yyz28

The southern half of the pipeline is pointless if the northern supply side isn't approved. Meaningless gesture. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said they didn't matter. What I said, clearly, is that when the biggest economic driver is pulled to a halt, many others suffer, including all of the supporting industries. Regarding the "gulf drilling taking place", there is finally some happening, but not as a result of any efforts of this President. In fact quite the opposite. He put two separate injunctions in place as executive orders on drilling in the gulf. The ONLY reason that there is drilling today is because courts threw out his injunction, after finding him in concept of court. The Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days — nearly four months — to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Those numbers contrast sharply from previous years. This historical average is a 73.4% approval rate. The approval time has nearly doubled; the historical average is 61 days for the government to approve plans. For plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse. New regulations require all deepwater drilling plans to undergo an environmental assessment process. Those plans have an average approval time of 222 days or more than seven months. The data were included in the latest release of the Gulf Permit Index from Greater New Orleans Inc. It has monitored this trend since last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The delays have continued for more than 18 months later. Drilling permits don’t fare much better under the Obama administration either. One sign of hope might be a recent uptick in shallow-water permits. Greater New Orleans Inc. reported: "Deep-water permit issuance continues to lag the monthly average observed in the year prior to the oil spill. Only 5.0 deep-water permits are being issued per month since September 2011, representing a 0.8-permit — or a 14% — monthly reduction from the average of 5.8 permits per month. This number also represents a 2.0-permit — or a 29% — reduction from the historical average of 7.0 permits per month over the past three years. "Shallow-water permit issuance is rising above the historical average. Since September 2011, 8.3 shallow-water permits, on average, were issued. That number represents an increase of 1.2 permits — or 31% — from the monthly average of 7.1 permits per month observed in the year prior to the oil spill. However, this number represents a 6.4-permit — or a 44% — reduction from the historical average of 14.7 permits per month over the past three years. The slowdown of activity in the Gulf of Mexico is having an impact beyond Louisiana, where one deepwater rig can create 700 jobs locally. Lack of production harms employment across America. It also strips much-needed revenue from the federal government. Allowing access for exploration and creating an efficient regulatory process that allows energy projects to move forward in a timely manner will not only increase revenue through more royalties, leases, and rent it will also create jobs and help lower energy prices in the process. To quote Coffee, my "hard-on" for federal drilling is very simple. This President is trying to take credit for an increase in drilling which isn't still actually happening and what was happening in spite of his policies. If you agree with these policies, that's great. ...but lets not pretend this guy is energy friendly or is doing anything to resolve the current gas crunch. His policies are damaging to energy production at virtually every level. The facts are difficult to argue if you go beyond the talking points. We're talking about income taxes and that's what the stats are based on. I argue that the people in this country and our economy is being strangled by our current energy policies and we need to increase the supply as soon as possible. Current science estimates we have near 200 years of oil available to us using current technologies, much less possible extraction using technologies not yet developed. This argument hardly holds water. So, despite the FACT that this flies in the face of your overall stated objective of more funds to the treasury, this is still your stand? I mean, we've gone over the history of this in several other threads. Raise tax rates on capital gains despite the fact the principal was already taxed at the normal rate, and you'll drop revenue to the fed. It's a perfect relationship, and has been proven true over and over again in our history. ...but I appreciate finally getting a number from you.

Broken Link?

EIA is who my source is. ...and basing your global or national understanding of the oil business based on what is going on in Midland, Texas is a bit narrow-minded.

