PN-G bamatex

LA riots, v. 2.0.

"Hey, let's point out that somebody did something bad a couple hundred years ago, and use that to justify doing something illegal now."   So much for that progress stuff.

  That's a pretty big part of it, and it touches on a much larger issue.   The main driver behind the global warming scare isn't some coalition of environmental groups. It's companies that have thrown massive amounts of money into "green" technologies. When a company invests a lot of money in a technology that is environmentally friendly, but isn't economically competitive, creating artificial economic advantages to level the playing field against more economical technologies is in that company's best interest. The quickest way to do that is to put money into environmentalist groups that will obstruct the process for companies invested in older technologies on environmental grounds, and to put money into political campaigns for candidates who promise stronger, costly regulations for those same companies and more tax breaks and government investments in the newer, greener technologies.   General Electric is a prime example of this. We've all seen the figures regarding how little GE pays in taxes because of special breaks for companies that invest in certain technologies posted here a thousand times. We've also seen how much money GE throws into Democrat campaigns, and we've all seen the number of commercials GE puts on television advertising how environmentally friendly it is. Why do you think GE does all of that? It's not because they have any special love for the environment or Democrats, it's because establishing that narrative and funding those political initiatives makes their investments more profitable, their tax bill smaller and their share of the different markets they compete in larger. It's all about the bottom line.   Where Keystone's concerned, we find a similar example. The original reason for blocking the Keystone project was because of the potential it had to disturb the ecosystem in the Nebraska Sand Hills. TransCanada responded by eliminating that concern - they altered the project so that the pipeline would no longer run through the Sand Hills.   When that issue was eliminated, Keystone's opponents raised another one: the possibility of an oil spill contaminating the Ogallala Acquifer, one of the primary sources of freshwater for cities and farms across the Midwest. James Goeke, a hydrogeologist from the University of Nebraska and incidentally one of the world's leading experts on the Ogallala Acquifer, examined the project, spoke with TransCanada officials, and determined that the risk of a spill was so minimal as to be nonexistent, that the risk of any contamination resulting therefrom was equally minimal, and that if a spill somehow occurred and contamination somehow resulted from it, it would be so localized that it would be virtual non-issue.   When that issue was dismissed, a third one was raised: apparently, the process of extracting oil from the oil sands of Canada puts more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than extracting oil the old-fashioned way. Liberals are scared that building the pipeline will result in more oil being extracted from the oil sands, thus causing more greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere than would be otherwise. One report went so far as to say that more activity in the oil sands would result in so much greenhouse gas being released that the entire planet would fall into "runaway global warming" and life on Earth as we know it would come to an abrupt end.   Are we seeing a pattern yet?   The goal here was never to address a substantive environmental issue. If it had been, this project would have been approved by now, because the only substantive environmental issues were, in fact, addressed in a way that would more than satisfy any reasonable person with legitimate conservationist sentiments. The goal was to block the project from going through by any means necessary, no matter how ridiculous things had to get to accomplish that goal. And the reason that was the goal was because it's in the economic interest of some of the Democrat party's largest financial contributors.   The sad part in all of this is that there are people out there who actually believe that Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Elizabeth Warren and Warren Buffet and all the other Democrat fat cats who oppose Keystone do it out of some idyllic, innocent concern for the well-being of Mother Earth. The reality is that the Democrats and the people who back them, just like the Republicans in many instances, are concerned about their pocketbooks and nothing more, and most of the hardcore liberals out there are too blind to see it. There's a reason for that as well, but that's a conversation for another day.

  That's because it is.       There are already pipelines running through that very region of Nebraska. They weren't upset over those pipelines when they were built. Why are they so upset now?   And that's not rhetorical. There's an answer. I'm just curious to see if anyone gets it.

Bowl eligibility after all the quarterback issues and disciplinary dismissals. The first real defense Texas has had since Will Muschamp left for Florida.   Looks like a very bright future ahead for the Longhorns under Charlie Strong's leadership.

There's still time left in the season. I'm concerned about Alabama against Auburn - the Iron Bowl is still the Iron Bowl.   But, props for owning up to it.

