McCain up in polls. 20% of White Woman voters shift.

[MSI Magus]

Watching politics videos on yahoo news like I do every mourning and they are playing a clip from ABC. They are stating that not only has McCain again tied him or by some polls even pulled ahead but that 20% of white woman polled shifted to McCain. Several % who claim they are voting for "change" also have now shifted to McCain.

Its sad that people are so stupid and ill informed that they will vote for someone just because they put a vagina on the ticket.

[camoor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmKWp4OPoUM

[KingBroly]

You pay attention to polls more than a week out of the election? Don't let the media shape public opinion. Also registered voters != likely voters.

And that video is hilarious.

[speedracer]

The video is awesome.

Can't wait for the Veep debates.

[MSI Magus]

Meh first I wouldnt say that this is just the fault of Women, men immediately after Palins announcement were for her in larger number then men. And as for the likely to vote thing....not exactly a good argument considering that older people tend to vote Republican and older people are the most likely to vote.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If there is a nuke attack in San Francisco, would people gravitate towards McCain or Obama?

[SpazX]

If there is a nuke attack in San Francisco, would people gravitate towards McCain or Obama?

Hmmm...I dunno, were McCain's people involved? :-P

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Hmmm...I dunno, were McCain's people involved? :-P

Let's pretend we won't know that for a few years.

[Liquid 2]

If there is a nuke attack in San Francisco, would people gravitate towards McCain or Obama?
...What?

Did level1online possess you for a second?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

...What?

Did level1online possess you for a second?

Sure. Why not?

Who would America vote for now?

[bigdaddy]

All this proves is that at least 20% of women are complete fools that shouldn't have the right to vote.

[RAMSTORIA]

mccain has a 15% lead with independents right now too.

[fart_bubble]

If there is a nuke attack in San Francisco, would people gravitate towards McCain or Obama?

If thats an serious question, people would go with McCain. A lot of people think Obama is weak in that area.

[Chase]

If thats an serious question, people would go with McCain. A lot of people think Obama is weak in that area.


Unfortunately, I concur.

*waits for an attack to occur which would drive voters towards McCain*

If one does believe people in the White House are behind the September 11th attacks, do they also think an attack will occur before the election (as a means to secure a McCain presidency)?

Level1, care to share any thoughts?

[SpazX]

It kind of makes sense that people would go McCain because Obama is seen as weak in that area, but on the other hand it makes no damn sense because another terrorist attack would mean that Bush and the Republicans had utterly failed on everything they set out to do. So why the hell would you then vote Republican?

Nobody ever said people make sense though...

[HotShotX]

If thats an serious question, people would go with McCain. A lot of people think Obama is weak in that area.

That's a double standard. A good portion of people think Obama is a Muslim Terrorist, and as far as I'm concerned, would make him FAR MORE QUALIFIED to handle a nuclear threat than McCain, just look at those terrorist credentials. Decades of experience, my friend, decades. :)

~HotShotX

[mykevermin]

This is a short term shift. It'll end soon enough if the Obama campaign airs ads like the "maverick" one they debuted yesterday.

[JMEPO]

If McCain is elected president than I am moving to Canada.

[HotShotX]

If McCain is elected president than I am moving to Canada.

If you didn't move there during the Bush years, your ass isn't going anywhere.

~HotShotX

[JMEPO]

If you didn't move there during the Bush years, your ass isn't going anywhere.

~HotShotX

My ass is going to kill McCain if Obama isn't elected.

[HotShotX]

My ass is going to kill McCain if Obama isn't elected.

Then your ass is going to jail, and your asshole is getting a radius increase :)

And then you've left us with a cunt for 4 years. :)

~HotShotX

[sgs89]

This is a short term shift. It'll end soon enough if the Obama campaign airs ads like the "maverick" one they debuted yesterday.

Haven't seen that one yet. What is it about?

[JMEPO]

Then your ass is going to jail, and your asshole is getting a radius increase :)

And then you've left us with a cunt for 4 years. :)

~HotShotX

Palin will be your job! Then we can be butt raped together!

[mykevermin]

Haven't seen that one yet. What is it about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvyrLOjAP9o

[The Crotch]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/canada.png



But really, I'd rather have your candidates...

[jputahraptor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvyrLOjAP9o



Meh, I think the ad McCain had which showed clips of Biden and Clinton saying he wasn't experienced enough and McCain was right for the job were much more damaging. I'm so numb to these attack ads that just make shit up and don't focus on what the candidate wants to achieve. It's like name calling only with commercials.

[KingBroly]

"Politicians lie about their record". So true. Same goes for Obama.

[mykevermin]

Meh, I think the ad McCain had which showed clips of Biden and Clinton saying he wasn't experienced enough and McCain was right for the job were much more damaging. I'm so numb to these attack ads that just make shit up and don't focus on what the candidate wants to achieve. It's like name calling only with commercials.

Heh. Some people just shut their ears off to the truth.

Let me make two statements:

Sarah Palin was always in favor of the bridge to nowhere, never gave back the nearly $300 million Alaska received for it, and became circumstantially against it only after it was canceled by a federal government that decided to stop funding it.

OR

Sarah Palin was always against the bridge to nowhere, gave back the $300 million, and said "stop wasting taxpayers' money!"

I'm curious which you agree with. I mean, I know which one you agree with, but I just want you to say it out loud so we're all aware of the fact that you're lying to yourself. I can't change your mind, but I can evoke enough cognitive dissonance in ya to cause a migraine.

[JolietJake]

If there is a nuke attack in San Francisco, would people gravitate towards McCain or Obama?
I'd like to know this too.....:twisted:

[JolietJake]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/canada.png



But really, I'd rather have your candidates...I'd heard Canada had a fast respawn rate, oh well.:cry:

[JMEPO]

I'd heard Canada had a fast respawn rate, oh well.:cry:

:lol: Japan's still about 20 steps ahead of them though.

[paddlefoot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmKWp4OPoUM

My favorite man show skit!!!

[KingBroly]

I think this might shift more voters towards McCain. Slice it any way you want, they're gonna use it the way they want, and...it's probably gonna hurt Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg

[mykevermin]

How do you figure?

[KingBroly]

If you remember what Palin said during her speech at the RNC, you'd see the similarities.

[mykevermin]

Of course I do.

So he's attacking her.

BFD. The media is so starry-eyed over this unqualified flat-earther that they're still avoiding talking about her patent lies about the bridge to nowhere. What can he do? Evidently telling the truth isn't getting the media or the public to break their dumbass high school crush on her, so he might as well GFTT.

[KingBroly]

People on the internet may not see it as a big deal, but people who don't look at the internet for their main source of news will see Palin as a victim over this quote, and those people will either not vote for Obama or vote for McCain because of it. Not a large amount of people, maybe a quarter to one percent, but in these elections lately, it's a big deal.

[mykevermin]

Meh. I wholly disagree. This is a personal attack that amounts to very little and will only influence those who have rigid allegiances.

You seem like an undecided dude. Does this change how you plan on voting at all?

[mitch079]

If people feel sympathy for Palin because Obama "attacked" her, does that not make her everything she says she isn't? A strong woman would not want their sympathy.

[sgs89]

If people feel sympathy for Palin because Obama "attacked" her, does that not make her everything she says she isn't? A strong woman would not want their sympathy.

A woman can be both sympathetic and strong. Ask Hillary as she cried in New Hampshire.

[lilboo]

Tears. They are showing white women on the news who are talking about how Palin "speaks for them" and how "I can relate to her"

:wall:

This is making me so nervous.

[SpazX]

There are always stupid people, I'd say at least 20%.

[mitch079]

A woman can be both sympathetic and strong. Ask Hillary as she cried in New Hampshire.

I would but if one of them ever figured out what they wanted, the world would end. And I know women who will agree with me on this. They don't have any idea what they want.

[gindias]

Watching politics videos on yahoo news like I do every mourning and they are playing a clip from ABC. They are stating that not only has McCain again tied him or by some polls even pulled ahead but that 20% of white woman polled shifted to McCain. Several % who claim they are voting for "change" also have now shifted to McCain.

Its sad that people are so stupid and ill informed that they will vote for someone just because they put a vagina on the ticket.

Its no different than people voting just because the candidate is a dem, I live around Chicago and people around here are so warped that they vote straight tickets. The media is so biased it makes me want to puke. Look at national coverage and tell me the media is fair. Dems in chicago vote early and several times a day.

