Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How is this not a good idea? (Score -1, Troll) 409

by CncRobot (#43194503) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize Obama hasn't been in office for 4 years and wasn't requesting additional spending on a program that failed to provide results.

Talking about Obama for this thread is On Topic, saying "But Bush" is Off Topic for this thread. I realize that being a liberal you have to ignore facts and I make that hard for you, but attacking me doesn't change them. If you don't like them I suggest you don't read my posts.

Comment: Re:How is this not a good idea? (Score -1, Troll) 409

by CncRobot (#43194271) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

This man just lost the debate and is hoping for the "Its Fox News and not a reliable source" for his next argument. Grow up and if you cared nearly as much as you pretend you can find it yourself.

Liberal argument sequence...
1. But Bush (His original post)
2. Attack the poster (His next post)

It gets tiring to see the same 4 posts in a row on EVERY topic that shows Obama as corrupt.

Comment: Re:How is this not a good idea? (Score 0, Troll) 409

by CncRobot (#43193921) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

Losses from Obama loans to "green" companies
Solydnra - $535 Million
Abount Solar - $400 Million
First Solar - $3 Billion
Fisker Automotive - $529 Million / Cut off after getting $193 Million of that
A123 - $123 Million
Ener1 - $118 Million
ReVolt - $5 Million

Your entire post consisted of trying to mislead and lie to people. I called your bluff and no matter how many times you say "But Bush" and "Iraq" it doesn't make the FACT that Obama stole money from taxpayers to give to campaign contributors who bankrupted their companies almost immediatly after getting federal money.

Comment: Re:Great, but lets COMPROMISE (Score 0) 409

by CncRobot (#43193835) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

Perhaps you can give examples of this?
- Is it the recent increse in taxes without cutting spending on Jan 2 the example you were thinking of?
- Or perhaps the promising to veto any deal to avert the sequester that didn't include more tax increases?
- Maybe you meant last summer when they had to raise the debt ceiling and the president promised to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes?
- No, I know, its the deal to raise the debt limit later this month were the president promied to veto any deal that didn't raise taxes.
- I know, its over the last 4 years when the house proposes a budget every year and the DNC controlled senate refuses to propose one or bring up the House one for a vote.

It seems that the only time the Republicans got what they wanted, a spending cut, is when it was automatic from the president proposal of it because he refused to compromise six months earlier.

Comment: Re:How is this not a good idea? (Score 5, Insightful) 409

by CncRobot (#43193173) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

His fisrt term he put $80 Billion towards this. You will remember great hits like Solendra, A123, and Fisker. The list of companies getting the money from that original program read like a whos-who of campaign donors. Many of the companies went bankrupt quickly after getting the federal money and none of them produced anything usable.

So, to anser your question "How is this not a good idea?" The track record is this will be a slush fund to reward his friends and accomplish nothing useful. Corrupt politics and corporate cronyism at its finest. Nothing to do with "socialism", just plain theft.

Comment: Re:That's so cute (Score 1) 221

by CncRobot (#43190665) Attached to: Silicon Valley Presses Obama, Congress On Immigration Reform

Thats cute, you think a national budget of $3.8 Trillion isn't enough to fund something like that. How much does the federal government need before it will fund that? $5Trillion, $10 Trillion?

4 years ago we spent $850 Billion on "infrastructure" and "shovel ready jobs" because the infrastructure needed $1.2 Trillion in fixing up at the time. Today we need $2 Trillion. How much of that $850 Billion went to where it was promised to go? None.

Why do you think giving them MORE money will fund something that will help you? They steal it, all of it. Cut the bureaucrats, you won't notice, except you may have to pay less in taxes. Until they can show they are responsible, I say we cut the federal budget in half every year until they are responsible.

If a 1% cut means cutting tuition reimbursment for active military, but also continues tuition reimbursment for illegal aliens and a $250 Million hand out to Egypt, its pretty clear that the Federal government has declared war on its people and the best we could hope for is to defund it until it behaves.