  That doesn't make it acceptable, and even if we do it back, the increasing frequency with which actions like these are occurring is only further proof that the tension between the US and Russia is approaching Cold War levels.

Russia has never put them in the Gulf of Mexico, not even during the Cold War. That's explicitly stated in the article, sourced to an unnamed senior US military official. Recon flights are fine. Flying planes into the far extremes of US airspace along the West Coast to poke and prod at us is arguably okay; it's simply the resurrection of a Cold War tactic. This, however, is not something explicitly called for by treaty, or rooted in a thirty year old precedent. This would be considered a highly aggressive move, even by Cold War standards. View it in conjunction with Russia's recent deployment of a guided missile cruiser to Havana, and the leak of the US Navy's knowledge of Russian submarine operations in the Gulf of Mexico a couple years ago - another tactic that wasn't used in the Cold War - and you're going to have a pretty hard time convincing me this is innocent, much less routine.

[Hidden Content]   All that "reset" crap Obama and Clinton peddled in 2009? Yeah, apparently that includes a second cold war.

      Both of you, tone down the personal insults.

[Hidden Content]

If Obama chooses to make frequent use of his veto power, he'll be vetoing his way into the history books as one of the least effective presidents of modern times. Effective presidents recognize changes in the political scene and make the necessary adjustments to carry out the nation's business. Obama has no record of doing so, no ability to do so and no intention of doing so.   Case in point: the ultimatum Obama issued today. Instead of doing what a politically savvy Bill Clinton did or what an unlucky George W. Bush tried and failed to do by presenting an approachable, workable front and offering a Congress held by the opposing party an opportunity to work together, he told a lame duck Congress that it has six weeks to get immigration reform done, or suffer the consequences of having it done for them through a series of likely illegal executive orders.   Of course, Obama knows immigration reform won't get done in that time span. And he has every intention of living up to his promise. At the end of this year, when the dust is settled and Harry Reid has successfully stifled any actual attempt to get something done in Congress while erroneously blaming Republicans, Obama will live up to his promise. He'll probably issue all those executive orders, which will be successfully challenged by Republicans and struck down in the courts.   And that will set up the narrative to galvanize the Hispanic vote in 2016. "The Republicans don't want your friends and families to have citizenship."   Why is Obama doing this? Because he's not a leader, a good president or even really a skilled politician. It's because Barack Obama is and always has been a PR expert. He doesn't run for office to get anything done, he runs for it for the sake of winning it and holding the power. When it comes right down to it, he'll do whatever it takes to hold onto power. It's the classic Chicago mafia way, and in this case, that means setting things up to establish and support a propagandist narrative rather than to actually get something positive done.   If the Republicans are smart, they'll read the play and have a response ready. When they start challenging those executive orders in the courts, they need to simultaneously have a bill in drafting in Congress to get major immigration reform done. They need to pass that bill, they need to send it to Obama and they need to force his hand. Either he signs it, and the Republicans get a lot of what they want, or he vetoes it, in which case the Republicans have something to contradict the narrative that the Democrats are gung-ho on getting it done and the Republicans are the ones standing in the way. Either way, it's a win-win. They then need to complement this strategy by either nominating Marco Rubio for president in 2016 or having Susana Martinez on the ballot as the VP candidate.

  That's just fine. Greg Abbot won Jefferson County tonight. Let the Democrats vote straight ticket.

By the end of tonight, the Republican party will hold a 53-seat majority in the Senate. If Mary Landrieu falls in the Louisiana runoff as I expect she will, that majority will increase to 54 seats. That's a ten seat swing, and two more seats than even the most favorable polls gave the Republicans in this mid-term election.   On the state level, I couldn't be happier to see the twenty point clobbering that Greg Abbott gave Wendy Davis, and I hope that sends a clear signal to all of the rich Democrat PACs from other parts of the country that have been pouring money into our state.   It was a really good night.

  [Hidden Content]   Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

LSU is, hands down, the most talented two-loss team in the country.   A buddy of mine kept saying there was no way they'd crack the top 20 after beating Ole Miss, and I told him #17 over and over again. Should have made a bet on it.

