October 5, 201213 yr 10 seconds on my Google machine tells me that he wasn't. List of Failed Obama Green Energy & Solar Companies in the Billions Green Companies That Took Taxpayer Money and Went Bankrupt Again, Woodsider, I appreciate the links. To be honest I wasn't very familiar with the details of the program. I found a good site that gives details. Long story short the DOE program that these guaranteed loans fall under started under President Bush with the intent of finding green energy to help us reduce our foreign oil dependency. There are two sections of the program , 1703 and 1705, that deal specifically with what we're talking about here - the "Solyndra issue" if you will. This article was from this summer so I doubt it's changed much in detail. About 25 to 30 companies actually received guaranteed loans under these two sections. The total loan amount is not anywhere near $90B as claimed in the debate. It's actually about $16B. Included were funds of about $2.4B for anticipated losses from bankruptcies. Solyndra, for example, was about $535M. Here is a list of companies that actually received funds under the DOE section 1703 and 1705. NRG Abengoa NextERA Energy ProLogis Caithness Energy Solar Reserve Excelon Solyndra(On the list in the initial links) Abound Solar (on the list in the initial links) Ormat Nevada LS Power Sempra Mesquite Solo Power 3 others listed as "other" Assessing the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program | Mercatus So the list that was initially linked seems to be conflating failed firms with the actual firms that received funding under the program that Solyndra participated.
October 5, 201213 yr If you think I have anything personal against you then you have a very thin skin, have way to high of an opinion of yourself, or both. I didn't say you have something personal against me. You made personal attacks ie attacking me vs attacking my content. It's not the first time. As I said, I allow ignorance to roll off my back until the poster makes it personal. You'd do well to pay attention to what I and others post in here. You wouldn't look like a fool so often.
October 5, 201213 yr The bottom line is Romney could have said that Obamacare called for the electric chair for anyone over 90 and Obama would have give him a "really?" look. Obama was not prepared and seemed to lack knowledge of the subjects and interest in general. Maybe he is believing the media that he is way ahead. Either way Romney gave the impression that he was more confident, determined, and had a better grasp on the economic problems and how to fix them. Clyde, please read the bold type. Better grasp? What did he say to show a better grasp? I think 90% of Americans will vote for someone who shows he can fix them. What did I miss? You may not agree with Romney but he showed conviction and when Obama distorted the facts he called him out. When Romney distorted the facts Obama look for help from the moderator. You and all the so called "fact checkers" have pointed out Romney errors yet the President had no idea, none. Again read bolded. Here's the thing, Romney busted Obama on his lack of truth during the debate, in front of an audience full of undecided voter. Obama let Romney slide because he was unprepared or gutless. Either way the Obama crew is trying to close the barn door after the horses are out. Hold up. You said he had a better grasp and showed how he would fix the economy. I asked how he showed that to you and your answer is "yeah, he was wrong on almost all of his facts but he had conviction." That's a telling statement as to how we determine who "wins" a debate. The biggest lie the Gov told was his tales about taxes. Maybe the POTUS didn't do it with enough passion or didn't zing him with a funny line but he repeated over and over that the math didn't work out. How is that looking for help from the moderator? Where did I say those things? Romney spanked Obama and now Lucky is spanking Clyde. It's been a good week. I have to admit I was pulling you chain here. But you did have 8 straight post which seemed alittle obsessive to me. Classic move, Michael, and fully expected. Ignore the fact that you can't answer a simple question . Come on. Man up. Tell us how Gov Romney showed he was well-versed on business and how he showed us he had the solutions. You made the assertion, right? Heck, even BGH backs up his lunacy with links. You're better than that, right? Once again you accuse me of saying something I didn't say. I never once said Romney was well-versed in business but I do believe he is much better versed than the community organizer. Big picture is a fair and reasonable argument to make. If you had made that initially I would have been fine with it. It's based on opinion which is cool. That's not what you said though nor is it what I asked you to respond to. Again, not surprising that you chose the path you did but it tells me that maybe you are not cut out for this forum. I used the big picture from the very beginning. All of this got started due to your lack of reading comprehension and your personal vendeta toward Michael Corleone.