The facts are that under the Obama administration, federal drilling is down 11%. Facts are that the private & state lands are producing the oil increases. Facts are that his numbers are through 2010. Since 2010, there has been a drop, and the federal numbers haven't caught up, but the industry numbers sure have. A recently released (and revised) report from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that whether 'America is producing more oil' depends on which land is being drilled. The EIA report revealed a 12-percent decline in production for coal, oil, and natural gas on federal and Indian lands from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2011, its lowest point in nine years. Yet during that same time frame, production on state and private lands has increased, boosting overall production numbers for the United States. While oil and gas production is up in the United States on private and state land, it is down on federal land, which falls under President Obama's direction. Here are four more steps Obama has taken to limit U.S. oil production: Withdrew areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and natural gas. Cancelled lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast and delayed exploration off the coast of Alaska and kept other resource-rich areas off-limits. Finalized rules, first announced by Secretary Salazar on January 6, 2010, to establish more government hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands. Withdrew 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change. I have no doubt production on private land in West Texas is up. GREAT!!! ...but this Administration IS actively blocking energy production that it can control under current regulation and law. It is clear as day. ...and the Pipeline route was modified in a way that made all interested parties satisfied, yet it was still struck down. Sorry, but that argument simply doesn't hold water. The 10 year disaster in the gulf is virtually a non issue now about a year after the accident. The Gulf's economic driver is the Oil Industry. Without them, the other supporting industries don't thrive. You can't shut down the single biggest economic driver in a region and not have massive impact in related or supporting fields. We should resume drilling in the gulf YESTERDAY if not sooner. I got my last statement from the EIA. Based on the percentage of the burden they already cover, I think it is MORE than fair. FAIR would be we all pay the exact same rate or percentage of income, from top to bottom on EVERY DOLLAR so everyone has a vested interest in what the government is doing with OUR money. You in? Well, it is actually, as it accounts for the fact that nearly 50% of the population pay nothing. Note, the stat is the top 1% of income earners earn 16% of the income, yet pay 34% of the burden, more than twice as a percentage of what they earn. So, if the top 1% percent are earning paying 36%, the middle 49% of us are paying the remaining 64% of the burden while virtually half the population pay nothing. ...yet YOU seem to think THAT is fair?!? FWIW, my numbers come from www.irs.gov. Well, he already paid taxes on the money he invested when he earned it. I have no problem with him paying a lower rate when he invested it. I base this statement not on some utopian ideal of what is fair and unfair, but rather on my understanding of simple economics and the history of our tax system. When guys like Mr. Romney are paying a lower rate, they invest more and thus more opportunity exists for guys like me and others to find jobs, get money for starting businesses, take economic advantage of an innovation, etc. In addition, while they are paying at a lower rate, since they invest more, the Treasury has MORE income from investment activity. The numbers, facts and history back up my position rather than some subjective measurement of fairness. ...but I must admit myself disappointed. Lots of text, but you still didn't answer the question. In case you missed it, let me put it here again - If the Rich aren't paying enough then how much SHOULD They be paying? Sorry to take the jab at you but I always find it amazing that those who beat the drum that the rich should pay more can NEVER answer this very simple and basic question. When is enough enough? How much MORE are you comfortable confiscating? Should the top 1% pay 50% of the total tax burden? 60%? When does confiscating more and more of someone's wealth become wrong?

Did anyone actually listen to the tape? ...the cops told him not to AFTER he had already started to. Zimmerman responded OK. The eyewitness claimed that Zimmerman was by his car when he was attacked by Martin. ...so it sounds to me like Zimmerman was being a little overzealous but when cops told him to retreat he said "OK" and did so at which point he was attacked. Regardless, the story is tragic. One young man is dead. Another man's life is destroyed. That being said, while this case is tragic it certainly isn't unique as people of all races are killed all the time, often by people of the same color. South Chicago alone had 42 shootings resulting in 12 deaths, including a 19month old and two teenage boys over the St. Patrick's day weekend. ...but those stories aren't in the national news. This case was investigated by local authorities and deemed an accident and self defense. ...it wasn't until the Al Sharptons of the world saw an opportunity for attention for themselves that it became something anyone cared about. The false outrage over this killing is pathetic.

...Just as well. Might as well only be in sports we're good at and that people will actually watch. We'll still dominate like normal. Fear not.

Good idea. So then how bout after 10+ threads you finally answer this question - I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website. ...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number? ...regarding Rick listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, it is rather interesting that you do that on the same page where you're regurgitating White House talking points. The facts when you drill down from the White House provided headline are rather different. Obama has shut down, shut off, and canceled more oil drilling than any President since Carter. After the BP oil spill last year, Obama shut down all offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, idling 78,000 jobs and cutting off billions of dollars of tax revenue to state and local governments in the Gulf Coast region. After U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman found the Gulf moratorium without factual basis, Obama lifted it, granted no permits, then reinstated the same moratorium. The same judge then found the second moratorium illegal and held the administration in contempt of court for ignoring the first order. Seven drilling rigs have left the Gulf for friendlier waters. Obama also reversed the Bush plan to sell leases off the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and around Alaska, even rescinding leases already granted and paid for in Alaskan waters. It's not just oil drilling that Obama opposes. His actions say he opposes all energy development. A recent study by the American Consumer Institute concludes that coal, natural gas, nuclear, transmission infrastructure, and even renewables were among 351 energy projects delayed or canceled by Obama. These projects represented 1.9 million jobs and an investment of $1.1 trillion. Record drilling under Obama? Domestic oil production increased until the BP spill because of Bush's pro-drilling policy. In 2011, the Energy Information Administration estimates, the U.S. has seen a decline in production of 220,000 barrels a day, and it projects a reduction of 150 million barrels in 2012 from the Gulf.

