THAT is why I like Chris Christie!! :D

Michale.....

Be still, my heart... :D

What's to stop us from using all the matter that's in easy reach? There's plenty of energy in sunlight.

Not to keep beating the deceased equine, but the reason why solar energy is not viable is because the government keeps funding companies that are politically connected rather than the companies that can actually make things work..

I am not singling out Democrats in this. Republicans do it too...

Which is why I always say.. Democrats aren't the problem. Republicans aren't the problem..

POLITICIANS are the problem...

Michale.....

I somewhat arbitrarily took 18 orders of magnitude as my benchmark when doing the scratch-work. If I did the computation right, it's a few thousand years at plausible growth rates: historical time, not geological.

No, I'm saying there is a lot of non-planetary stuff in the solar system. The asteroid belt alone weighs 10 orders of magnitude more than all humans currently alive. That asteroid belt weighs a few orders of magnitude more than all the carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere, the atmosphere, the oceans and all the coal deposits worldwide. At some point the exponential growth of humanity hits a plateau do to lack of resources. Unless we invent star trek level tech that allows the colonization of planets circling other stars there is a limit to how many humans our solar system can support. I'm saying that limit is way, way, way less than the total mass of the non-planetary matter in the solar system.

Are you predicting extinction, permanently stable population, or mass emigration from the solar system? We'll get there in the next few thousand years unless one of those happens.

My only point in all this is that it seems to me that the Left had a golden opportunity to really makes some changes.. Changes that were in keeping with the foundations of their philosophy..

But, by all appearances, it seems that the Left was more interested in doing what's best for the Party rather than do what's best for the country.

Michale......

For a time, perhaps...

But "uninhabitable for humans" does not destroy a planet do...

Even making it uninhabitable planet-wide would take some combined and co-operative effort by ALL the countries in the world...

Highly unlikely...

Even IF all the nuclear powers got together and co-operated and fired off all their nuclear arsenals at random places on the planet, the planet might be a bit rough to live on for a few thousand years... Maybe even uninhabitable, planet-wide..

But even a few thousand years is a drop in the bucket in the totality of time...

Man's effect on the climate of the planet is like a single person in a dingy taking a piss in the Atlantic Ocean...

It may not be especially good for the immediate area, but to think it could contaminate the entire ocean or raise the sea level is the epitome of human arrogance...

In the here and now, human beings could no more steer the climate of the planet then they could alter it's rotation.

To think they can is just ego....

Michale....

Beyond the fact that our increased mass does not change our planets mass except in extremely minor amounts, it is unlikely we will ever grow to the point that we out weigh all the comets, asteroids, moons, gas and dust in our solar system.

We can't destroy our planet death star style, but we could easily make it uninhabitable for humans...

It's hard to see how you do anything without matter, or how you extract matter from the sun, or how you transport it across interstellar distances. Planets are where the bulk of the matter is, in the solar system and excluding the sun. We can grow exponentially, within the limits of available matter and energy and ability to put them to use. On a historical time scale, not a geologic one, exponential growth at historic rates will take us to the point where the mass of just us, let alone our housing and other belongings, will exceed all non-planet mass in the solar system. So where else are we going to get the matter to build our homes and stuff, if not from planets?

Disassembling planets to build stuff seems quite likely, some centuries hence. It won't be doing us any good sitting there as planets.

With zero lending capitol and a republican senate minority saying no to everything? Fat chance. The more likely outcome would be the manufacturing would move to China...

To be fair, Bush did as well... He is as much to blame as Obama is..

Michale.....

Instead, Obama opted for the status quo.

Opted for doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.

Opted to put a band-aid on a heart attack patient that was one breath away from dying...

And ya'all support it to the utmost, ONLY because of that '-D' after the guys name..

Like I said... The Left has absolutely NO moral or ethical leg to stand on, bitching and whining about Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling)....

Michale.....

YEARS, eh? And nothing about the SUV tax rebate. Interesting...

Considering that a million people will be unemployed for a short time and then, when new companies are tooled up, those million will be back to work and ANOTHER million would be hired on top of that..

And you accuse Obama of pie in the sky reasoning...

I am also constrained to point out that Obama's idea of "promoting green technology" is simply rewarding donors and lobbyists, and ignoring the fact that these "green" companies couldn't properly manage a lemonade stand...

Michale....

