Stanek weekend question: Will Planned Parenthood’s endorsement help or hurt Obama?
This week, no surprise, Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed President Barack Obama for reelection.
But a lot has happened since the group endorsed Obama in 2008.
Only four years ago Planned Parenthood enjoyed a sunny reputation.
But in that short span of time Planned Parenthood has racked up a rap sheet of fraud, Medicaid overbilling, statutory rape cover-up, violating safety standards, falsifying medical information, facilitating underage prostitution and sex trafficking, medical malpractice, accepting donations earmarked to abort black babies, huge $1 billion annual profits, and more.
Of course, this week Planned Parenthood was also exposed as an aider and abetter of sex selection abortions.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is now under congressional investigation.
Finally, ever since Obama, Democrats, Planned Parenthood, and the abortion industry launched their campaign accusing Republicans of engaging in a “war on women” earlier this year, Obama’s standing among women has plummeted. This week brought only more bad news for that strategy, an ABC/Washington Post poll. Click to enlarge:
The poll further noted:
All Romney’s gains have come among women – up by 13 percetnage points in personal popularity from last month, whole Obama’s lost 7 points among women. (View among men have been more stable….
So, given Planned Parenthood’s baggage, in conjunction with its message, do you think an endorsement from the abortion giant will be perceived as an asset or liability among the American people?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Neither
The people who it matter to have already made up their minds.
It’s a wash – It doesn’t get him any new support, and there are very few if any Obama supporters who aren’t PP supporters.
In this case, PP is a big, fat, nothing. Doesn’t help. Doesn’t hurt.
I know for my part, at least, I never liked either of them to begin with, so it doesn’t make me like or dislike either of them any better. *shrugs*
Too early to tell. But the shine certainly has come off the PP brand, so I don’t think this will be as helpful as it might have been in the past.
Since 2008 people like Lila Rose and others have exposed Planned Parenthood as the blight that they really are. Voters who might have accepted/believed Obama’s “above my pay-grade” answer to the life question in 2008 are finding out the truth about Obama’s radical stance on abortion and some who voted for him in 2008 now see Obama as a part of that blight. It hurts Obama.
Liability
I think endorsements very rarely make any difference, and this is especially true when they are predictable ones.
Unfortunately, as much as I hate to see it happen….
Obama will be re-elected.
We (Conservatives, pro-lifers) don’t have a STRONG candidate who can defeat him.
Four more years :( *SIGH!*
This is the point that most often gets missed when ever pp’s poop hit the fan in public:
pp get hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars each year.
pp is policitically active and their activity is paritsan. mr. bo-jangles has told the truth more trimes than pp has give money to non-democRAT.
pp says that it keeps all it’s money in different purses. None of the PAC purse monet ever touchs the dead babies money.
But money is fungible. Every federal tax dollar pp receives it frees up another dollar which comes in from the sale of abortions and from other private contributors like say Susan G. Komen.
pp is one big public funded whore house who either needs to stop the panhandling and grow up and walk on it’s on four feet or go the way of Solyndra.
I’m not sure, Pamela.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I do agree that Romney is not the strongest candidate. But, this is winnable! Check out the support for pro-life Scott Walker in the swing state of Wisconsin.
Let’s not give up until the election is officially over! :-)
Pamela,
NO WAY!!
We can’t let that happen!!
MEB,
STANDING WITH WALKER!
Carla -
Wes Walker of the Patriots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZcXUaT0FgA
Ex-GOP,
You may be needing a Depend on Election Night. :)
I really like Scott Walker. I saw him interviewed on t.v., but I don’t think enough people even know who he is. I mean, all the media attention is:
OBAMA, MITT ROMNEY, NEWT GINGRICH….*Scott Walker* as if he’s just a ‘footnote’ on the campaign trail.
I always root for the ‘underdog’, though. ;)
Yes Ex. LOL
Believe me Pamela WI knows Walker! :)
Can’t wait for Tuesday!
The whole country doesn’t have to know Walker. Just Wisconsinites! If Wisconsin can go to Romney (it hasn’t gone to a republican since Reagan in 84), other states will too.