Its sad that people are so stupid and ill informed that they will vote for someone just because they are black and a democrat. Look at the cook county board president and you will see what I mean. Don't take this as racisit comment because its not, its chicago politcs at its best.

I was leaning dem this time around until Biden was named, that killed the ticket for me.

[SpazX]

I would but if one of them ever figured out what they wanted, the world would end. And I know women who will agree with me on this. They don't have any idea what they want.

Ugh. That's so close to "I have a black friend" that I wonder why you would ever say something like it.

[JolietJake]

I know some people are going to see that Obama video as a black man attacking a poor defenseless white woman. When she's anything but poor or defenseless.

[drone8888]

They are both equally worthless, and along with the media, they are owned by the bankers. You will put one of these useless tards in office, and we will begin WW3. There is nothing you can do at this point. People will do whatever they are told, and the news will help guide them until FEMA steps in. Patriots still love Bush, and believe in the 9/11 they sold us. They hate terrorists, and don't like high gas prices. These things are what shapes their decisions. We will fight until WW3 begins with Iran, Russia, and neighboring countries. Our economy will collapse, we will riot, and probably die in a nuclear event. The current president won't make a difference, because the sheep that elected them are as blind and un-intelligent as they are.

[SpazX]

They are both equally worthless, and along with the media, they are owned by the Jew bankers.

fixed for ya

[speedracer]

Its no different than people voting just because the candidate is a dem, I live around Chicago and people around here are so warped that they vote straight tickets. The media is so biased it makes me want to puke. Look at national coverage and tell me the media is fair. Dems in chicago vote early and several times a day.

Its sad that people are so stupid and ill informed that they will vote for someone just because they are black and a democrat. Look at the cook county board president and you will see what I mean. Don't take this as racisit comment because its not, its chicago politcs at its best.

I was leaning dem this time around until Biden was named, that killed the ticket for me.
I've lived in 9 states, from Texas to California, South Carolina to Hawaii. Every place is like that. Texas Republicans are just as repressive as California Dems.

[The Mana Knight]

If McCain is elected president than I am moving to Canada.Same. I just can't take it any longer.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

People moving to Canada? Damn, you guys are dumb.

Canada has massive oil production and no army to protect it.

I'm not saying America will "annex" Canada a la Fallout, but I'm sure Canada will sell their oil to America at a profitable discount after some discussions.

[jputahraptor]

Heh. Some people just shut their ears off to the truth.

Let me make two statements:

Sarah Palin was always in favor of the bridge to nowhere, never gave back the nearly $300 million Alaska received for it, and became circumstantially against it only after it was canceled by a federal government that decided to stop funding it.

OR

Sarah Palin was always against the bridge to nowhere, gave back the $300 million, and said "stop wasting taxpayers' money!"

I'm curious which you agree with. I mean, I know which one you agree with, but I just want you to say it out loud so we're all aware of the fact that you're lying to yourself. I can't change your mind, but I can evoke enough cognitive dissonance in ya to cause a migraine.



For starters, you need to keep your ego in check, your not enough of a wordsmith to cause me any problems. I think if you looked at your own candidate, and while your at it wipe some of that brown off your nose, you'd see that two other people voted for the bridge, ready for this OBAMA AND BIDEN! I know you like facts so he's a link...http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/ and you'll also see that they loved the bridge so much that they voted for it instead of in favor of Katrina relief. Oh well we'll just ignore that as it's makes them look bad. But while we are on the subject of earmarks, something Emperor Obama is totally against as he will go through the budgets "line by line" to eliminate wasteful spending we should also mention earmarks, while I admit that some of very good and I don't mind seeing money going to certain causes, I just love the first sentence of the article I link below. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president. " He also gave $713,000 for Soybean Disease Research, that's up there with AIDS and Heart Disease. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985933/posts So it wouldn't be smart to bring up earmarks in any more posts, remember the liberal motto, tax and spend, tax and spend.

And to answer your original question I will say that there was plenty of people now that did vote for said bridge among them everyone's favorite Democratic tag team, although Palin at one time did favor it, she was against the size of it and eventually decided to keep the money, which was legal, and most of it was used for the good of Alaska while more of it is sitting in the bank. I'm sure if I cared enough to research, I could find plenty more inaccuricies in statements made by Obama.

[Msut77]

For starters, you need to keep your ego in check, your not enough of a wordsmith to cause me anything problems. I think if you looked at your own candidate, and while your at it wipe some of that brown off your nose, you'd see that two other people voted for the bridge, ready for this OBAMA AND BIDEN! I know you like facts so he's a link...http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/ and you'll also see that they loved the bridge so much that they voted for it instead of in favor Katrina relief. Oh well we'll just ignore that as it's makes them look bad. But while we are on the subject of earmarks, something Emperor Obama is totally against as he will go through the budgets "line by line" we should also mention earmarks, while I admit that some of very good and I don't mind seeing money going to certain causes, I just love the first sentence of the article I link below. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president. " He also gave $713,000 for Soybean Disease Research, that's up there with AIDS and Heart Disease. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985933/posts So it wouldn't be smart to bring up earmarks in any more posts, remember the liberal motto, tax and spend, tax and spend.

And to answer your original question I will say that there was plenty of people now that did vote for said bridge among them everyone's favorite Democratic tag team, although Palin at one time did favor it, she was against the size of it and eventually decided to keep the money, which was legal, and most of it was used for the good of Alaska while more of it is sitting in the bank. I'm sure if I cared enough to research, I could find plenty more inaccuricies in statements made by Obama.

Did someone just fart?

[Chase]

There are always stupid people, I'd say at least 20%.


That's a solid start. I'd raise it to 50.7 percent, though. :-#

[jputahraptor]

Did someone just fart?

Debate over, I can't think of a comeback to that. Thank You for that enlightening and thoughtful almost Oprah like moment.

[jputahraptor]

Tears. They are showing white women on the news who are talking about how Palin "speaks for them" and how "I can relate to her"

:wall:

This is making me so nervous.

It made me nervous when people were fainting at Obama rallies so I know how you feel.

[thrustbucket]

For starters, you need to keep your ego in check, your not enough of a wordsmith to cause me any problems. I think if you looked at your own candidate, and while your at it wipe some of that brown off your nose, you'd see that two other people voted for the bridge, ready for this OBAMA AND BIDEN! I know you like facts so he's a link...http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/ and you'll also see that they loved the bridge so much that they voted for it instead of in favor of Katrina relief. Oh well we'll just ignore that as it's makes them look bad. But while we are on the subject of earmarks, something Emperor Obama is totally against as he will go through the budgets "line by line" to eliminate wasteful spending we should also mention earmarks, while I admit that some of very good and I don't mind seeing money going to certain causes, I just love the first sentence of the article I link below. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president. " He also gave $713,000 for Soybean Disease Research, that's up there with AIDS and Heart Disease. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985933/posts So it wouldn't be smart to bring up earmarks in any more posts, remember the liberal motto, tax and spend, tax and spend.

And to answer your original question I will say that there was plenty of people now that did vote for said bridge among them everyone's favorite Democratic tag team, although Palin at one time did favor it, she was against the size of it and eventually decided to keep the money, which was legal, and most of it was used for the good of Alaska while more of it is sitting in the bank. I'm sure if I cared enough to research, I could find plenty more inaccuricies in statements made by Obama.

You're forgetting one important rule of thumb in talking about this stuff: Obama doesn't make mistakes or say stupid things. If ever it appears that he does, there is a perfectly rational explanation for it and the Republicans are just back to their "swift boating" attacks without substance.

Obama went to Harvard, and organized communities for years. That makes him vastly more intelligent and experienced than anyone here or in this campaign.

Remember these things, and you'll do better here.

[Don Chubo]

"swift boating"

And racist. Don't forget that.

[SpazX]

I think that's the most effort you've ever spent to not answer a question, juputahraptor.

[jputahraptor]

You're forgetting one important rule of thumb in talking about this stuff: Obama doesn't make mistakes or say stupid things. If ever it appears that he does, there is a perfectly rational explanation for it and the Republicans are just back to their "swift boating" attacks without substance.

Obama went to Harvard, and organized communities for years. That makes him vastly more intelligent and experienced than anyone here or in this campaign.

Remember these things, and you'll do better here.