Considering that a million people will be unemployed for a short time and then, when new companies are tooled up, those million will be back to work and ANOTHER million would be hired on top of that..

Unemployment is back up to 9.1%

So, you tell me.. Did Obama really "save" anything??

So far Chrysler as paid back it's loans and at current share price if all the US owned GM stock was sold the government would have lost about $15 Billion on the whole thing.

Ahhhh lost "only" $15 billion.. Whew.. For a minute I thought we were talking about some REAL money.. :^/

Since it's "only" $15 Billion, why don't we have the DNC and President Obama cover it so taxpayers don't have to?? :D

Somehow I'm suspecting crocodile tears in your new found environmentalism...

There is nothing "new found" about my environmentalism. I am on record for YEARS advocating the idea that green technology is the way to go and that getting pollution under control is a laudable goal and getting ourselves off the oil dependency is a strategically sound tactic.

I simply ridicule the ludicrous idea that we MUST do all of the afore in order to save the planet..

The idea that human beings could actually destroy the planet is sheer lunacy and laughable arrogance...

Michale.....

What you and the republican candidates seem to overlook in the Auto loans, is the cost to the government of having about an extra million people out of work. Is paying a million people unemployment cheaper than the loans? So far Chrysler as paid back it's loans and at current share price if all the US owned GM stock was sold the government would have lost about $15 Billion on the whole thing.

Somehow I'm suspecting crocodile tears in your new found environmentalism...

For the record, I was speaking about the Left in general, not you specifically...

Michale.....

Well. considering Bush approved the first auto bailout on December 19, 2008...

You have (inadvertently, I am sure :D) proved my point for me..

There was a first Auto Bailout. The auto companies apparently didn't learn their lesson, because there had to be a second one, under Obama...

So, why does anyone think that the second bail out will be any more effective??

Oh wait. Because The Great And Powerful Obama has said so, right?? Obama used his super duper hunky dorky pixie dust on THIS bailout, so it will be perfect... Right?? :D

Ahhhhhh Ideological faith.. It must be sooooo comforting... :D

Michale.....

Yer right.

It's MUCH better that we have cars that put out an incredible amount of pollution, that force gas prices to rise to $6 a gallon and are the number one cause of death amongst teenagers..

Yea, we're better off that Obama "saved" Detroit...

NO ONE on the Left has the moral or ethical standing to whine and cry about Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) if they support Obama's "saving" of Detroit...

Michale....

It will be a test of the mood of the voters, telling diddly about what would have happened if two of the Big Three had gone into liquidation. Would it have devastated the supply chain for Ford and the Japanese companies with US factories, ensuring that they too ceased to make cars in the US, until Detroit lost its last can of who hash? Or would the Capitalism Fairy have strewn the land with idyllic jobs-of-tomorrow factories, producing cars that run on moonbeams and never get stuck in traffic jams?

The decisive voters don't have any special knowledge of what would have happened. We're talking about people who are such accomplished policy wonks that they vote on name recognition when they vote at all.

*squeal* A year's supply of virtual Rice-a-Roni, just what I always wanted!

I was speaking more along the lines of the Left's accusation regarding Bush's "oil buddies"..

But yea.. That'll work too.. :D

Michale.....

Well. considering Bush approved the first auto bailout on December 19, 2008 you would not need to wager but could directly look it up...

I would also wager that, if it had been a GOP President who did the Auto Bailout, the Left would be saying that he (she??) was just protecting their Auto Executive buddies... :D

Michale.....

Was that before or after he shut down EPA standards???

Are you seriously going to tell me that you prefer the Auto Companies of today over the Green-Oriented High-Mileage, Cutting-Edge Tech, Millions-Employment Car Companies that might have been???

I know you too well to think that... :D

As for whether he saved Detroit or not, well we'll just have to see which way MI and OH go in the general election, won't we? That'll be the true test of it, as far as the voters affected are concerned.

No, the TRUE test of whether he "saved" Detroit or not is whether or not Detroit needs another bail-out in 5-10 years...

Guess who'll be around to say, "Told ya so"... :D

[To see what I'm talking about, hover over (or click on) the "Permalink" button at the bottom of comment 34, above.]

"Missed it by THAT >< much!"
-Agent 86, GET SMART

:D

Michale....

Your comment, #34, also has another interesting number attached to it.

This was the 20,000th comment on ChrisWeigant.com.

Woo hoo!