October 5, 201213 yr You have me intrigued. How exactly did you come to know what you know? This education and knowledge gathering apparently by osmosis sounds really interesting. I want me some of that! History, baby, history. My point is, Romney, Obama, Ryan, and Biden can fire off numbers left and right and someone can support or dispute them. When it comes to the economy the policies implemented and proposed by Obama have not worked in the past
October 5, 201213 yr Clyde, please read the bold. Don't hide. I asked you what you based your opinion and you didn't answer. You've already stated you don't base your opinions on any details. The only way I'm wrong is if you're saying "he won because he lied better." If that's what you use to determine a "winner" then my point made is proven. We're numbskulls.
October 5, 201213 yr Don't hide. I asked you what you based your opinion and you didn't answer. You've already stated you don't base your opinions on any details. The only way I'm wrong is if you're saying "he won because he lied better." If that's what you use to determine a "winner" then my point made is proven. We're numbskulls. So you want a basis for my opinion that Romney gave an impression? You need details of how he gave an impression? From the beginning I said he showed more conviction. I didn't say he was 100% factual because I know better. This was about winning votes, it may not be the way it should be but it's the way it is. You may not like it but about 80% of the country are numbskulls who get to vote. I can post links to 100's of Youtube videos to prove it. Either way you misrepresented what I said, period
October 5, 201213 yr So you want a basis for my opinion that Romney gave an impression? You need details of how he gave an impression? From the beginning I said he showed more conviction. I didn't say he was 100% factual because I know better. This was about winning votes, it may not be the way it should be but it's the way it is. You may not like it but about 80% of the country are numbskulls who get to vote. I can post links to 100's of Youtube videos to prove it. Either way you misrepresented what I said, period No doubt he showed more conviction and that is why basically everyone agrees that he won the debate. However the concern with Romney and probably even more concern about it now, is the fact that he seems to just be saying things that people want to hear. With no real way to actually go about making all these things happen. He time and time again won't really go to much into his whole plan on how he will do all these things he said and create all these new jobs. While Obama has laid out a plan and has that plan where everyone can see what his plan is, and put it online for people to read it. Romney gives very little details of his plan, except for what he knows what people want to hear. Obama did the exact same thing in 2008 and had no real good plans to follow through on a lot of the things he said. However Obama has seemed to understand now the importance of having plans in place and not just ideas people want to hear. So Romney can show all the conviction he wants during the debates, however means little when the things he says may not be true. Not sure if I want someone like that as President. I believe at the moment still Obama would be better for this country in his 2nd four years than Romney would be in his first four years. I know I really look forward to the 2nd debate, because I think you will see President Obama showing a lot more conviction like you want and attacking Romney on the point that he should.
October 5, 201213 yr One of the main reasons I think anyone who believes "fact checkers" every word and think they are misguided is because of my distrust in fact checkers... For you, Clyde... Only Fact Check, Never Explain | The Weekly Standard
October 5, 201213 yr No doubt he showed more conviction and that is why basically everyone agrees that he won the debate. However the concern with Romney and probably even more concern about it now, is the fact that he seems to just be saying things that people want to hear. With no real way to actually go about making all these things happen. He time and time again won't really go to much into his whole plan on how he will do all these things he said and create all these new jobs. While Obama has laid out a plan and has that plan where everyone can see what his plan is, and put it online for people to read it. Romney gives very little details of his plan, except for what he knows what people want to hear. Obama did the exact same thing in 2008 and had no real good plans to follow through on a lot of the things he said. However Obama has seemed to understand now the importance of having plans in place and not just ideas people want to hear. So Romney can show all the conviction he wants during the debates, however means little when the things he says may not be true. Not sure if I want someone like that as President. I believe at the moment still Obama would be better for this country in his 2nd four years than Romney would be in his first four years. I know I really look forward to the 2nd debate, because I think you will see President Obama showing a lot more conviction like you want and attacking Romney on the point that he should. What politician doesn't say what the people want to hear? Do you think Obama didn't 4 years ago? I think Obama's policies are bad for America, it's just my opinion. This discussion was about the debate and why Romney won not he is better just that he won the debate. Clyde want to make a case that Romney really didn't win because he lied. While I admire Clyde for his quest for honesty it really has no effect on the outcome of the debate. Romney accomplished what he need to accomplish. If I were an Obama supporter I would be more concerned as to why he didn't realize Romney was less than honest. Because when Obama stretched the truth Romney was on him like ugly on an ape.
