it and any illness at all will financially wipe me out, so the best I can hope for is a quick, severe illness that kills me before I'm penniless and homeless.

I am tired of charities that bombard us with heartwrenching commercials - then turn around and pay any contributions we give to CEOs, advertising, and overhead - only then maybe a few cents will actually be left over for the pitiful victims we intended to help.

I am sick of the environmentalists, PETA activists and vegans. Get real, folks. We can't even stop being barbaric to other humans - considering the way we treat our heros, veterans, children, elderly, poor, disaster victims, mentally ill and homeless - do you seriously think we'll become misty eyed about a marshland or an animal? Well, obviously some of us find it preferable to caring about other humans. But your lectures regarding what will we leave our future generations and where is our conscience also apply to the national debt and all the other problems we continue to allow to escalate. So which fire needs to be put out first, would it be possible to actually define and prioritize all the issues intead of just jumping on your bandwagon?

I'm also tired of hearing about the horrific conditions in other countries - imagine taking an interest in what's wrong with our own country before we go fixing everybody else on the planet!

I am tired of being politically correct. We are sooo, sooo worried about offending "someone", and a slip of the tongue in front of a camera can ruin a career....but we have no problem taking away anyone's livelihood, housing, self-respect, dignity, health or even their life if it stands in the way of corporate profit. So why keep up the pretense that we care how anyone feels?

I am tired of going to the polls to vote for people who claim to stand for something, but are prepared to change their mind the minute they hit Washington and the bribes start rolling in. I am tired of having no good choices on election day, and no candidate that I have any faith in actually making it on the ballot. I am tired of knowing that any candidate from any party that makes it to Washington will be on a lobbyist's payroll before they cast their first vote on any issue, so whoever I vote for will put the highest bidder's interests first.

I am tired of the widespread apathy of my fellow citizens, who waste their brainpower on entertainment and fluff, instead of questioning the system and working to change it. I am tired of greed that has taken over every aspect of this country. I am tired of a society that worships wealth, celebrity and beauty for all the wrong reasons. I am weary of everyone being in debt up to their eyeballs, one paycheck away from total financial anniliation, and thinking its a sensible way to live because "everybody" does it. After all, our national leaders show us by example that the solution to huge debt is borrowing more money without a thought for tomorrow, and daily the media assures us those guys really know what they're doing! I am tired of conspicuous consumption and planned obsolesence. I am sick of the skyrocketing costs of education and transportation. I am sick that everything I voluntarily purchase or involuntarily contribute to via taxes has been deberately engineered by some corporate fat-cat to cost me more and give me less than it did yesterday.

Sign me - Just another unheard voice in the land of the deceived, home of the naive.

It doesn't matter if something is supposed to be funny or not. In the liberal world every statement is taken literally. According to GT even thinking something stereotypical or racial should be grounds for dismissal from your job or worse yet a trip to the gallows, but in the next breath she posts a blatantly stereotypical article about our nations regions.

Oh did I take what GT said out of context? Did other people take what GT said out of context? Gee, gosh, sorry...but cccording to the LIBERAL rules nothing is ever taken out of context. If you utter the words like *black* or *abortion* in the same sentence. Then you're a racist...case closed.

Don't blame us for enforcing your rules. We didn't make them, but you have to play by them too, or we'll call you out...

All you have done since you showed up here a few days ago is attack me personally. You don't even know me, and it wouldn't matter what I posted, you have already made your mind up that you hate me, and all you want to do is call names and insult.

It started when I posted a response to Democrat's post above. Since then, you've done nothing but attack me.

At least Carla was asking intelligent questions and trying to have a meaningful and informative dialogue on the CON board. Yet, she was reprimanded by the moderator.

All YOU have done is insult and be just generally nasty and rude. In none of your posts have you made an effort to have an intelligent dialogue. All you're about is attacking. Yet, YOUR actions go unreprimanded.

And now, knowing how much the truth is appreciated here, I suppose I will be banned, while you will be free to continue on with your rudeness and hateful attacks.

Will you leave? Sure. *RME* As soon as pigs fly or as soon as AG stops *accidentally* posting on this board. Choose one.

and refuses to quit coming here (along with a troll named Nina). They both do nothing but insult and cause trouble and make this board an unpleasant place to visit.

Nobody is bothering them on the Conservative Board (as of 11:15 a.m. MT, anyway, though they might quick post some insults to themselves after they read this and then whine about it).

The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.

Never mind. Maybe the poster is *right.* I have a feeling if a liberal poster was trolling the conservative board and said your rules were *stupid* you would be telling them to stay on their own board.

Does Palin once again think the rules don't apply to her?
Posted on 02 January 2009
By Dan Fagan

How is it possible that the Governor�s soon to be son-in-law is working as an apprentice on the North Slope?

The Governor, in trying to dispel rumors the father of her grandchild is a high school drop out, released this statement this week, �Levi is continuing his online high school work in addition to working as an electrical apprentice on the North Slope."

But federal regulations require any members of apprentice programs, union or otherwise, first obtain a high school diploma, something the Governor�s soon to be son-in-law, Levi Johnston does not have. Some apprentice programs even require the completion of high school level Algebra or the post secondary equivalent.

So how is it that the Governor�s soon to be son-in-law is working in an apprentice program? Is this another case of the Governor believing the law doesn�t apply to her?

Bo Underwood, who heads up ASRC�s electrical apprentice program, confirmed Johnston is indeed enrolled as an apprentice. Underwood claimed not to know whether a high school diploma is needed to be an ASRC apprentice and said he would check on it. But federal regulations clearly state a high school diploma is needed before entering an apprentice program. How is it the man who runs the program does not know that?

Underwood also claimed not to know whether there is a waiting list for the ASRC apprentice program he runs. Imagine that.

Rebecca Logan, executive director of Associated Builders and Contractors, an organization that also has an electrical workers apprentice program, says waiting lists almost always accompany apprenticeship programs. Her organization�s apprentice program has a waiting list of at least 100 people.