Your right I apologize for my valid points with documentation. Do you think if I make fun of Jesus and Christianity and there damn charity, rag on Fox news, and people with views against abortion I will feel the love here? Will Michelle Obama and Ellen ever let me dance with them again? Maybe if I make fun of McCain cause he's old or Palin because she's an inferior women to us dominate men I can fist bump Obama?

[jputahraptor]

I think that's the most effort you've ever spent to not answer a question, juputahraptor.

JPUTAHRAPTOR* if your going to spell my fake name at least spell it right. I did answer which nobody here does and choose to make some other brilliant post, like who farted. And thank you for not making any counterpoints to my quickly thrown together post and completely missing my second paragraph. If I asked you whether your stupid or a dumbass you could choose to respond without actually choosing either. Just because someone sets up two answers to trap me doesn't mean they are valid. Now look to the left of my post because Tiffany is going to wink at you...cool huh!

[fatherofcaitlyn]

For starters, you need to keep your ego in check, your not enough of a wordsmith to cause me any problems. I think if you looked at your own candidate, and while your at it wipe some of that brown off your nose, you'd see that two other people voted for the bridge, ready for this OBAMA AND BIDEN! I know you like facts so he's a link...http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/ and you'll also see that they loved the bridge so much that they voted for it instead of in favor of Katrina relief. Oh well we'll just ignore that as it's makes them look bad. But while we are on the subject of earmarks, something Emperor Obama is totally against as he will go through the budgets "line by line" to eliminate wasteful spending we should also mention earmarks, while I admit that some of very good and I don't mind seeing money going to certain causes, I just love the first sentence of the article I link below. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president. " He also gave $713,000 for Soybean Disease Research, that's up there with AIDS and Heart Disease. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1985933/posts So it wouldn't be smart to bring up earmarks in any more posts, remember the liberal motto, tax and spend, tax and spend.

And to answer your original question I will say that there was plenty of people now that did vote for said bridge among them everyone's favorite Democratic tag team, although Palin at one time did favor it, she was against the size of it and eventually decided to keep the money, which was legal, and most of it was used for the good of Alaska while more of it is sitting in the bank. I'm sure if I cared enough to research, I could find plenty more inaccuricies in statements made by Obama.

To save myke the effort of blasting you, a liberal spending money isn't a big deal. That's like a Republican fucking up the economy and starting pointless wars. The point of the two options was to select one instead of criticizing Obama. Now, it appears you selected the first option. Good. The second option, I believe, was in Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC.

Now, let's ground your rationalization into reality. Assume you're a painter. My wife, Wonder Woman, is away doing good. I hire you to paint her invisible jet. I pay you up front on the condition that work must be completed in full. My wife, Wonder Woman, comes home. Upon seeing you with clean paint brushes and sealed paint cans, she freaks out and the three of us come to the conclusion that the invisible jet shall not be painted.

Assuming you have receipts for all of your materials and you can expend your labor elsewhere without any loss of income, how of the money should you be allowed to keep for the canceled job?

...

Before you go with the angle of "The money belongs to the Alaskan people", I would advise that the money for the bridge to nowhere was extracted from all US taxpayers as opposed to being raised through a local bond issue. Thus, the money should be returned to the Treasury and applied to towards the deficit or, possibly, returned to the people the money was taken from.

[Koggit]

Hospital = pork barrel, jputah? You can't be serious... especially funding as low as $1mil, which is chump change for a hospital.

It's rare for someone to lose every shred of credibility in a single post, but I think you pulled it off. Congrats, I guess?

[jputahraptor]

To save myke the effort of blasting you, a liberal spending money isn't a big deal. That's like a Republican fucking up the economy and starting pointless wars. The point of the two options was to select one instead of criticizing Obama. Now, it appears you selected the first option. Good. The second option, I believe, was in Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC.

Now, let's ground your rationalization into reality. Assume you're a painter. My wife, Wonder Woman, is away doing good. I hire you to paint her invisible jet. I pay you up front on the condition that work must be completed in full. My wife, Wonder Woman, comes home. Upon seeing you with clean paint brushes and sealed paint cans, she freaks out and the three of us come to the conclusion that the invisible jet shall not be painted.

Assuming you have receipts for all of your materials and you can expend your labor elsewhere without any loss of income, how of the money should you be allowed to keep for the canceled job?

...

Before you go with the angle of "The money belongs to the Alaskan people", I would advise that the money for the bridge to nowhere was extracted from all US taxpayers as opposed to being raised through a local bond issue. Thus, the money should be returned to the Treasury and applied to towards the deficit or, possibly, returned to the people the money was taken from.


No offense but I'd rather get blasted by myke, his posts at least make some kind of sense. And to the guy with the chess piece um you missed the point because there are a lot of hospitals but only one that his wife is the VP for. It's like if I gave my wife an invisible jet because she's my wife and not some other women who I don't sleep with, or some nonsense like that.

[SpazX]

JPUTAHRAPTOR* if your going to spell my fake name at least spell it right.

Eh, I knew I'd miss a letter or something and you'd act like it was a big deal. I could call you on your spelling mistakes if I felt like it mattered.

I did answer which nobody here does and choose to make some other brilliant post, like who farted. And thank you for not making any counterpoints to my quickly thrown together post and completely missing my second paragraph. If I asked you whether your stupid or a dumbass you could choose to respond without actually choosing either. Just because someone sets up two answers to trap me doesn't mean they are valid. Now look to the left of my post because Tiffany is going to wink at you...cool huh!

I didn't miss your second paragraph, but it wasn't really an answer either, it was just some weird excuse. The question is:

Would you describe someone who fought for earmarks and supported an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere" as being against earmarks and saying "thanks, but no thanks" to said bridge?

Can you answer that question without referring to other people and/or saying liberals spend money?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

No offense but I'd rather get blasted by myke, his posts at least make some kind of sense.

Which point do you need clarification on?

Do you not understand you cannot keep money for incomplete work?

Do you not understand the money taken from the Treasury to build a bridge does not belong to Alaska?

Do you not understand why I wanted to paint the invisible jet?

Do you not understand how you can be employable in a hypothetical situation?

[Msut77]

Ok between his "slap der libruls" sig and his use of Freeperville as a source could there be any more reason to ignore this dunderhead?

Let us fire up the way back machine and find out:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13421

[jputahraptor]

I was joking about my name, I really don't care about it and as for my spelling mistakes who cares, that's not the issue here. I'm not proofreading for a bunch of people who don't like me or at least my views. I just like to be difficult :) around here. Anyway about yours and his question I don't see how one thing she supported now totally disquallifes here while Obama talks about change but he spent millions doing the exact same thing. None of the candidates are perfect and both have misspoken and will continue to. Do you not see the irony that Obama accusses Palin of flip flopping on this issue while at the same time he is just as bad or not worst on earmarks? He promotes this change but he's just as corrupt as any other politician and has done everything most every Democrat and Republican has done, just in a shorter time. Does that answer the question, yes the statement she made was not completely valid nor was Obama's since he supported the bridge to. I find it hard to give Obama a free ride either though.

[mykevermin]

jputa,

You did, at some point, answer the question I asked. But you didn't, still, answer the question.

;)

I'm not suggesting that keeping the money was illegal. It isn't.

The point was that she received between $250-300 million in federal funds towards this project.

This was not the full amount to build said bridge.

Congress, not Sarah Palin, decided against funding the bridge, surely as a result of the public uproar it caused (thanks in no small part to McCain speaking out against such porkbarrel projects).

So, with a partially funded project, it was canceled.

Here's a question: who deserves more responsibility for killing the bridge project? The federal congress who opted to not fully fund it, or the governor who decided to not pursue a project for which they had insufficient funds (ignoring the PR embarrassment the project was)?

The governor canceled a project she didn't have money for and kept the money she was already allocated. With the resource limitations, I wouldn't applaud that. Period.

You can't be proud of something you think you did when decisions and limitations elsewhere had a significantly greater impact on whether or not it would happen.

Now, that all said, everything's above board and fully legal. That's correct.

But this governor has repeated her "thanks, but no thanks" lie over two dozen times (well, really once, I suppose, since she's on a short enough leash that she hasn't said anything in public save for a well-rehearsed stump speech, since they're scared to let her be interviewed by a journalist who asks questions).

She said "thanks" for the money that she kept. That's the main problem. You have two candidates speaking out against government misspending. One of those candidates received a heaping portion of that very misspending and prides herself on not building a frivolous bridge.

