The truth on BO's performance....

Here's an interesting piece on BO's record as president over the past 3 years:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/

 

But, David he needs another four years and trillions upon trillions more borrowed dollars, more taxes, more power, more unconstitutional mandates (Obamacare), more government employees, more wars (Libya) and more repressive laws (NDAA) in order to accomplish the "fundamental changes" he promised in his first campaign. Man, give him some time! He's only had three years to try to bring the country down! Alinsky tactics take time.

 

BO has the fix. He is going top expand the EPA. After all, that agency creates jobs?!?!? Well, that is what he said

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oba...ches-lives-every-single-american-every-single

 

Speaking of the EPA, I heard that a few farmers have rec'd letters from the EPA threatening fines if a certain type of fuel wasn't being used. The kicker is that the type of fuel they are requiring isn't available yet!

 

That means they will have to create more jobs to make the fuel, right?

 

As best I can tell, the required fuel isn't commercially available yet but it hasn't stopped the BO admin from requiring it!

 

bump

 

OK enough with bumping threads and not adding to the discussion

 

Another thread filled with the sound of one-hand clapping.

 

Can you see the insanity in BO's EPA requiring a specific fuel to be used even though that fuel isn't yet available?

 

Since it belongs to the left, it is perfect - to them. That is the way they operate.

 

I'm surprised iqless hasn't answered, he has been active here since I posed the question. Odd.

 

Not the brightest bulb in the building are you? I may have been 'active' here during the last few hours, but you honestly can't think of a legitimate reason for me not addressing your question? Or is it you are attempting to (once again) imply that your question has gone unchallenged therefore there must be no argument against it? That would be my guess as to your last post, but (once again) you would be mistaken. While there is the possiblity you could be correct (it's not an altogether unreasonable assumption, only a stunted one, to discount other ideas in favor of this one is foolish), there are also a few others that are equally conceivable. Please let me know if you've considered them. For one, it's possible I don't care to answer you question because I don't like your attitude towards non-hard-line-Republican people in general. That would be fair to say. Another reason may be that I hadn't responded to the question simply because I hadn't read it yet. Please tell me you've considered this possibility, please tell me you are not a complete imbecile. I'm guessing you are not. My guess is stated above in the third sentence, with the added assumption that you know better, that is to say I serious doubt you actually believe it yourself.

Now, as to your question:

It isn't "Obama's EPA"... it's America's.

Now, why should I answer any further than that when all you ever do is attack Obama? You give absolutely no quarter in this, while I have made numerous attempts at reaching a common ground between our beliefs, on many occasions, by conceding an occasional minor point here and there. Why should I continue to appease a known extremist? What's my motivation? Neither of us is under any illusion that either of us will change our beliefs based on the other's stated opinions, and you show no willingness to say anything that can be considered positive about Obama, or Democrats in general.

And, why bother to address this question to me anyway? Why is my opinion on this even necessary? IMO, our beliefs are too far apart for either of us to give a crap about the other's beliefs, neither of us believe the other has any clue on how America should be governed, so I see no reason to answer your question further than what I already have done. I don't feel the need to attempt to explain to you how I view things, not when I know those views will be discounted automatically. I do essentially the same for yours, though I do look for the grain of truth in them first, there's usually something there, it's just hiding behind all the misconceptions and intentional bs lol

Bless your heart though... you are indeed quite special.

 

.......sooooooo.......maybe you addressed it somewhere in your reply but I didn't see it. How does it make sense to require a specific fuel be used even though that fuel isn't available??
At this point I'm just going to suggest you say "it doesn't".

 

It looks like too many fact got in the way of the liberal mantras. They gave up!

 

Here's a little more:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/und...rcent-ground-beef-24-percent-bacon-22-percent