If congress can tell you as a condition of breathing in this country that you MUST purchase a product or face a penalty or a fine, where does their power end? If they can force us to buy health insurance, can't they force us to buy hybrids? Can't they force us to buy pink bunny slippers? Can't they force us to chew only peppermint gum? I don't think there is anyone on this board who thinks the existing healthcare system is hunky-dory and doesn't need some major changes. ...but there is real disagreement as to what those changes SHOULD BE. ...but I'm shocked that anyone who is of reasonable mind who has watched our government in action during the time he or she has been alive can come to the conclusion that its going to be OK for our Government to make this power grab and that it will end here based simply on their track record. Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will argue exactly this point, that Congress IS acting within its Constitutional limits by forcing you to buy a product or pay a fine. When the Federal Government has that type of power AND control over the system that regulates your very life and health, you are no longer free. This, to me, isn't an argument about health insurance but rather about something far more basic.

Right you are... I missed it. I lose track of who voted on Super Tuesday.

Not too worried about polls at this point. ...and this particular poll is laughable, when you look at the break down. First it's a registered voter, not a likely voter poll. Might as well throw it out right there. Independents when you look at the breakdown break statically even between the two candidates and then break for Romney on the issue questions further down. Gut tells me party alignment breakdown which isn't shown (and usually isn't when its lopsided) has a lot to do with this. In addition, VA hasn't had its primary yet and is most likely not paying much attention except for the political junkies. If this were a week before the election and there were 5 polls all trending one way within a week, I'd worry.

That's something I could get on board for no problem! That would be pretty cool.

Well, to me, the first uniform (with the Large North Texas breastplate) IS a modern interpretation of this uniform, unless you're hung up on white being the main color, compete with the shoulder details and detail on the sleeves. ...but, no capes. HATE capes. ..and no fuzzy hats. ...and clearly, no NTSU logos.

See, this is painful. This is the uniform I wore. Most obvious color on these uniforms was red... ...during a time where Blue and Gold were acceptable accent colors for our logos. These were dated looking in the 90's. Imagine what a 60's uniform would look like in the 2010's. Ugh. 1992 Green Brigade

Agreed... However, there still isn't a separate specific amendment that outlaws a specific financial barrier like the 24th does in the case of the ID Issue. Now, I believe C&T's interpretation of that amendment to include this is a incorrect, which I really think is where his and my disagreement lies. ...but there is at very least an amendment that you can argue on. In the case of the second amendment, you have the right to bear arms, but there is nothing specifically that prohibits the government from taxing or creating fees on the legal sale of firearms, or further documenting who they are sold to. ...again, we can argue if such laws are an over-reach of government power, but it is still a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. It is, however, far closer in line than vehicle or beer tax is.

Well, then its probably a good thing you're not running the band! LOL! I'm sure the Bleacher's "Best Damn Band in the Land" ranking of #1 over such bands with a Retro Look such as Ohio State and Texas. ...but I'm sure they are wrong and would have ranked the band of the 60's even higher. Even non-interested outsiders say this is one of the best bands in the country. It may not be exactly as you remember it when you were a Student here, but the band is clearly great and has been recognized as such. I'm with you a bit regarding the pre game. It certainly could hit harder than it does. ...and I prefer bands that come out to the field to a chant and a bad-ass drum cadence, rather than a single snap-beat, but changing back to uniforms of 50 years ago... ain't going to change the pre-game.