In the process, you overlook the fact that the state kept the money.

Thanks, for the money!

No thanks, for deciding to stop funding a project I favored! Guess I'll "decide" to not implement it now.

A real maverick would have handed the check right back and said something like "pay down the debt, you nitwits!"

A real maverick would have not accepted, or applied for, such funding.

A liar would have accepted the money, been out of the power loop deciding to not fund a porkbarrel project, kept the money, and then taken credit for being against government misspending.

Capiche?

It's not about who voted for it or against it. It's about who was in favor of it until there wasn't anything to be in favor of, took the money and ran, and then postured as if they fought against government excess.

That's what it's about.

[jputahraptor]

Ok between his "slap der libruls" sig and his use of Freeperville as a source could there be any more reason to ignore this dunderhead?

Let us fire up the way back machine and find out:

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13421

Uh-oh 4 years ago I had a disc of downloaded games on it, guess I can't run for president now :(. Don't you have better or more intelligent things to do or say? Of course not.

And Myke, I understand what your saying, I have slightly more respect for you now :) just school these other guys so we can have debates around here and not name calling. I'm tired of going down to everyone else's level although I secretly love it.

And candidates will embellish their resumes. I don't think what she said or did was exactly wrong, I guess that's where we disagree. I think that she was doing what was in the best interest of her state and that she didn't waste the money or use it for her own gain. I'm not sure what Obama did with all that spending was in the best interests of the people of Chicago and I find it questionable that he would attack her so strongly on an issue that he supported to and I think his spending especially so closely with his wife should be questioned a little more.

[Msut77]

Uh-oh 4 years ago I had a disc of downloaded games on it, guess I can't run for president now :(. Don't you have better or more intelligent things to do or say? Of course not.

Well you also managed to blatantly lie while being owned so that counts for something.

Perhaps before acting all butthurt you should you know not have something silly like "dur slap libruls *fart noise*"
right where anyone can see it?

[camoor]

It's like if I gave my wife an invisible jet because she's my wife and not some other women who I don't sleep with, or some nonsense like that.

That's all I had to read...

[jputahraptor]

Well you also managed to blatantly lie while being owned so that counts for something.

Perhaps before acting all butthurt you should you know not have something like "dur slap libruls *fart noise*"
right where anyone can see it?


Why am I bothering with you? When did I lie? And what does some idiotic post I made 4 years ago have to do with what we are discussing here. And when the most intelligent post you can reply with concerns fart and butt, you've lost most of your credibility. Put a little thought into your posts and maybe people will take you seriously or maybe quote you and not have an insult beneath it. Let us adults talk about grown up things and when you get out of high school maybe you can say something that doesn't relate to biological functions.

And for the record it was a disc of GBA games that I enjoyed so much that I now collect them. I've made numerous posts attesting to that in hopes that someone would care but nobody has yet.

[mykevermin]

It's not a matter of not wrong. It's a matter of saying one thing and doing another.

Now, normally I'm in favor of slashing earmarks. But seeing as how the annual amount of "pork" we spend is equal to 6 weeks of war in Iraq, I think that talking about vetoing pork project won't result in us being financially better off, federally, than we are now.

Again, look at the past 3 Republican administrations: responsible for 7.3 Trillion of our 9.6 Trillion dollar national debt. (It was under $1T before Reagan, and went from 4.4 to 5.7 under Clinton - and from 5.7 to 9.6 under Bush (and we're not done with that yet!)).

Cutting $18B from our annual expenditures is a nice start, but it won't do a thing to resolve debt issues; cutting corporate taxes (unless you consider the wind and solar energy R&D tax credits Bush let expire - but he's not an oil man!) won't spurn economic growth; cutting individual taxes won't spurn economic growth or stop the shedding of jobs (how well did your $600 check do in keeping the job drop from reaching over 620,000 jobs lost since the start of 2008?).

And, most easily as a basis of comparison, cutting $18B in spending is a nice start, but fiscally meaningless when more than that is spent every 6 weeks fighting a war that the "fiscally responsible" McCain/Palin ticket show no interest in ending (the very same war that Obama plans to use to implement an 18-month drawdown strategy - the same one Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki agrees with. But, you know, he's just "some guy.")

I don't disagree with cutting pork. But I think it's so, so, so, so much lower on our national priority list than the McCain/Palin ticket leads you to believe. Moreover, the rest of their proposals show the same sort of "damn the deficits, full speed ahead!" philosophy of improving the economy that we've had during 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush (not as much during Bush Sr., since he raised taxes). How many more years of draconian supply-side economics policies do we need to suffer through before we realize that they deliver 180 degrees opposite of its promise?

Their collective fiscal recklessness renders moot the idea of slashing pork, and Palin's record and false claims put a remarkable deal of doubt with regards to her sincerity about fiscal reform.

[Msut77]

When did I lie?

Whip Smart Banky pointed it out:

Originally Posted by jputahraptor
And while I do have the disc I wasn't actually gonna trade it, it's far to valuable and im not going to get in trouble if by some chance someone had it out for me.

Oh really?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CheapAssGamer.com Forum Index -> Cheap Ass Trading

Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 20:42 Post subject: I gotta disc of downloaded games, don't arrest me!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jputahraptor
I should probably keep my mouth shut but i got a disc with about 300 assorted game boy games, mostly advanced and color and about 30 or so original, plus it has 50 nintendo games, all games are complete as i've played through many of these over the few months i've owned it. Now i know i can't sell it because that's wrong but would anybody want it as a trade?
-------------
So anyhoo you are right, we are done here. You have shown yourself to be a compulsive liar and just another mindless palindrone with delusions of adequacy.

[Ikohn4ever]

new McCain ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M

[KingBroly]

I don't disagree with cutting pork. But I think it's so, so, so, so much lower on our national priority list than the McCain/Palin ticket leads you to believe.

The problem with pork is that most, if not all of the time, it's added to a bill after it's signed by the President. By cutting some pork you do lower the federal budget some, or, most likely that money will go somewhere else.

[Ikohn4ever]

The problem with pork is that most, if not all of the time, it's added to a bill after it's signed by the President. By cutting some pork you do lower the federal budget some, or, most likely that money will go somewhere else.


Pork is nothing in the grand scheme of things. With about 10 Bill a month for the War, whether you or for it or against it you have to admit that is a ridiculous amount of money. "The 2008 Pig Book identified 11,610 projects at a cost of $17.2 billion in the 12 Appropriations Acts for fiscal 2008." That is less than 2 months of the war. Also there is a chance that some of the pork is actually important projects. We have much greater financial problems out there, and they really need to stop pretending Pork is a real important issue.

oh and just in case you are curious here is the state that received the most pork per capita

1 Alaska 2008 Pork = $379,699,715 population 683,478 per person $555.54

[rumblebear]

Has Hillary been blamed yet? I know Senator Claire McCaskill has essentially threatened Hillary to deliver her voters to Obama, as if their votes are owed to the democratic party.

[Koggit]

oh and just in case you are curious here is the state that received the most pork per capita

[/FONT][/FONT]1 Alaska 2008 Pork = $379,699,715 population 683,478 per person $555.54



What needs attention is that Wasilla got about 28 million federal dollars, for a 6k town, when Palin was mayor... thanks to the lobbyist she hired, a lobbyist associated with Jack Abramoff.

That's $4,000 per person...

[Msut77]

What needs attention is that Wasilla got about 28 million federal dollars, for a 6k town, when Palin was mayor... thanks to the lobbyist she hired, a lobbyist associated with Jack Abramoff.

That's $4,000 per person...

I think she also left the place 22 million dollars in debt.

[SpazX]

I think she also left the place 22 million dollars in debt.

Should have gotten 60 million....

[Koggit]

22 + 28 = 60!

[SpazX]

22 + 28 = 60!

I mean...obviously, she wanted 10 for herself...

Fuck off, it's late...

[thrustbucket]

The problem with pork is that most, if not all of the time, it's added to a bill after it's signed by the President.

Which should be illegal.

[Thomas96]

My ass is going to kill McCain if Obama isn't elected.


don't forget the apprentice Palin,

[Jesus_S_Preston]

She Has A Vagina?

I Have A Vagina Also!

Let's Vote!!!

[thrustbucket]

Just to help illustrate the type of "home stretch" this race is in....

I got both of these videos forwarded to me this morning from different people. So the frequency of this sort of thing is only going to increase. As much truth, or lack thereof, these sorts of things contain, they DO affect elections.