October 5, 201213 yr I apologize to the readers that have to read through this. My fault. I occasionally get aggravated and can't let go. On to the next thread.
October 5, 201213 yr What politician doesn't say what the people want to hear? Do you think Obama didn't 4 years ago? I think Obama's policies are bad for America, it's just my opinion. This discussion was about the debate and why Romney won not he is better just that he won the debate. Clyde want to make a case that Romney really didn't win because he lied. While I admire Clyde for his quest for honesty it really has no effect on the outcome of the debate. Romney accomplished what he need to accomplish. If I were an Obama supporter I would be more concerned as to why he didn't realize Romney was less than honest. Because when Obama stretched the truth Romney was on him like ugly on an ape. I said that exact same thing in my post on how Obama did the same thing 4 years ago like Romney is doing now in saying what people want to hear. So I don't know why you are telling me this, when I just said it myself. Which as you have pointed out it has not gone well under Obama like you wanted. Which is cause Obama hasn't been able to do what he has said. Which is exactly what Romney is doing now, with no real plans to back it up. Or at least no real plans that he really want to talk about, because he knows his plans are different than what he is saying and not what some people would want. At least Obama seems to understand this now, and is more about coming up with plans that could maybe work, instead of just throwing out ideas like Romney is. Which probably means Romney would need 8 years because he would then realize he needs more solid plans and not just ideas. Just like it took Obama to figure out. Which is why I think the country would be better off with Obama in his 2nd 4 years, than Romney in his first four.
October 5, 201213 yr I said that exact same thing in my post on how Obama did the same thing 4 years ago like Romney is doing now in saying what people want to hear. So I don't know why you are telling me this, when I just said it myself. Which as you have pointed out it has not gone well under Obama like you wanted. Which is cause Obama hasn't been able to do what he has said. Which is exactly what Romney is doing now, with no real plans to back it up. Or at least no real plans that he really want to talk about, because he knows his plans are different than what he is saying and not what some people would want. At least Obama seems to understand this now, and is more about coming up with plans that could maybe work, instead of just throwing out ideas like Romney is. Which probably means Romney would need 8 years because he would then realize he needs more solid plans and not just ideas. Just like it took Obama to figure out. Which is why I think the country would be better off with Obama in his 2nd 4 years, than Romney in his first four. My head is spinning but fair enough
October 5, 201213 yr I apologize to the readers that have to read through this. My fault. I occasionally get aggravated and can't let go. On to the next thread. Clyde, here is my olive branch. It takes two to tango so lets call it a truce.
October 6, 201213 yr Why would you say this? I've already posted his misstatements. Secondly, I've already mentioned that my original comments/questions were based on the feeling that the Gov won but it seems like it was based on winning despite having problems with facts. THAT is interesting to me. If they both had trouble with the facts someone had to "win" right?
October 7, 201213 yr I said that exact same thing in my post on how Obama did the same thing 4 years ago like Romney is doing now in saying what people want to hear. So I don't know why you are telling me this, when I just said it myself. Which as you have pointed out it has not gone well under Obama like you wanted. Which is cause Obama hasn't been able to do what he has said. Which is exactly what Romney is doing now, with no real plans to back it up. Or at least no real plans that he really want to talk about, because he knows his plans are different than what he is saying and not what some people would want. At least Obama seems to understand this now, and is more about coming up with plans that could maybe work, instead of just throwing out ideas like Romney is. Which probably means Romney would need 8 years because he would then realize he needs more solid plans and not just ideas. Just like it took Obama to figure out. Which is why I think the country would be better off with Obama in his 2nd 4 years, than Romney in his first four. Under your line of reasoning we should never vote against a sitting president but rather just go ahead and elect them for 8 years. If someone is not getting it done we don't give them another 4 years to not get it done. There is nothing to suggest that Obama would do any better in his next 4 years than he has done in his last.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.