This president is so naive in the basics of business and the economy. Nothing he proposes surprises me anymore. We keep being fed that he's a borderline genius and is the next coming of Bill Clinton when it comes to being politically savvy, yet he steps in it at virtually every turn and proposes things that make absolutely no sense in content. Likely, the proposal is DOA. The Republican Congress won't let something this economically damaging through, which is why Obama proposed it in the first place. Anyone who believes he ACTUALLY WANTS business tax reform has lost their mind. He wants another thing to beat the Republicans up as having blocked. The problem with that is that the polls show it isn't working anymore.

I'll answer for him as I don't find that a very persuasive argument. While I disagree with C&T on this issue, the tax on beer and on your vehicle are perfectly legal activities of the state government. You'll find that the sale of alcohol and the managements of vehicles are not mentioned in the constitution (since the end of prohibition), thus are state issues. As such, there is nothing in the constitution that can be interpreted to speak to either of these taxes, nor is driving a car or having a beer a fundamental right of a democracy or republic, NOR has it been an issue that we've fought wars and have decades of supreme court litigation over. Moreover, the right to vote and what barriers may be put in place are addressed in the constitution and its amendments. ...so, really, this isn't a very solid argument. I agree with the conclusion you're making, but using beer and vehicle taxes to argue for the ID law isn't a very effective tool, IMHO. Good debate!

We don't have the coin to keep this crap up. At current spending, at current tax rates, our kid's and grandkid's lifetime tax payments have already been spent to get through the current debt. How do we assume we've got MORE to spend, much less 2 TRILLION more over a period of just 10 years? Obamacare, just as predicted by those of us who opposed it, is going to cost far more than originally estimated (AND far more than even THESE CBO estimates) and has all sorts of hair on it (such as this contraception mandate, rationing, and many of the other limitations we all said were in here and are now being borne out as true) is pushing up insurance premiums (despite promises that our costs would go down) and will force us all off of our current plans and into a single payer system, which is what it was designed to do in the first place. ...and Obama knows it, which is why he ensured it wouldn't take effect until he was out of office or in his second term. Bad deal. If we don't get the individual mandate that basically is required for this law to have any teeth struck down by the supreme court, we're all headed for a total lack of control over our healthcare which will cost more, not less and be less effective not more effective moving forward. ...and the GOVERNMENT will have absolute control over your issues of life and death. ...but don't worry, your liberty won't be eroded at all.

A Retro look by definition isn't updated. NT's band has always... ALWAYS followed the Drum and Bugle Corps line of thought. ...this is because, largely, we have a far more diverse and talented group of musicians in the band than most other bands, largely due to our Jazz band heritage. In addition, the bulk of the music majors are either going to perform or teach. Those who are going to teach, are going to teach in the High School Ranks where... ...the MODERN Drum and Bugle Corps concept rules and is the way High School Marching bands are run today. ...further, with all due respect, the band is here to serve the School and CURRENT STUDENTS every bit as much (and in my opinion more) than the Alumni as a pillar of school spirit and a focal point of getting CURRENT STUDENTS fired up, and as a result building a desire to come back after they graduate. I understand a desire for Nostalgia, but in this case, the Green Brigade has been following a certain path and evolution that has been in line with the bulk of the Marching band world for years and years. ...and while we can all be disappointed that this means some of the "traditions" of the 60's got lost as a result. You complain about consistency, yet for the last 15+ years while the exact stitching pattern on the uniform has changed a bit, the programs, the music, the traditions within the band have stayed consistent. If consistency is what you're looking for, you've had it for 20+ years, all during a time while the band has been getting bigger and better. Why promote something that would change that consistency? The fact is that this band is the biggest and best unit is has been since I've been involved with UNT (including the time that I was a member of the band) and I personally feel this is in large part due to the leadership of Nick Williams and I hope the band stays on the track it has been on though the foreseeable future. ...these kids bust their ass. Since we don't have a traditional uniform like UT or OSt., they should be given modern uniforms that they love and are proud to walk around in. This new uniform accomplishes this mission, and both will look AWESOME on the field.

LOL! Nice!