PLEASE NOTE - Before you get your panties in a bunch, I do not endorse these, nor did I pass them along. I don't know how to embed the second video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8

This one was sent with the caption "Pass it on. Really scary".

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

[Koggit]

I don't think Amurricuns are dumb enough to buy into the first one, and the second one is definitely satire.


Edit: Am I naive for thinking that entire Eyeblast.tv site is satire?

It's funny what they did to Damon: http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=35521

afterward, watch this if you haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

[SpazX]

Oh will people ever tire of the idea that the US military always fights for freedom? Or that any time you question whether or not it was a good idea to attack any given place you're disgracing every soldier who went there?

Jesus, are there really still people who think the war in Vietnam represented a fight for freedom and that it was a good idea to go to war with them?

[Koggit]

are there really still people who think the war in Vietnam represented a fight for freedom and that it was a good idea to go to war with them?

McCain, who to this day believes we could've and should've stayed (& won).

[depascal22]

I don't think the US military fights for freedom but they are very limited in what they can do when they're told to plan an invasion of Iraq. What were the Joint Chiefs going to say? No? That's a quick road to early retirement and that's the one thing any officer truly fears. Being relieved of command is the death knoll for any military career.

[Koggit]

I don't think the US military fights for freedom but they are very limited in what they can do when they're told to plan an invasion of Iraq. What were the Joint Chiefs going to say? No? That's a quick road to early retirement and that's the one thing any officer truly fears. Being relieved of command is the death knoll for any military career.

Nobody's blaming military officers -- they're blaming, rightfully so, the executive branch under GWB & the GOP.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What is a warrior that raises his weapons in an unjust war?

[Koggit]

Loyal, and depending on where the loyalty is placed, honorable. In the case of US soldiers in the middle east, they're loyal to their country, which is indeed honorable. America is a great country, regardless of the fuckoffs we currently have in the executive branch.

[Chase]

She Has A Vagina?

I Have A Vagina Also!

Let's Vote!!!


There should be an general aptitude test for voters. Nothing difficult. Just something simple like:

"1. Why are you voting for whom you intend to vote?

a. Only to spite my spouse/family/friends.
b. Because I can relate with the ideas of their genitals.
c. All of the above.
d. Because I support their ideas and beliefs."

[drone8888]

It's Red vs Blue :( Pretty sad. I wish Murdoch let the news air Ron Paul more often, considering he is the rightful recipient of the presidency. Winning every poll, and standing firm for what is right. It would be amazing if people had the energy to write him in, but they won't :( They see Red vs Blue... and they pick. /wrists


^Chase..... perfect :)

[Koggit]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110260/Disproportionate-Shift-White-Womens-Preferences.aspx

An analysis of Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviewing conducted before and after the two major-party conventions shows that the impact of the conventions was not materially different for white women than it was for white men, and neither group's shifts were substantially different than the changes among the overall electorate.

[depascal22]

Nobody's blaming military officers -- they're blaming, rightfully so, the executive branch under GWB & the GOP.

I agree with that but it just gives the perception that soldiers are out there proselytizing for Bush at the same time. Should've said "Does everyone really think Bush is sending the military out to fight for freedom?" I'm not arguing that these wars are justified but it's just the small hits against the military that get left in and start to poison people's minds against the everyday soldier. It's the same thing that started in Vietnam and ended with a generation of soldiers being denigrated because of the actions of Johnson and Nixon. I'd just rather nip that in the bud before it starts.

[DJSteel]

This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...

[depascal22]

This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...

It's the rise of the Evangelicals again. Wedge issues like abortion and gun control are more important than actually balancing the budget or having a plan in Iraq.

[thrustbucket]

This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...

Except the viable "alternative choices" given are just as bad to many on other fronts, so who should people vote for? Or maybe they shouldn't?

Maybe you haven't been following things, but the only candidate(s) that offer any substantial change or solutions have no chance in hell of being elected.

It's the rise of the Evangelicals again. Wedge issues like abortion and gun control are more important than actually balancing the budget or having a plan in Iraq.

For millions of voters, neither side still offers acceptable solutions for the latter, so your "wedge" issues end up being the only real difference between parties..... once again.

[DJSteel]

Except the viable "alternative choices" given are just as bad to many on other fronts, so who should people vote for? Or maybe they shouldn't?

Maybe you haven't been following things, but the only candidate(s) that offer any substantial change or solutions have no chance in hell of being elected.



For millions of voters, neither side still offers acceptable solutions for the latter, so your "wedge" issues end up being the only real difference between parties..... once again.

My issue is taxes.. if McCain wins we get a bigger separation between the upper and lower class with the majority of the middle class being pushed toward the lower side...

At least Obama is trying to push a bigger percentage of those taxes towards the rich.. that is what I consider progress.. no way should I be spending more in taxes percentage wise than Warren Buffet..

My main concerns for this upcoming presidency are oil and taxes.. religion needs to stay in churches... keep it out of Politics...

[thrustbucket]

If those are your big issues, then I guess your selection is clear. Obama is your inch of progress.

However, the charts and tables I've seen, don't show a big enough difference between McCain or Obama's tax plan in contrast to today to raise an eyebrow over.

[DJSteel]

Obama is better than the other viable choice... if I vote independent or green then I feel like I'm trowing my vote away.

[MSI Magus]

If those are your big issues, then I guess your selection is clear. Obama is your inch of progress.

However, the charts and tables I've seen, don't show a big enough difference between McCain or Obama's tax plan in contrast to today to raise an eyebrow over.

Ermmmmm again I generally ignore your posts but this is a fast response sooooo

Anaylsts and experts seem to say the average American will make about 3% more where as McCain you loose 2%. Thats a 5% difference...doesnt sound like much to you maybe. To someone like me and my fiancee thats about a $1,500 difference which is a nice little chunk of change. Thats not even to mention the fact that he says Oil is his other big thing and Obama will invest far more in green tech which yes is going to cause hell for our economy in the short time but over a long period will make a great difference in energy costs and the quality of life(and abilty to find jobs)for the average American.

[mykevermin]

thrust, were you considering that McCain considers his health care subsidy as taxable income?

[thrustbucket]

Ermmmmm again I generally ignore your posts but this is a fast response sooooo
Wow, well thanks for gracing me with your prestigious presence.

Obama will invest far more in green tech .
I'm not calling you a liar, but please provide proof of this. Have each of the candidates laid out plans (like taxes) for exactly how much they plan to invest in "green tech" so you can make that statement unequivocally? Or is that just your "gut feeling"? (Since it's common knowledge that Republicans hate the environment and want to see it rot, while Democrats would stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)

thrust, were you considering that McCain considers his health care subsidy as taxable income?
I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)

[mykevermin]

I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me.

Mr. McCain's overall tax policy will also expand health-insurance coverage, and make health care more efficient. Most taxpayers will also pay less in tax. Here's how it will work. His plan includes a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for single individuals and $5,000 for couples

So we know about his tax credit plan. Of course we do. So far, so good. Let's finish this sentence.

, if they receive a qualifying health-care policy from an employer (one that includes adequate coverage against large medical bills), or buy a qualifying policy on their own. The credit will replace the current tax rule, which excludes employer payments for health insurance from employees' taxable incomes.

So we're replacing the plan that employer-subsidized health care is not taxable income for the employee.

Who wrote this? Olbermann? Kos? George Soros?

Oh, John McCain's own economic advisors snuck this into an article in which they semantically fellate his plan (http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/archive/27804814.html).

So, yeah, you can find evidence of it elsewhere, but I'd like to think McCain's economic advisors are reliable sources of his economic policies.

So, yeah, if you earn the same amount you are right now this time next year, you will have greater taxable income. Thanks to the low-tax Republicans.

[MSI Magus]

Wow, well thanks for gracing me with your prestigious presence.


I'm not calling you a liar, but please provide proof of this. Have each of the candidates laid out plans (like taxes) for exactly how much they plan to invest in "green tech" so you can make that statement unequivocally? Or is that just your "gut feeling"? (Since it's common knowledge that Republicans hate the environment and want to see it rot, while Democrats would stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)


I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)

See this post shows why I ignore your post vs gracing them with my "prestigious presence". First and foremost you respond like a snide jackass. Second though despite claiming to be playing the devils advocate not only do you take a position to the right 90% of the time you refer to Dems in ways such as "stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)" something you never do of Republicans. Ok now that iv wasted time pointing out your bias which is obvious to anyone but you lets deal with the post for one last try at getting an intelligent debate out of you.