What’s Tuesday, Carla? :)
I wish the best of luck to Scott Walker. I’m not from Wisconsin, but I read enough of this blog to feel highly invested in their politics.
I love the comment thread here.
Clearly…. PP’s endorsement of Obama is a collective yawn.
But the recall election in Wisconsin, with strongly pro-life incumbent Scott Walker (Evangelical Christian) facing a repeat challenge from pro-abortion and anti-marriage Tom Barrett (nominally Catholic) — now, that’s something interesting!
Here in Wisconsin — we are working, praying and voting.
Carla –
Tuesday is a yawner – Walker wins by 8 points is my thought. I think his cash advantage was 25 to 1 on Barrett.
It has made me hopeful for Obama’s chances though – the races really parallel themselves. You have a vulnerable candidate who gets lucky and draws a weak opponent – and even though the economy isn’t where it needs to be, high spending “sells” that things are better than what they are.
Carla and friends – Go Walker! Tuesday will prove we got it right the first time, and that this recall should never have happened. I say make the signers of the recall petition be responsible for the 18 million it is costing us.
Praxedes – Tuesday, June 5, is the gubernatorial recall election, aka the do-over for democrats who don’t like his policies. WI has very lax recall requirements relative to other states.
America’s still on the theme of hope and change because Obama didn’t deliver it. He left her like a bride at the altar. And Obama’s presidency and campaign (anyone know the difference?) is sounding like Belushi in Blues Brothers, to his jilted bride:
“Honest… I ran out of gas. I… I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!”
I mean, seriously. Just translate it into Obama’s own words when excusing his administration’s policy failures:
“There’ve been some things that we could not control…I came in in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression…the recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized…we’ve had a string of bad luck…earthquake in Japan…Arab spring in the Middle East…the economic headwinds coming from Europe…the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling…because of automation…because of globalization…ATM machines…speculators…big oil…”
If folks actually are still waiting on hope and change, they’re not going to look for it from Obama. And if they’re not still waiting on hope and change, that’s because they’ve already given up on Obama.
Seems to me the best man might just get the bride.
Is Planned Unparenthood using my fungible tax money to launch anti Romney ads?
When I saw the blind adoration of Obama and his elevation to messiah status by adoring crowds who had no clue why they were voting for the guy, then I knew we were seeing the rise of Hitler all over again. I stopped wondering how people of such culture, education, and intelligence as the Germans could be led to their destruction by an Austrian street thug.
Posters here got angry if I just asked them to give me a reason for voting for Obama. I was accused of being “racist” though no one could directly quote me saying anything racist.
Add to this a worshipful media who admitted they had no clue about the guy, hey folks, that is YOUR job, but so what. A media that is now nothing more than the White House stenography pool. Why even the birds at the inaugaration were in awe, according to our awe struck media. Well, birds are pretty brainless so that would explain it. At least they had an excuse. Hopefully they relieved themselves on a lot of reporters’ heads.
The American public got taken in by a sociopath/narcissist. Someone superficial, smooth talking, and totally incapable and unprepared for the job. There is truth to the adage that people get the government they deserve. The majority of Americans who voted for Obama certainly did
Tuesday is a yawner – Walker wins by 8 points is my thought.
Ex-RINO, Giving up on the Walker recall already? Up until 2010 Wisconsin was pretty reliably a Democratic bastion. I hope you enjoyed the wave election of 2010 and even mpre enjoy Tuesday’s mini wave. I know you prefer to keep your head in the sand these days but as a friend it is only fair for me to try and get you to face reality and prepare yourself for the coming November 2012 tsunami.
Truth -
The newest Marquette poll that had Walker up by 7.
What was the Obama-Romney spread?
I’d tell you, but I’m wondering if you know.
ts and EGV,
Remember what the great philosopher Yogi Berra said. “It ain’t over til its over”.
Indeed. The only poll that counts is the one on November 6.
“The American public got taken in by a sociopath/narcissist. Someone superficial, smooth talking, and totally incapable and unprepared for the job.”
I think you’re getting a bit ahead of yourself here. Romney hasn’t won yet.
Mary -
So here’s the rant I wrote in my head on the way to church after reading your earlier post and seeing the Walker-Barrett, Obama-Romney polls.