Comment: Re:There goes the 4th Amendment (Score 1) 405

The embassy was under attack for over 8 hours before the ambassador was killed. Military troops were put into action to help long before the killing, but before they got to the area the generals that sent them were relieved of their command and the troops were called back, two sets of troops. Obama never called to find out if he could order anything to help or if anything could be done.

Your comment leads me to believe you have no idea what happened there.

Comment: Re:We are the Obama administration (Score 2) 405

Rate of spending increase under Bush 43 wasn't nearly as big as Obama. You are reading leftist lying publications. They are lumping the $400 Billion Omnibus spending bill and $850 Billion stimilus under Bush's last year while both were proposed and passed after Obama took office. If you ACTUALLY follow when the spening increases took place and ignore the lies, it was all Obama, but I understand that viewpoint is unpopular.

Omnibus bill March 11, 2009 signed by Obama
Stimilus bill Feb 17, 2009 signed by Obama

Facts really suck when people try and bash Bush for overspending.

Comment: Re:Cue the apologists (Score 1) 405

Yea, the average unemployment of 5% sucked.
Along with not having to wonder if the president was going to drone striking you for being outspoken about him.

I really hated those parts of 2001-2008.

I really perfer 8% unemployment, reduced credit rating for government bonds, and killing of US citizens without trial.

Comment: Re:There goes the 4th Amendment (Score 1) 405

I realize facts are anathema to attempting to spin something away from Obama, but this is the OBAMA administration doing this. This is the same OBAMA administration that was dragged kicking and screaming to answer the question "Can you drone strike kill a US citizen within the US?". This is the same OBAMA administration that still hasn't answered Congress' questions about the murder of over 200 Mexicans in Fast and Furious. This is the same OBAMA administraiton that hasn't answered Congress' questions on the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens.

I realize you want to protect your hero, but your hero is crap. All that I listed above has nothing to do with Congress, or what is being proposed in the article. You are just trying to get another free pass for the dictator and I'm calling you out for it.

Comment: Time Shares? (Score 2) 248

by CncRobot (#43154755) Attached to: Testing an Ad-Free Microtransaction Utopia

Don't some time share models give you points that you can use at any of their resorts. You pay a big fee once a year, get your points and visit all their properties you want until the points run out. No microtransactions, but tiny fees for each use.

The issue is you would need a large set of useful sites and one payment area for all of them, something like cable or Netflix. You pay one company to get content from a bunch of different places.

Comment: Re:Safer? (Score 1) 615

Each weapon is not a launch site. Most ICBMs have multiple warheads, so taking out 1 site could mean 20 out of commission. Then you have failure rate probably around 20%, them missile guidance errors of a few percent, if they have SDI it can take out up to 70% most likely. Between all that your 1000 suddenly becomes around 5, and those 5 won't be your top targets and some of those 5 may hit the same target multiple times. So by the time you launched all 1000, a lot of your opponent's targets are still there and the beating you just took means you can't build more. During the cold war 1000 only would be idiotic.

What no one is mentioning though is nuclear subs or stealth bombers. Both are able to deliver to targets in non-ICBM ways that are probably much more reliable. With the stealth bomber and subs, 1000 might just be enough for one large conflict.

The other thing not mentioned, a lot of the older ones were called tactical nukes. Something like the Davy Crocket which was launched from a ground artillery piece from a couple of miles away and was small yield. Meant for a Russian tank column. The A-4 and I think F-111 could both carry small nuclear bombs which we no longer have. We don't use those anymore and things like that probably accounted for half of what we used to have.

Comment: 88% accurate (Score 1) 473

by CncRobot (#43143663) Attached to: Facebook Knows If You're Gay, Use Drugs, Or Are a Republican

Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that.
Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.

You are Straight.

1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?

news: gotcha

Working...