You say that stupid line about Republicans hating the enviorment and Dems being the Captain Planets of the world......yet ignore the fact that its essentially true. Republicans have been the ones that not only have voted time and time again against any green intiative but also in favor of things like drilling. And while John McCain does mention green tech its 1 in every 300 times in comparison to how often he mentions drilling(which he screams more often then a director of porn). As per Global Warming and every other debate you can choose to ignore the facts but their pretty damn clear to the rest of us.

And you say Obama hasnt done anything specific for it but first off his voting record on the subject is great. Funny that you and others love to point out that he votes Democratic/Liberal 90% of the time but now want to act like he might not make a green intiative. Second off he talks about it all the time, how he wants to create more jobs through green tech and create a green movement. Third and final he actually did lay out some specific plans and if anything green tech was the bulk of the essay he wrote for Foreign Affairs(the source I get most of my opinions from because unlike most media its statistics and facts and nothing else). His essay was brilliant only being rivaled by John Edwards.

The only downside to Obama on green energy and the only thing he cant be trusted on that iv seen so far is that as per usual he is deep in the pocket of American Farmers. He says that corn based ethanol is the future and is a big propenet of it which disgusts me since its a horrible source of fuel. It makes so much more sense to allow import of more effeicent bio fuels from places such as Brazil that use Sugar Cane.

[SpazX]

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)

Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.

[thrustbucket]

And you say Obama hasnt done anything specific for it
I did? Where?
but first off his voting record on the subject is great. Funny that you and others love to point out that he votes Democratic/Liberal 90% of the time but now want to act like he might not make a green intiative.
No I didn't. He very well might have a green plan, that's why I asked for you to show me one and how it's better than McCain's.
Second off he talks about it all the time, how he wants to create more jobs through green tech and create a green movement. Third and final he actually did lay out some specific plans and if anything green tech was the bulk of the essay he wrote for Foreign Affairs(the source I get most of my opinions from because unlike most media its statistics and facts and nothing else). His essay was brilliant only being rivaled by John Edwards.
Hm. Ok. I'll go ahead and take that as "No" answer to my question. There apparently is no detailed plan for the "Green movement" on either side. Gut feelings FTW.

And I love how you continue to propagate the myth that we can't make oil cheaper and work on energy independence and go green at the same time. One can't happen without the other. :roll:

The only downside to Obama on green energy and the only thing he cant be trusted on that iv seen so far is that as per usual he is deep in the pocket of American Farmers. He says that corn based ethanol is the future and is a big propenet of it which disgusts me since its a horrible source of fuel. It makes so much more sense to allow import of more effeicent bio fuels from places such as Brazil that use Sugar Cane.
I don't know anything about Obama and corn, so I take your word for it. I agree with you corn based fuels as an answer are bad ideas.


Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.
Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification. It seems my initial feelings were correct then, that neither candidate is going to change my wallet much.

[depascal22]

I think we should drill but we should also use ethanol and anything else we can before we attain energy independence.

On the flip side of the green oil drilling is that conservatives constantly pretend like there will be zero environmental impact. You think that you can take all that men and equipment into pristine wild life and there will zero enviromental impact?

[mykevermin]

As Tom Friedman noted, chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" at a time like this is akin to insisting upon investing in IBM Selectrics on the eve of the PC Revolution.

[RAMSTORIA]

On the flip side of the green oil drilling is that conservatives constantly pretend like there will be zero environmental impact. You think that you can take all that men and equipment into pristine wild life and there will zero enviromental impact?

there a difference between minimal impact and environmental disaster.

[dmaul1114]

No I didn't. He very well might have a green plan, that's why I asked for you to show me one and how it's better than McCain's.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

I don't think either are great. Don't like Obama's preference for ethanol and don't like the "drill, baby, drill" crap from McCain's camp.

[KingBroly]

The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.

[thrustbucket]

As Tom Friedman noted, chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" at a time like this is akin to insisting upon investing in IBM Selectrics on the eve of the PC Revolution.

Except that the only one doing the investing and taking the financial risk are the greedy evil rich oil company's everyone already wants to lynch anyway. So if your analogy is correct, and it's a bad investment that will lead to financial ruin, why not let them get what they deserve?

Unless the "risk" alluded to in the analogy was purely an environmental one, then that's a whole different discussion.

[RAMSTORIA]

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.

the real qualification is whether or not he thinks dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago.

[Koggit]

The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.

It's to paint McCain as a senile old man...

I'm pretty tired of you pretending to be nonpartisan...

[mykevermin]

Except that the only one doing the investing and taking the financial risk are the greedy evil rich oil company's everyone already wants to lynch anyway. So if your analogy is correct, and it's a bad investment that will lead to financial ruin, why not let them get what they deserve?

Unless the "risk" alluded to in the analogy was purely an environmental one, then that's a whole different discussion.

Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING FUCKING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.

[mykevermin]

The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.

That's one thing I like about McCain: he won't be able to "accidentally" delete the emails like Bush et al. did (by some strange coincidence, all of 'em about Libby, Plame, and Wilson).

Vote for the luddite!

[depascal22]

We're addicted to oil like it was crack. Just another hit no matter what the cost.

[thrustbucket]

Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING FUCKING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.

A lot of rehab clinics use controlled substances to "Ween" the addict off because cold turkey can be catastrophic (depending on the substance).

I really thought you were above the extreme views here myke. I don't know of anyone that is saying that if we do drill here, it automatically has to mean all green legislation on anyone's wishlist couldn't also be done. I seriously don't get why it has to be one or the other. Why is this issue all about one or the other?

Why are you, and everyone else on the left so utterly convinced that if we do absolutely anything to relieve short term pressure at the gas pump or foreign oil dependency, it automatically equates to tossing all alternative R&D, green legislation, and raising fuel effeciency all out the window?

Absurd? What's absurd is believing that we absolutely must keep our sources of current energy foreign, prices high, and wallet pain excruciating in order for any other steps towards the solutions to work.

I mean really, for a guy that has often lectured me on inability to see the middle ground on many issues.....

Nobody has yet to offer a logical explanation for why both can't be done. If there was ever a problem that needed a hybrid solution between the parties, it's this.

[mykevermin]

See, I'm not against "oil." But the idea that we need to sacrifice more land and tax breaks to reduce prices is absurd.

Do you really think we'll ever see $3/gallon gas again? No matter how much supply there is?

How naive can you be? Between OPEC and big oil knowing they have us by the balls, coupled with the lack of balls on Democrats to take the oil industry to task for price gouging us, and the absolute idiocy of Republicans to even admit that we're being gouged to begin with, I don't believe that the "drill baby drill" folks are even sincere in what they're saying. They only care about the price of oil if it doesn't interfere with the record profits of big oil.

I got suckered in a monte carlo game once in my life, hombre. Not again.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

How is Hurricane Ike and the increase of gas prices of $0.25 (the smallest increase I've seen with my own eyes)-$1.50 (rumored price increase stated on live morning radio) making the Republicans look?

Oil prices are the lowest they been in 5 months (about 2/3s of its peak price) and gas prices are ... the same.

The market needs choice.

We need cars running on natural gas, liquefied coal, hydrogen, sugar cane based ethanol and electric.

Then, there won't be as many people spazzing out over a 10-20% increase in the price of a fuel.

...

For Everybody's Information ...

Oil prices are down because demand is down. The SUV market is dead. On the other extreme, scooter makers can't keep up with demand.

People are going on "staycations" instead of vacations.

Some people have given up long ass commutes for something much shorter (such as myself and my wife).

It isn't the possible threat of an act of Congress possibly being passed that will possibly alter supply marginally in 5-10 years.

EDIT: It is the widespread change in peoples' driving behaviors.

...

Welcome back, dmaul.

[KingBroly]

At the time of the post, I had not been out today. Since then, I have, and here, it's gone up 90 cents since yesterday. But they could still continue to argue that offshore drilling outside of the Gulf Coast is what they need.

[thrustbucket]

I think you mis characterize the "drill baby drill" crowd as simply worried about prices at the pumps. It's much much bigger than that. You should know this. It's a recognition that our DEPENDENCY on foreign oil sources is the foundation for the entire house of cards of problems that we have.