Your post at 7:14am this morning was right on. People voted for Obama because he was seen as this magical figure, change agent type person and they were taken in by his glossy looks and flashy commercials more than anything else.
And those voting for McCain were drawn in by the flashiness of their commercials and the little catch phrases that resonated with them.
Obama ran on change. McCain ran with his “maverick” label. The American people, who are quite certainly getting dumber about politics by the day, are swayed by commercials and bumper stickers more than thoughtful editorials or voting records. They don’t care about their pocketbooks, kids, or jobs – they want somebody that makes them FEEL good.
So they vote in a guy like Clinton, and after years, they realize they (individual voters) are still generally living the same life, that the politicians didn’t give them everything they wanted in life, so they vote in the other party…and once that party doesn’t make their life full and worthwhile, they switch their mind again.
I mean, look at the last four years. Obama comes in easily – after two years, he hasn’t made everyone’s life better, so they vote in the other party – guys like Scott Walker – and then when he doesn’t make everyone’s life super better after a year or so, people want him out.
So the two parties continue to trade back and forth, and we swoon, thinking that one day it will make a big difference – but at the end of the day, we’ll just get sick of whoever is in power, and we’ll vote the others in.
But they’ve got a great game. How many politicians do you hear that get done with service and then are homeless? Broke? Nope – they get nice gigs from the people they helped and passed laws for and found loopholes for.
And we get dumber and dumber – voting more on commercials and one-liners than substance. Half the population doesn’t know what they stand for…or what they want. In the poll I asked Truthseeker about – Walker led by 7 – Obama, with the same group of people, led by 8.
So over 10% of the people asked are fans of both Scott Walker and Barack Obama. How can that be explained other than people have no idea what they want – they see the ads, get drawn in by the flashy marketing, and we get what we deserve.
Sorry for the rant – but I tell you – I’m ready for a legit third party to rise up. The GOP and the Dems trade back and forth – and nothing gets done.
Obama and Bush – last 12 years – what have we accomplished?
Schools better?
Social Security more security?
Medicare looking better?
National Security better?
Economy improving?
Good investments to keep America towards the top?
Deficit under control?
But they line their pocketbooks, get their speaking gigs, make their money, kiss their babies, and live the life.
Ahhhh, I feel better now. :-)
HAHAHA, oh joan. It’s always funny when anyone on the prochoice side accuses anyone else of being a narcissist. Sames goes for sociopath to some extent.
Nobody thinks Romney is a sure thing in Wisconsin or any other swing state. The point is that Obama is vulnerable in many states that he won-some by double digits-four years ago.
And, Ex..it is frustrating that the squishy middle that doesn’t know what it believes decides all the elections.
EGV,
My goodness I didn’t think I rated such thought put into a rant. :)
But here goes: I’m glad we agree about Obama being little more than an empty suit with great charisma and superficiality, with equally empty rhetoric. He ran on change, specifically what? He also ran on “hope” and “yes we can”. Yes we can…what? I was trying to be charitable and think the American people were taken in by socipathic charisma. I mean, its happened to me more than once. Or maybe people want to look to some messianic figure to “solve” their problems.
I will give it to the guy, he was very charismatic, but that to me was just a red flag from the depths of hell.
McCain was a man of “moderation”, you know, the ideal Republican candidate. Gets along with everyone and stands for nothing. He didn’t even make an effort to win. To me he was just the lesser of two evils.
Like Yogi said, it ain’t over till its over so we can only wait until November and see what happens to Obama, Romney, and the Badger state.
However, many excellent points made in your post and I hope you can now unwind and enjoy this beautiful Sunday afternoon. As old as I am I have come to terms with the fact the more things change, the more they stay the same. Speaking of that did you see the pic of Bill Clinton with the porn stars? Like my grandma always said, if we didn’t laugh we’d cry!
I’m glad you feel better! Now good heavens, enjoy this beautiful day!!!
Joan 2:02PM
Thank you for providing an excellent example of how people were taken in and never knew it.