[virtual balloons drop from ceiling, virtual siren goes crazy]

Of course, due to our budgetary realities, this honor does not win you anything tangible. But you are allowed to brag about it here!

:-)

Thanks to everyone for the continued success of ChrisWeigant.com.

[To see what I'm talking about, hover over (or click on) the "Permalink" button at the bottom of comment 34, above.]

-CW

Um... what? Obama was the one who pushed through the first hike in CAFE standards ("miles per gallon" requirements) in decades. So why exactly is he pro-gas-guzzler?

Does not compute.

As for whether he saved Detroit or not, well we'll just have to see which way MI and OH go in the general election, won't we? That'll be the true test of it, as far as the voters affected are concerned.

-CW

I know what *I* would call it!!!!

A typo... :D

That should read $1000 a year.....

My bust.... :D

Michale.....

"Fair Game"??

That's name-calling???

Or that Rush was half right???

I specifically said I don't condone the name-calling. Even if it is true...

I mean seriously.... $1000 a month on birth control???

What would YOU call it??

Michale.....

... except in the previous sentence. And the one before that. And the previous post. And ...

Let me put it another way..

Say you have citizen Jon Q Sixpack who appears before a televised GOP committee to submit the report from Maricopa County SO that there is probable cause to believe that Obama's Birth Certificate is a forgery. Mr Sixpack wants the GOP committee to investigate this claim..

Naturally the Left, en masse attack Mr Sixpack and calls him all sorts of vile and disgusting names...

Now, would anyone here defend Mr Sixpack against those vicious and unfounded attacks??

Or would everyone here simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Hay, if he is going to go public with such a ludicrous position, he should expect to be attacked for it.."

I am will to lay down some major quatloos that the latter is what would occur rather than the former..

It's the same concept with Fluke... She is a known and proven Left Wing activist. She went public with her crusade.. She got knocked around for it...

Basically she is another Cindy Sheehan...

Once you throw your hat in the political ring as an activist, you become fair game...

Which isn't to say that I agree with or condone the name calling.. I don't... Even if it is partially accurate...

The difference is, that's my position whether it's a Lefty that's being attacked or a Righty...

And to hide behind the "private citizen" excuse is a pale attempt at whitewashing hypocrisy...

"Some say that social occasions are merely warfare disguised as diplomacy. Others prefer their conflict more..... honest."
-Kahn Noonian Singh, STAR TREK, Space Seed

Michale......

Right-wing blogs don't get to put words in my mouth, even about the basic facts. I don't even completely trust your sources not to just plain make stuff up. There's no excuse for calling anyone a c***, but I'm not going to join in claiming that Bill Maher did. I'm willing to assume for the sake of discussion that he did, but I'm not willing to say he did.

Misogynist language toward anyone, public figures included, is wrong. The attention that's been directed at Sarah Palin in particular borders on sick. (Maybe it goes beyond just "borders on", but not before I stop reading. HuffPo sees what generates large numbers of page loads and what doesn't, and that doesn't get them from me.)

Then the question is whether the president has done enough to distance himself from that kind of thing. I think he (and his campaign, and White House staff) have always refrained from actually encouraging it. I think he spoke against it at least once. More would have been nice, but I think he's at least met the minimum requirements.

So is Fluke. Perhaps not in the same vein as Palin or Malkin, but once she took her activism into the public forum, she became a public figure..

So I don't know whether Bill Maher crossed the line or not, whether what he said about various politicians is worse than 95% of what gets thrown at Obama or not.

Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt...

I don't think you have to watch him to know that it is completely out of bounds...

Hell, just typing the word, I had to look over my shoulder to make sure my lovely wife wasn't watching...

By the same token, I'm not going to join in your condemnation, because to do that I'd have to watch him.

See above.. You don't have to watch him to condemn him for what he said...

Michale.....

But, of course, they are conservatives

They're also public figures. Obama gets all sorts of (expletive) thrown at him, that just comes with being in the public spotlight. There's some that crosses the line too, of course, but lots doesn't. Rough estimate, 80% is completely in-bounds (all too often devoid of merit, but in-bounds nonetheless), 15% is disappointing but hey it's not my side saying it so who cares, and 5% is over the line.

As I said, I don't watch Bill Maher. I watched a couple segments that were linked from HuffPo, and I could tell pretty quickly that he wasn't for me. I don't need someone basically saying hooray for our side.