It literally is the root of so many of our domestic and foreign issues that both parties continue to only offer bandaid solutions for. That's the problem. If you truly do believe Republicans only care about big oil maintaining profits, why not endorse action to directly cut those profits? Why not slowly raise tariffs on imported oil and create a situation where they have to find it in our own land? Would all the jobs it would create, economy it would boost, and less wars be such a bad idea? Why is the only solution the Democrats can offer be a mix of status-quo, finger crossing, spend and hope?

I think it's very shortsighted to look at the oil company's and say "target acquired". That's like picking your fight with the fingers and failing to notice the body. The oil company's are the least of our worries when you look at the big picture. Gouging? How about the Federal government gouging? How about the Federal Reserve gouging? Neither party will even demand an audit. So many industries gouge us on things we have to have, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone jumping up and down pointing at the oil company's as the problem as either short-sighted or easily duped.

If oil and opec does have us by the balls, it's because our politicians happily unziped our shorts and gently sat them in their palms. But is the solution really to spend time, money, and pain to try and grow a new set of balls?

We created the situation with oil. We forced them to look elsewhere to get oil. We created a situation where more than half of our oil cost is transportation. We created a situation where we traded trees for war. We created a system that gave all the people that hate us most the greatest wealth in the world. So why is trying to remedy that foolish? Why is keeping it like it is, while waiting for something better, a good idea?

[mykevermin]

I heard of the great gas panic of this weekend too, as I was checking my tire pressure (out of habit, not because Obama said so ;)).

Man, I picked a shitty-ass weekend to drive to Detroit and back.

Heh. Just as you speak of dependency. I seem to recall the majority of talking heads on the right having a laff-a-palooza at Obama's expense because he suggested maintaining your tire pressure. So much for a concern of dependency if we're laughing at the prospect of using less oil, no?

[MSI Magus]

I heard of the great gas panic of this weekend too, as I was checking my tire pressure (out of habit, not because Obama said so ;)).

Man, I picked a shitty-ass weekend to drive to Detroit and back.

Heh. Just as you speak of dependency. I seem to recall the majority of talking heads on the right having a laff-a-palooza at Obama's expense because he suggested maintaining your tire pressure. So much for a concern of dependency if we're laughing at the prospect of using less oil, no?

Thats the problem. People like Thrust will just assume all of us are completely against any sort of drilling(look at his response to me despite the fact that im actually pro limited drilling)or any method other then green....when in reality its the opposite. Like I said im pro limited drilling but think that its hardly even a band aid for the problem. THe right wants to act like more oil will get us through when its just not freaking true. Expert after expert after expert has come out and said that more drilling might over a 10 year period lower gas by a very marginal amount(we are talking cents not dollars)so what we need isnt more oil. We should approve some small amount just to show the rest of the world we are serious, but 9/10ths of our effort needs to be green tech.

The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

At the time of the post, I had not been out today. Since then, I have, and here, it's gone up 90 cents since yesterday. But they could still continue to argue that offshore drilling outside of the Gulf Coast is what they need.

Are you considering "Drill, Baby, Drill" is less effective than "Refine in more places that aren't prone to hurricanes, Baby, Refine in more places that aren't prone to hurricanes"?

...

The one good thing about dramatic price increases is that they tend to sear themselves in a person's memory.

[Koggit]

I would only support allowing off-shore drilling if it were bundled with an increased oil tax and tax reform.

Opening up the outter shelf to domestic drilling would lower the price for spectators but that wouldn't help anyone other than the oil companies who could simple gouge consumers at the accepted rate. Even if prices were to lower at the pump, it would only damage the conservation movement which is finally gaining steam -- there'd be less of a push on efficiency and alternative energy.

In short, allowing off-shore drilling is only a good idea if the increased revenue goes toward alternative energy, which can only happen with strict government control which many would consider unamerican...

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.

To channel a little level1, the government is against green tech because it leads to self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency leads to decentralization. Decentralization leads to libertarianism. And no Democrat or Republican wants that. Politicians need your success or failure depend on them and not you.

[mykevermin]

^ In a world where "lunchables" sell so well, I'm not sure that I'd be worried that using, say, pure ethanol sources (whether a good idea or not) would increase self-sufficiency any.

Christ, go to a grocery store, man. People don't even cook their own fucking bacon anymore! They buy it, already cooked and in microwave packages, sitting in a store at room temperature!

[thrustbucket]

Thats the problem. People like Thrust will just assume all of us are completely against any sort of drilling(look at his response to me despite the fact that im actually pro limited drilling)or any method other then green....when in reality its the opposite. Like I said im pro limited drilling but think that its hardly even a band aid for the problem.Please list people "on the right" that are blatantly against alternative energy research and getting off oil. List their names with quotes. And don't give the "that's how they act" argument. That one is getting old in perpetuation falsities.

THe right wants to act like more oil will get us through when its just not freaking true.
That's not entirely true. Nobody is saying or believes all we need is more oil. And you know it. You just like playing these stereotype games.

"The Right" is simply asking why we continue to prevent private oil company's from domestic drilling, thereby FORCING the status quo foreign energy dependence. That's really it. That's the gist of it. And from your post, it sounds like you agree with them. Big deal, it's just logic.

Nobody is suggesting the taxpayers help the oil company's relocate. Nobody is suggesting we invest federal money in domestic drilling (that I've seen). It's all a simple question of lifting governmental bans on private corporations from doing their job locally.

Expert after expert after expert has come out and said that more drilling might over a 10 year period lower gas by a very marginal amount(we are talking cents not dollars)so what we need isnt more oil. We should approve some small amount just to show the rest of the world we are serious, but 9/10ths of our effort needs to be green tech.

Look, I've pointed out before that we mostly agree here. What is needed is a multi-pronged approach. That's really all I, and you, are saying. And I think that's really all most people on the right are saying. And you'd see that if you could stop putting words in their mouths.

It's foolish to keep throwing out the "10 years for cents" argument when it's irrelevent. Oil company's are private. Nobody is proposing we give them tax payer money to drill domestically. The only proposal is to stop preventing them from investing their own money in our own country. It's not your concern or worry how it's profitable for the oil company's to do so, it's theirs.

The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.
No they aren't. You really should spend less time on dailykos.

That may be true. Especially if that were combined with more refineries and drilling operations, as long as it's on our soil (refineries alone can employ small cities). I'm all for it, as long as all the "Green tech jobs" aren't mostly subsidized by our tax money. That won't help anyone, and would be like feeding a starving person his own leg.

[thrustbucket]

I would only support allowing off-shore drilling if it were bundled with an increased oil tax and tax reform.

Opening up the outter shelf to domestic drilling would lower the price for spectators but that wouldn't help anyone other than the oil companies who could simple gouge consumers at the accepted rate. Even if prices were to lower at the pump, it would only damage the conservation movement which is finally gaining steam -- there'd be less of a push on efficiency and alternative energy.

In short, allowing off-shore drilling is only a good idea if the increased revenue goes toward alternative energy, which can only happen with strict government control which many would consider unamerican...

Now we're talking. This is the kind of conversation that needs to be had across party lines. As soon as they can stop pointing at each other and screaming and sit down like adults.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Why drill offshore again?

Talking to my dad over the phone, he mentioned this. I figured it was one of those things our elders mentioned as their minds wear out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

[thrustbucket]

Why drill offshore again?

Talking to my dad over the phone, he mentioned this. I figured it was one of those things our elders mentioned as their minds wear out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

Interesting, I was only aware of the reserve around the rocky's.

[n25philly]

Which point do you need clarification on?

Do you not understand you cannot keep money for incomplete work?

Do you not understand the money taken from the Treasury to build a bridge does not belong to Alaska?

Do you not understand why I wanted to paint the invisible jet?

Do you not understand how you can be employable in a hypothetical situation?


Do you not realize that the money was given to Alaska for infrustrcture and that's exactly where the money went? It simply went to different projects. What do you think she pocketed it?

[n25philly]

jputa,

You did, at some point, answer the question I asked. But you didn't, still, answer the question.

;)

I'm not suggesting that keeping the money was illegal. It isn't.

The point was that she received between $250-300 million in federal funds towards this project.

This was not the full amount to build said bridge.

Congress, not Sarah Palin, decided against funding the bridge, surely as a result of the public uproar it caused (thanks in no small part to McCain speaking out against such porkbarrel projects).

So, with a partially funded project, it was canceled.