Ex-RINO,
that third part is here. It is the Tea Party. They are all about less government and for now they are casting their votes with the Republican party because the DemocRats vote party over everything else in order to maintain control and the Democratic party votes not for any kind of priciple but as a block of government employees who would like to have control over evertbody else. Just in the first year since Wisconsin’s 2011 buget reforms were passed over 50% of AFSME(the largest public employee union in Wisconsin) have already chosen to stop paying union dues. Most people don’t like the idea of being forced to join a union in order to work for the government. The elected DemocRats fled Wisconsin last year just to try and stop the vote. It was surreal. Anyway, it is a perfect example of why the Tea Party has no choice but to vote against Democrats. It was a nice scam while they had it. The Democratic party is a party of cronyism and professional racketeering.
Truth -
I think the tea party is massively short sighted in regards to long term investments to keep America towards the top. The tea party, to me, is like a company that is slowly going out of business – and instead of trying to figure out ways to spend some money to grow in the long run, they keep cutting employees, grabbing every last cent that they can knowing that long term, they are not sustainable. The tea party ways might have worked in the past – but the lack of funding in areas of investment will turn us from a super power to an also ran.
In regards to Wisconsin – you get no respect from me unless you can admit that both parties were childish in regards to the collective bargaining. Fleeing the state, middle of the night votes, police searches. It was an embarassment to the state. And now we’re faced with a Governor with negative job growth that could be indicted based on what is coming out in this investigation – and he’s running against a guy who’s not qualified for the job, has been rejected once, and is simply not a good candidate.
This Wisconsin election is a joke. Walker is a joke of a governor – Barrett is a joke of a challenger. The nice thing is come Tuesday, it will all be over – at least for a while.
Ex-GOP,
I only wish Walker had been given a minimum of a year or two to turn things around - which he has now, somewhat, eh? The fact is the recall vote seems to have been an immediate backlash to his election and the fact that he actually did what he said he’d do.
This attempt to nullify his election has lost its steam, thankfully.
Hans -
I agree and disagree with you.
It has been debunked that Walker ever indicated he would go as far as he did (on collective bargaining) before the election.
Now, with that being said, there is still a part of me that says “so what”? Voters can certainly change the senate/house configuration at first opportunity to render him incapable of bold initiatives, and after a few years, when Walker is up again, voters certainly can choose to vote in somebody else.
I’m afraid Wisconsin will now get into a mold of recalling anybody that comes up. BOTH parties have led recall efforts against the other side – and voters are getting weary of it.
The only nice thing is it pumps a lot of advertising dollars into the state from outside state lines…though live tv is unbearable to watch these days!
Ex-GOP,
Well, it’s not much better in my area. When Romney visited West Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter (appropriate) did everything but call him a “white interloper”, Al Sharpton style.
The tea party ways might have worked in the past – but the lack of funding in areas of investment will turn us from a super power to an also ran.
Are you trying to say that the Tea Party platform of less taxes is bad because it defunds the amount of money our government can invest for us? Or we you referring to some other part of their platform. You really don’t seem to know much of anything about the Tea Party platform Ex-RINO. The Tea Party platform has nothing to do with defunding investment.
Truth -
How in the world could you ask a question, and then before getting an answer, scold me for not knowing enough about a subject that you have yet to receive clarification on? How is that even possible?
Is this an argument with yourself, or are you assuming the answer already? That was a weird post by you.
Romneycare offers $50 abortions. Not choicey enough for them?
You are free to yawn through the recall election Ex. :)
Sorry Praxedes. I missed your question.
I am voting for the gov I love on Tuesday! WALKER!
Recall Santa Cause I Didn’t Get What I Wanted
is my fave WI yard sign.
I move we add US/Polish relations to ‘the o’bamteurs’ kill list. Its seems our misguided drone already has it in his sights:
Polish Government calls Obama ignorant, incompetent over WW2 remark
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/21121/61/
US President Barack Obama’s description of a Nazi German Holocaust site as a “Polish death camp” shocked Poland, whose leaders insist the record be set straight 67 years after World War II.
Obama on Tuesday labeled the Nazi facility used to process Jews for extermination as a “Polish death camp.” The White House later said the president “misspoke” and expressed “regret”.
“The White House will apologize for this outrageous mistake,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on his Twitter Inc. account. “It’s a shame that such a momentous ceremony has been overshadowed
by IGNORANCE and INCOMPETENCE.” [my emphasis]
Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Wednesday the o’bamateurs words had hurt all Poles and he expected more from Washington than just “regret”.