So I don't know whether Bill Maher crossed the line or not, whether what he said about various politicians is worse than 95% of what gets thrown at Obama or not. I'm not going to rebut your condemnation because to do that I'd have to watch him, and yuck. By the same token, I'm not going to join in your condemnation, because to do that I'd have to watch him.

Not that I am inclined to care... :D

Michale.....

And Michelle Bachman, Michelle Maikin, etc etc...

But, of course, they are conservatives, so that doesn't matter to the Left.

They deserve what they got...

I guess that explains why Obama didn't call any of them when they were attacked by a Left Wing personality... :^/

Michale..

On the other hand, I haven't had much to say against Rush Limbaugh in the last few days, either. I don't really expect better of him. I'm already not on the same side as he is. He doesn't speak for me, and no one is going to think he does.

That would be Bill Maher... Who Obama just took a million bucks from..

Which, by your own criteria, is "relevant to a politicians integrity"...

Michale.....

Not as far as I can tell. I don't know who Michale is referring to.

Multi-million-dollar donations to a super-PAC are relevant to a politician's integrity. Bundlers who raise millions, and organize events where the candidate meets the donors, are relevant to a politician's integrity. Thousand-dollar donations to a few-thousand-dollar campaign are relevant to a politician's integrity.

Thousand-dollar donations to a multi-million-dollar campaign, that happen automatically without a human being so much as having to open an envelope, and no staffer even ever knows who gave the money, are not relevant to a politician's integrity.

That goes for either party.

It's just that the double standard between the Left and the Right is so glaring, so.... insulting..

I mean, they don't even try to HIDE it any more...

Back in the day, politicians seemed to be embarrassed about being caught in blatant hypocrisy.

These days, they heap adulation on a guy who calls women c*unts, tw*ts and bitches etc etc and then turn around and blast someone in the opposing party who calls a woman a slut or a hooker. An accusation that is, at least HALF right...

Like you, I guess I expect more integrity from our leaders.

But, I don't think it's naive to do so. If EVERYONE did so and STUCK by it, maybe we would have better leaders, eh??

Michale.....

the president is taking money from howard stern?

but seriously, obama is a politician like every other politician, he'll take it from wherever he can get it. i do feel foolish for thinking he might have been different, but that bit of naivete is my fault, not his.

How can Obama apologize for Rush for some crude comment to a woman and then turn around and accept money from a guy who has made millions off of crude comments to women?

I realize pointing out the Left's hypocrisy is a job and a half unto itself....

I am just sayin'.....

Michale....

Drudge had a cute moniker posted...

SUPER CHOOSEDAY

That's catchy... :D

Michale

That made me laugh... :D

But I know what ya mean.. I had the same feelings during the Bush years.. But no one around here pushed the "Skewer Bush" button.. :D

Michale....

He is even apologizing for Rush!!!! :D

why is it that whenever you post something about the president it triggers in me the urge to defend him, and whenever liz posts something about obama i get the uncontrollable urge to skewer him.

Looks like we have met the Left's "Joe The Plumber"...

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

Let the back-pedaling begin!!!! :D

Michale.....

Looks like Israel is going to war....

Michale.....

The president is running unopposed in the Democratic primary. (At least here in MA he is. Somebody has probably gotten on the ballot somewhere.)

So here's my one-winner question: Who will get more votes tomorrow, the president or the winner of the Republican primary?

Hell, it looks like OBAMA has got it bad!!!

He is even apologizing for Rush!!!! :D

Michale

Wow, congrats, Chris! Looking forward to another 200!

I just wanted to say a quick congratulations on FTP #200!!!

I'm not sure if I ever mentioned this to you or not, but I first found your site back around late 2007 when I was searching for people who were using some of the principles laid out in George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant".

To me, it's tremendously interesting that so many Democrats have read this book, yet so few actually put it into practice.

You're one of the few, whether the book influenced you or not, and it's why I've been visiting here ever since.

Best
-David

This is what happens when you lead from behind...

Michale.....

Isn't she the Congress Critter who is speaking at an event hosted by a terrorist???

Michale.....

SAVED the Auto Industry??

And yet the Left still whines and cries about stuff like pollution and lousy mileage and all that stuff...

Now, let's step into our handy dandy Del Rey Infinite Machine Of Maybes and tool back to the Auto Bailout years...

Postulate a scenario where Obama said to GM, "Sorry guys. You produce crap and your killing the planet doing it. To paraphrase Capt Kirk, I am going to let you die"...