So, you support this law if we can make ID's free for those who can't afford it? If so, I'm open to compromise. $16 for 6 years to have an ID is not a substantial burden, and it hasn't been "basically settled" as MANY other states have similar laws. I'd like to see the court cases where showing an ID in order to vote has been ruled unconstitutional. ...and if it has been under the equal protection clause, then it's bad law, as the equal protection clause doesn't apply as the mandate is on everyone. The courts also ruled that separate but equal was constitutional for decades - just because the courts have ruled doesn't mean they have gotten it right. I don't see showing an ID card as a burden. ...and democracy is suppressed when people who aren't qualified to vote are diluting my vote and your vote. The Democracy only works when those who are a part of that democracy are making the decisions and not having their voice drowned out by folks who should not have a say. Very simple - because that's the only reason you could possibly want to allow anyone to vote without proving they are allowed to vote or not is to bolster the Democratic votes with the non-citizen or illegal vote which the Democratic party panders to. They don't do this because they are being nice. They do this because they know how loose voting is in most states and that MANY illegals, non-citizens and otherwise disqualified people are voting, and when they do, they vote democrat. Because people who shouldn't be voting are doing damage to my vote, which I can prove I am entitled to as a United States Citizen. It is as fundamentally guaranteed to me as it is someone who these laws may create a barrier (which it doesn't, and we all really know it doesn't) for. Why are we protecting the fundamental guarantee for folks who aren't qualified to vote at the expense of those of us who are? This is actually a very simple issue. We need a system to verify that only those qualified to vote are the ones voting. I'm happy to compromise. Hell, I'm even willing as a taxpayer to subsidize TxDOT to provide ID's for those who can show that they simply can't afford the ID (not driver's license, but state issued ID). ...but this open system where anyone gets to vote without being checked is just insane and does promote fraud.

Getting an ID to prove you're a citizen is a poll tax, huh? I think that's a pretty massive perversion of that rule. You're not mandated to pay to vote, but you are mandated to prove you're allowed to vote. If that costs 10 bucks (for an ID that has many other benefits and is good for up to 6 years) then that is a totally separate issue and NOT what the 24th amendment intended to keep from happening. The point of the 24th was to keep polling places from forcing voters to ante up on the spot to be able to vote in an order to suppress the minority and poor vote. To compare a legitimate intent to verify that legal voters are voting Do you honestly believe that we shouldn't be verifying that people voting are actually qualified to vote? If so, I will counter the claim that "it's about keeping Democratic Voters off the rolls" and state that those in opposition are intent on having illegals and non-citizens voting as they historically favor the Democratic party. The argument that there is no Voter fraud is a straw man, and exactly the point that has already been made in this thread is dead on - without a way to verify who is voting, how do we know if only qualified voters are doing so?

Really? How does proving you're a citizen and qualified to vote violate the 14th OR 15th amendment? Equal protection doesn't apply, as all voters are required to show ID, not just the hispanic voters. ...and requiring you to provide documentation of who you are certainly isn't a poll tax. That's a REAL stretch. ...but for sake of argument and in the search for consistancy, if you were allowed to secure a state ID for free, would you change your stand?

Still on this, huh? Really? Despite the FACTS? Despite that historically, it's proven that revenue to the fed has increased when Capital gains tax rates are dropped and decreases when they are raised? It's been a perfect science historically. You state "I WANT US TO QUIT GOING INTO MORE DEBT" yet you blindly support a policy that has been PROVEN, more than once, to drop the amount of revenue coming into the fed? It's illogical. The only possible explanation I can find is that you're so hung up on your idealogical slant, you can't look at the facts. Numbers don't lie. History is what it is. If the numbers didn't back up my argument, I couldn't make it. I'll again, ask you the question which after countless threads and now 30+ pages in this thread - If the Rich aren't paying enough (reminding you here that the top 1% of the income earners in this country earn 16.77% of all income, yet pays 34.72% of all taxes) then how much SHOULD They be paying? How much is their fair share? The top 1% contributes twice as much to the tax pot than the percentage of the income they earn. In addition, this number is up 2% since 2000, further debunking the idea that the Bush tax cuts have created a situation where the Rich are paying less as a result of the often maligned "tax cuts for the Rich". ..all this data can be found on the IRS website. ...so, should the 1% be kicking in 40%? 45%? What's the number?

If you're qualified to vote, you're qualified to have a state issued ID. If it is important to you to go vote, got get an ID. ...the fact that the Justice Department without the matter going through court can stop a state from implementing its own laws enacted by the elected state legislature is pretty amazing. 10th Amendment? Anyone?