[On behalf of all Americans, I offer my sincerest apologies to our Polish friends and allies for the ignorance and incompetence of ‘the o’bamateur’.
I also apologize for the ignorant, incompetent and foolish voters who elected mr. bo-jangles.
In americas defense, I would point out that some of those voters, like ‘the o’bamateur’ himself, were undocumented and illegal aliens.
But nobody can rightly accuse us of being ‘racist’ cause it was mostly caucasians who voted for b o cause he was NOT causcasian. We just wish he were from another planet so he would make us embarassed to be human.]
Ex-RINO,
I understand you are not a good fit for the Tea Party. Anybody who is “torn” over wether or not they think government should restrict the size of sodas that people can drink would be seen as laughable by the Tea Party. You really are the have become the consumate liberal. When all else fails resort to making up lies about the other side.
LOL, Truthseeker-welcome to the brave new world, where you can marry your same sex cousin, abort your baby girl and shriek about the patriarchy, but you better not get caught with a 20 oz soda.
MQ, it is surreal to me.
I saw a liberal on the news today talking about the soda pop debate and she actually said that government should restrict serving soda to sizes no larger than they serve wine because they are both just as dangerous.
The lack of creativity in the nannysphere is ridiculous. Seriously, if I were running the nanny state I’d hatch better ideas than this by far. Among others — I’d require all soda manufacturers to cut the amount of sugar in beverages by half. Without adding artificial sweeteners. Their beverages probably wouldn’t be as satisfying, so people would drink less.
But on the other hand, we live in a country where people BUY WATER IN BOTTLES, despite an unsurpassed infrastructure for delivering clean water to homes in endless supply IN PIPES — where it may be filtered with activated carbon inexpensively to eliminate bad flavors and remove the chlorine that was used to GET IT TO THE HOME GERM-FREE.
That’s actually good government, and Americans are stupid enough to neglect it and BUY WATER IN BOTTLES. Water that’s not as good as if they filtered the tap.
Argh. The idiocracy approacheth.
Truth – I think that was a first here – you carried on quite the conversation between you and me, without my participation! Lovely job.
Rasqual,
I don’t know if I have super taste buds, but I can always detect the plastic taste in bottled water. People don’t think about the many months water can be sitting in warehouses.
I’m lucky in that I have very good well water. I store glass bottles of it in the fridge. Nothing better than ice-cold water, unadulterated by flakes of plastic.
So liberals want to reduce obesity by taking actions that will reduce soda company profits. Interesting. Those otherwise-destined-for-obesity folks will now live longer. Of course, many of them will be collecting pensions. But some of those pension funds are invested in PepsiCo. So those funds will underperform. Based on what we’re seeing of late, the aggregate effect of this and other nanny-state suppression of corporate profits will cause some pension funds to go bust. But the pensioners are living longer because they’re not obese. So they’ll be needing to get other jobs to augment their pensions, which either will be toast or will not enjoy cost-of-living increases over time. But it will be hard to get those jobs because they’ll be competing with younger workers who are less expensive to companies. But that’s descrimination, so the government will forbid such ageist hiring practices. This will increase corporate expenses for insurance and sick time, not to mention reduced productivity because these are much older employees than one would have expected to see were folks not living so darned much longer than they used to when soda was plentiful. So these expenses will reduce dividends and stock price, and pension funds will take another hit. And so forth and so on.
Then the liberals will complain about the greedy companies screwing the workers.
BUY WATER IN BOTTLES
I know right, rasqual. I told myself when they started selling water in bottles that I would never buy one. Other than one time (a flavored one on a super hot day), I’ve kept my word. I have found that those who scream the loudest about “going green”, often have a bottled water nearby.
We buy our water but can’t afford to give life to our children.
Ex-RINO, it is impossible to have an adult conversation with people like you feel ‘torn’ to vote for politicians that legislate laws to keep you from drinking too much soda. If Obama gets re-elected maybe HHS would also feel ‘torn’c to raise revenues by charging people higher Obamacare taxes if they are caught with over 16 ounces of soda in a single serving?