Dude, if you're wrapped up in college football enough that you're keeping track of every little incident where a fan of your team's rival does something wrong, and you're ready to pull that list out any time a fan of said rival makes a comment about a general perception that has nothing to do with you or your team, you might need to lay off the football and reassess your priorities for a little while.

  I didn't mock them. I just stated a perception of LSU fans shared by many fans in the SEC, including those in your own fanbase. After all, it was an Auburn fan who coined the term, "corndog."   That's not exactly running around with a rap sheet for individual members of a fanbase like you are.

  A long list that only indicates crazy people will do crazy things. That's life. I could probably spend ten minutes using Google to find stupid things done by Auburn fans, but I'm not going to. Why? Because I'm not going to let a rivalry turn into an obsession.

  This post is funny, too, because it reveals the obvious little-sister complex you must have to keep a record of all of the events you just outlined on your team's rival school.

  It's not uncommon to hear people say that LSU is the Texas Tech of the SEC, and it wouldn't surprise me if there's a similar saying at Big XII schools.

  You know that abrasive, backwards cousin every family has that lives out in the boondocks and is a pain to deal with for the rest of the family at weddings, funerals and Thanksgiving?   That's kind of how LSU is for the rest of the SEC.

[Hidden Content]

  Any Democrat gubernatorial candidate would have had to tow the party line on the abortion bill, yes. But not every candidate would have had their entire political career explicitly tied to it.   Davis is not politically stupid. If the governorship was really what she wanted, there are other things she could have done to galvanize the Democrat base in Texas without antagonizing the average Texas voter she would need to win over. She wanted attention for no other reason than to have attention, because she knew she wasn't going to win her Senate seat again. The gubernatorial aspirations had to have come after the filibuster - it doesn't make good political sense otherwise - and I suspect they arose for the same reason the filibuster did: attention, plain and simple.   I guarantee you she's angling for something else here. She had to have known the whole time she couldn't have won the governorship. She wants some kind of consolation prize.

  Exactly how smart it was is up for debate.   The polls I saw at that time said that the specific bill Wendy Davis filibustered had a 60% approval rating among Texas voters. Polls I've seen since then say 59% of Texas voters are some form of pro-life.   If Davis's goal in that filibuster was to announce her campaign for governor, she couldn't have picked a worse bill to filibuster. You can't run an effective campaign for governor when your lone claim to fame is a filibuster of a bill 60% of the people in your state agreed with. If she had filibustered a bill on a separate issue where there's less agreement with the Republicans among Texas voters - a bill cutting funding for public education, for instance - she could have caught similar attention at least within the state, and she would have been in a far better position to run her campaign for governor.   If, on the other hand, the goal here isn't the governorship like I suspect, then Davis's ploy worked perfectly. Davis's term in the Senate was due to be up this year. In both of her elections to the Senate prior to this cycle, Davis barely won her district - she won 49.9% of the vote during a race in which there were three candidates running in her district in 2008, and she won just 51.1% of the vote in 2012. By virtue of her drawing the dreaded two-year Texas Senate term out of a hat, she would have been up for reelection to the Senate this year.   Any political strategist worth his salt knows that mid-term election cycles, which happen to coincide with gubernatorial election cycles in the State of Texas, are typically bad years for Democrats. The core Democrat constituencies don't turn out to vote in the same numbers for mid-terms like they do presidential elections. Davis, having barely won her district in presidential election years with record high turnout for the Democrat voting base, had to have known that it wasn't in the cards for her to win her Senate seat again this year. I think she decided to go out with a bang, and that was the impetus behind her infamous filibuster over the abortion bill. I think that filibuster caught her more attention than she expected, and she saw an opportunity to win the Democrat nomination for Texas Governor, which would allow her to go out with an even bigger bang than she had previously expected (she knows, and has known the entire race, that she doesn't have a shot of winning without a serious mistake from Abbott, which he has yet to give her). I think the endgame for Davis has never been the governorship, I think it's a pricey book deal and a possible federal appointment. And right now, she's on track to get exactly that.