NOW we have a totally collapsed industry that COULD have been rebuilt around a more sensible approach to auto making. One that develops and incorporates green technology from the ground UP...

Just think the MILLIONS of new workers a re-tooled auto industry would need...

Just THINK of the kinds of technology that would be just around the corner..

But Nooooooooooooooo

Obama didn't "save" anything.. He simply gave gave us more years of polluting cars, high gas prices and an industry that only knows how to fail..

Good call...

Michale....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/01/19/gm-is-back-in-the-auto-sales-drivers-seat/

And that is why it was such a good idea.

What's the matter, you don't believe in American exceptionalism or something?

Heh.

REAL indpendents know Obama saved the American auto industry. And that's why Michigan will vote for Obama this November.

-CW

Now that is a very interesting question.

I would have to say, upon reflection, that Democrats have gotten a little better about it. I think that the 2010 midterms refocused them in the same way that Newt's "Republican Revolution" in 1994 refocused them. For instance, I haven't heard much from the Blue Dogs since then... (OK, there are fewer of them in DC, but still...).

I've gotten to the point where I think it may be personality. I see Dems interviewed, and some of them are just TERRIBLE at this sort of thing. Some of them rise to the occasion now and then, but fall back to mumbling in-between flashes of coherence. And some of them are from the "Democrats have the right ideas, if you'll just allow me to EXPLAIN it using 800 words, then I'm sure everyone will agree we're right and vote for us" school of rhetoric, also known as the "intellectual argument that never gets on a soundbite" way of speaking.

Sigh.

But there are up-and-comers in the party who really make me cheer when I see them interviewed. Also some party stalwarts. Off the top of my head, here are a few who almost always nail it:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- best I've seen, by far
Chuck Schumer (on occasion)
Chris Van Hollen (every so often)
Al Franken (always)
Nancy Pelosi (needs to work on delivery, but her soundbites are crisp and snappy, for the most part)
Raul Grijalva (on the rare occasions they let him on TV)

That's just off the top of my head -- there are others.

The real problem is getting them on TV. Look at who gets invited to the Sunday morning chat shows from the Dem side -- it's usually the "moderates" (or even right-wingers like Lieberman) who get the invites. The networks are terrified of having actual Lefties on air, it seems.

-CW

Oh, piffle. We're playing politics here... and it wouldn't have happened without Obama, so there.

OK, that was a weak argument, so I will atone for it by explaining your term to anyone who hasn't heard it before, from the original source:

=====
"It was when you insisted that the, uh, young lady, Tish -- that Tish must pay, too. 'Tone-stapple,' or something like it."

"Oh, 'tanstaafl.' Means 'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.' And isn't," I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, "or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in long run or turns out worthless."
=====
-Robert A. Heinlein, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"

:-)

-CW

my first exposure to your column was at the huffington post shortly before the FTP first started. if i recall correctly, you were coping with the dearth of democratic talking points by hosting periodic "bumper sticker" contests, to see who could generate the pithiest one-liners. it was a different format, but aimed at addressing the same deficiency.

the question i would ask now is, over the course of these years, have the democrats gotten any better at media sound-bytes? how much further have they got to go to catch up with the R's?

~joshua

GM, which is based in Detroit, announced to employees at one of its facilities that it was halting production of the beleaguered electric car for five weeks and temporarily laying off 1,300 employees.
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/automobiles/213889-gm-halting-production-of-chevy-volt

THAT is why the Auto Bailout was such a moronic and boneheaded move...

Michale.....

Yea, now you can have sex all you want and not have to worry about any consequences..

All at the expense of the American people...

Thank you, Obama... For making all American's insurance higher.... :^/

If there was ANY truth in political slogans, Obama's would be:

Making your costs higher and your life miserable.... Give Obama 4 more years to really screw you over.
"I am President Obama and I approved this message"

Michale.....

TANSTAAFL. It's in your medical-insurance premiums.

Well, thank you for the kind words. I have to say, I never thought I'd see Volume 200, personally...

:-)

-CW

Just wanted to say "Congratulations" for 200 Friday Talking Points! I originally discovered you on huffpost when you were writing about the ACA process and you wrote some terrific columns aimed at various Dems who were either being or not being helpful. I think that's about right. At any rate, that's where I started reading you and eventually I decided to visit here.

(Enjoyed yesterday's grammar rant as well.)

To 200 more!

Paula