I think the protests of this law would be awesome. everyone show up at city hall and have soda-drinking contests. Let the soda companies sponsor it. And just for fun, pour healthy juices in the gutter. ;-)
Rasqual, eliminate the hyphen and you get this: ;) Who needs the nose? Besides, that way I won’t get a crick in my neck. ;)
Truth – so how in your book does saying one is “torn” and jokingly taking a shot at right wingers equal definite support?
Again – it was lame of you to ask a question on clarification, and before even getting an answer, hammer me on what you think my answer might have been.
And it is even lamer that you have commented four time about the post and still haven’t answered the question;)
Thanks for permission to answer your question.
You can cancel a few of your rants because your assumption on the type of investment was wrong – in fact, I thought it was pretty clear from my post – personal finance investments of individuals would have nothing to do with keeping America towards the top as a cutting edge super power.
What I mean is, somethings you have to spend money to make money. Investing in education, technology, businesses, infrastructure – all those things, in my mind, are important in regards to staying a leading economy and power.
That should put my tea party comments in focus – I don’t think they care enough about investing in education, in technology, and even businesses to keep us towards the top. We’d all keep a bit more money as we slowly become a lesser country.
Just my two cents.
The haughty Ex-RINO has graced us with an answer. I feel so privileged. Even if it was bs because the Tea Party is not against investing in any of those things.
Truth -
You should feel privileged – anytime I have great minds that converse with me and share info, I feel privileged as well! :)
Maybe I’m wrong on the tea-party then – I figured they were against things such as green energy business investments, adequate highway and transportation (light rail) funding, and deficit spending when needed.
EG: “What I mean is, somethings you have to spend money to make money. Investing in education, technology, businesses, infrastructure – all those things, in my mind, are important in regards to staying a leading economy and power. That should put my tea party comments in focus – I don’t think they care enough about investing in education, in technology, and even businesses to keep us towards the top. We’d all keep a bit more money as we slowly become a lesser country.”
I’m going to bet that you’re entirely unself-aware in how you’re using the word “invest” there, right?
You’re talking about government spending, aren’t you?
And if people generally take a dim view of government spending (at least by the federal government, which has a limited Constitutional role in the Republic) but are enthusiastic about private investment, this somehow, in your mind, makes them negative on “investment?”
So not only is “investment” a euphemistic propaganda code-word for government spending, it’s now also normative to think of investment as so located in government spending that those who support private investment count only as “anti-investment” kill-joys on the grounds that they’re not bullish about the government variant?
Heh. Newspeak triumphant. Or…not.
Ex-RINO,
You just have it all wrong about people in the Tea Party. We are not against green energy business investments; we are against BAD green energy business investments. Deficit spending in order to make batteries for electric cars that do not exist is NOT green. Leaving them on shelves for several years till they go to a landfill is NOT green. People in the Tea Party are FOR investment. We just know what a crappy job bureaucrats and bureacracies do ‘investing’ our money.
More than that, we’re against picking winners and losers. Improve the business climate for all business — not just cronies. But Team Obama learned crony capitalism in Chicago. They’re all from Chicago, remember?
I still can’t figure out how Obama’s such a weak person that Valerie Jarrett can so deftly pull his puppet strings however she wishes, though. It’s a mystery.
Rasqual -
Investment by the government would come in the form of government spending – yes – by nature, an investment is spending money (or resources) in hopes of a future payoff.
In no way did I say private investment was bad – not sure where in the world you got that.
I do believe though that there is a place for the government to spend money in targeted areas, and sometimes those things will pan out, and sometimes they won’t.
K Truth – maybe I’m wrong – can you post a few links in regards to green energy companies/investments that the tea party has supported?
All I’ve seen is the armchair quarterbacking that occurs when an investment goes bad – maybe I’ve missed the other stuff.
Thanks,
What I don’t get is this: “personal finance investments of individuals would have nothing to do with keeping America towards the top as a cutting edge super power.”
All I’ve seen is the armchair quarterbacking that occurs when an investment goes bad
lol - which investment are you referring to?
I hope it hurts him. –But then again, Romney isn’t much better on this issue.
A lousy fireman is better than a first class arsonist.
Rasqual – I can see where my response was confusing. When truth asked me a question, and then yelled at my answer before I answered – I believe that truth was referring to personal investing – increasing one’s own wealth.
Private investment into new technologies is certainly a good thing – as is public investment.
My comment in regards to investment not keeping American towards the top was my belief truth was talking about the stock market and 401ks.
truth – every time a green energy company goes under or has a bump in the road, the tea party screams about government investing.
You say the teaparty is all about government investing.
So please provide some links backing your claim.
thanks,
Ex-RINO, Do you still beat your wife the way you used too. If not then please provide some links backing your claim.
Truth -
Don’t be dumb. You said:
You just have it all wrong about people in the Tea Party. We are not against green energy business investments; we are against BAD green energy business investments. Deficit spending in order to make batteries for electric cars that do not exist is NOT green. Leaving them on shelves for several years till they go to a landfill is NOT green. People in the Tea Party are FOR investment.
So if the tea party is for investment (and I believe we’ve only focused on green investing), back up your claim.
I didn’t ask you to prove something did NOT happen – with that sort of question, your reply would make a little sense. You made a claim though of something in the affirmative, therefore, unless you are making stuff up, you should be able to back it up.
Thanks,
EG: I have no idea what truthseeker was talking about (not parsing the thread), but the tea party is certainly against federal spending on all kinds of crap. Limited government, ya know? What states do is another story.
Subsidiarity, duh.
Yes, there are some things that federal “investment” is good for. First item on the list, though: slash the things that federal “investment” has generally failed at. Then we can work our way towards making decisions about success stories.
Ex-RINO,
I backed up my claim that the Tea Party was against BAD green energy investments. Now it’s time for you to back up your claim that the Tea Party is against GOOD green energy investment.
Interesting twist. Not being against it would imply being for it. This means there’s no onus probandi for you to demonstrate that they’re for it. Absence of proof that they’re against it counts as proof that they support it.
Heh.
truth -
Here’s an article from the tea party tribune –
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/11/03/solyndra-an-oversight-in-oversight/
The solution to the problem of government waste is not transparency but elimination. If you want the Department of Energy to stop “investing” in green boondoggles, eliminate the Department of Energy.
Advocates for the elimination of all green investment.
It would be more helpful and honest-sounding if you’d call it “green government investment” or something. “all green investment”, with the word “all” in there, just sounds ridiculously like a generalization that scoops private investment into its scope as well. As noted above, coming into the conversation mid-stream that’s really what it looks like you’re saying — and it could easily be mistaken for propagandistic straw-manism, and at the least as a view that government spending on “green” is normative, with private investment inconsequential or an also-ran kind of thing.
For that matter, though, what’s it all mean when the administration defines “green” in ways that merely inflate the numbers. “More green jobs this month!”
Heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hVhKulJRZZw
Rasqual – I’ll go as far as asking truth for instances where the tea party supports investments into any private business.
LOL
You mean investments into any private business by the federal government?
LOL
Raqual – not sure what to say – all I know is that Truth said this:
“We are not against green energy business investments; we are against BAD green energy business investments. Deficit spending in order to make batteries for electric cars that do not exist is NOT green. Leaving them on shelves for several years till they go to a landfill is NOT green. People in the Tea Party are FOR investment.”
I’m still waiting for either some sort of backing on this, or some sort of validation of what I claim, and you seem to be claiming, that the tea party isn’t cool with government investing in the private sector.
I don’t mind investing at all — if it’s a level playing field.
You gotta understand us Illinois types, EG — we’re especially sensitive to crony capitalism. When picking winners and losers becomes the norm, we figure it must be some Chicago pols involved. And, most likely, heavy campaign contributions and back-scratchin’.
The whole green thing has been preposterous. It’s falling apart left and right. Why? Because oil prices are staying stubbornly too low for green energy to compete, so infusions of cash are needed to prop the industry. Mind you, the grants and loans are being used for OPERATIONAL purposes. That’s INSANE for businesses whose products can’t compete.
The regular news items I see in the green sector are preposterous wherever government money’s involved, and relatively successful where it’s not. You can’t make this stuff up.
Well, this thread has been kept green. And without federal money! ;)