Here's a question: who deserves more responsibility for killing the bridge project? The federal congress who opted to not fully fund it, or the governor who decided to not pursue a project for which they had insufficient funds (ignoring the PR embarrassment the project was)?

The governor canceled a project she didn't have money for and kept the money she was already allocated. With the resource limitations, I wouldn't applaud that. Period.

You can't be proud of something you think you did when decisions and limitations elsewhere had a significantly greater impact on whether or not it would happen.

Now, that all said, everything's above board and fully legal. That's correct.

But this governor has repeated her "thanks, but no thanks" lie over two dozen times (well, really once, I suppose, since she's on a short enough leash that she hasn't said anything in public save for a well-rehearsed stump speech, since they're scared to let her be interviewed by a journalist who asks questions).

She said "thanks" for the money that she kept. That's the main problem. You have two candidates speaking out against government misspending. One of those candidates received a heaping portion of that very misspending and prides herself on not building a frivolous bridge.

In the process, you overlook the fact that the state kept the money.

Thanks, for the money!

No thanks, for deciding to stop funding a project I favored! Guess I'll "decide" to not implement it now.

A real maverick would have handed the check right back and said something like "pay down the debt, you nitwits!"

A real maverick would have not accepted, or applied for, such funding.

A liar would have accepted the money, been out of the power loop deciding to not fund a porkbarrel project, kept the money, and then taken credit for being against government misspending.

Capiche?

It's not about who voted for it or against it. It's about who was in favor of it until there wasn't anything to be in favor of, took the money and ran, and then postured as if they fought against government excess.

That's what it's about.


Ignoring half the story and to a degree reality doesn't change the issues. She doesn't deny that she initially supported the bridge, with one of the main reasons being that the voters wanted it. She said no thank you when she saw the reality of the situation, hardly the lie you are trying to make it out to be. She didn't keep the money herself, it was put into other infrustructure projects. Funding allotted for infrustructure going toward infrustructure? What an evil bitch!!!!

Let's also ignore that earmark funding to alaska has been greatly reduced under her as compared to her predecessor. That's certainly not important because it doesn't make her look like a lier either. Damn you reality!!!

[n25philly]

It's not a matter of not wrong. It's a matter of saying one thing and doing another.

Now, normally I'm in favor of slashing earmarks. But seeing as how the annual amount of "pork" we spend is equal to 6 weeks of war in Iraq, I think that talking about vetoing pork project won't result in us being financially better off, federally, than we are now.

Again, look at the past 3 Republican administrations: responsible for 7.3 Trillion of our 9.6 Trillion dollar national debt. (It was under $1T before Reagan, and went from 4.4 to 5.7 under Clinton - and from 5.7 to 9.6 under Bush (and we're not done with that yet!)).

Cutting $18B from our annual expenditures is a nice start, but it won't do a thing to resolve debt issues; cutting corporate taxes (unless you consider the wind and solar energy R&D tax credits Bush let expire - but he's not an oil man!) won't spurn economic growth; cutting individual taxes won't spurn economic growth or stop the shedding of jobs (how well did your $600 check do in keeping the job drop from reaching over 620,000 jobs lost since the start of 2008?).

And, most easily as a basis of comparison, cutting $18B in spending is a nice start, but fiscally meaningless when more than that is spent every 6 weeks fighting a war that the "fiscally responsible" McCain/Palin ticket show no interest in ending (the very same war that Obama plans to use to implement an 18-month drawdown strategy - the same one Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki agrees with. But, you know, he's just "some guy.")

I don't disagree with cutting pork. But I think it's so, so, so, so much lower on our national priority list than the McCain/Palin ticket leads you to believe. Moreover, the rest of their proposals show the same sort of "damn the deficits, full speed ahead!" philosophy of improving the economy that we've had during 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush (not as much during Bush Sr., since he raised taxes). How many more years of draconian supply-side economics policies do we need to suffer through before we realize that they deliver 180 degrees opposite of its promise?

Their collective fiscal recklessness renders moot the idea of slashing pork, and Palin's record and false claims put a remarkable deal of doubt with regards to her sincerity about fiscal reform.


You're right, and Obama picking a VP that is a big Iraq war supporter is going to help with cutting war spending. Or his idea to invade Pakistan. Taxing businesses that create jobs will certainly help them create more. Then again, considering his plans to more than double taxes on things like capital gains Obama will do his best to keep people from becoming evil aka wealthy

sign me up!

[n25philly]

Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.

Where are you getting your informtion, Obama's plan is to raise capital gains to 39%, not 20.

[mykevermin]

You don't like to think that deeply, do you?

[n25philly]

Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING FUCKING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.


Becuase there are so many alternative energy sources ready to go. We have to work with oil until something else is ready. I guess it's better to deal with the middle east and russia while we get everything else ready.

Of course it's all the evil oil companies, even though congress actually make 10x the profit off oil that the oil companies do.

[mykevermin]

I remember when the original talk of hitting up ANWR centered around the mere promise of oil. But its contents are uncertain, and that it would take a decade to get rolling.

And now I'm supposed to believe that it's an immediate fix, unlike searching for and transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources. Because we want our immediate gratification!

Boy howdy, those folks are gonna be pissed when they discover how the monied interests on the right pulled the wool over their eyes again, and we won't have a domestic increase in supply until 2018 at the earliest.

QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW!

As for Congress - who am I fooling? You're a blithering idiot. Yes, Congress gets the profit. For every gallon of gas you buy, Nancy Pelosi gets 45 cents towards her next gay marriage. Robert Byrd gets 45 cents that he puts in his pocket and gives to a POOR PERSON! Dennis Kucinich (Representative, I know, but bear with me here) gets 45 cents towards a package of 'soysage'.

Yeah, because corporate profits and tax revenue are so fuckin' comparable. Grow up or stop typing. You aren't doing yourself any favors.

[help1]

Keeping in mind that this thread is about 4 days old, I am going to say that some of that 20 percent switched back, because those people probably didn't see Palin's skeletons until now.

[n25philly]

I remember when the original talk of hitting up ANWR centered around the mere promise of oil. But its contents are uncertain, and that it would take a decade to get rolling.

And now I'm supposed to believe that it's an immediate fix, unlike searching for and transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources. Because we want our immediate gratification!

Boy howdy, those folks are gonna be pissed when they discover how the monied interests on the right pulled the wool over their eyes again, and we won't have a domestic increase in supply until 2018 at the earliest.

QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW!

As for Congress - who am I fooling? You're a blithering idiot. Yes, Congress gets the profit. For every gallon of gas you buy, Nancy Pelosi gets 45 cents towards her next gay marriage. Robert Byrd gets 45 cents that he puts in his pocket and gives to a POOR PERSON! Dennis Kucinich (Representative, I know, but bear with me here) gets 45 cents towards a package of 'soysage'.

Yeah, because corporate profits and tax revenue are so fuckin' comparable. Grow up or stop typing. You aren't doing yourself any favors.


or you can learn about what you're talking about. Do you even know how gas prices are determined? A lot of it is speculative and how much there is believed to be tomorrow is as important as what is available today. Drilling will help lower prices today and provide fuel for tomorrow. We don't need the supply today for it to pay off, just being able to drill for oil will provide some instant relief. There are short term and long term gains.

oil companies get about 10 cents per gallon profit while congress gets around 60 cents in taxes. You tell me that's not out of whack? Maybe when gas prices are low that makes sense, but in a time when so many problems are being caused by high gas prices that's just obscene. That's why whenever there are hearing with the gas corporation the congress are like a bunch of idiots because they know they are the biggest problem. I guess you're going to tell me that cutting that tax in half wouldn't help the economy. Oh, that's right, the best way to help the economy is to tax the hell out of anything and everything you can find. Thank god the democracts are there to make sure my money goes to everything but me.

[mykevermin]

or you can learn about what you're talking about. Do you even know how gas prices are determined? A lot of it is speculative and how much there is believed to be tomorrow is as important as what is available today. Drilling will help lower prices today and provide fuel for tomorrow. We don't need the supply today for it to pay off, just being able to drill for oil will provide some instant relief. There are short term and long term gains.

Oh, I didn't know oil was a speculative market. You mean to tell me, then, that we don't know how much oil we have? That prices rise and fall based on an estimate of demand and an estimate of supply? That we don't have gnomes in hard hats running under the continental shelf with oil-o-meters, telling us how much oil we have?

No kiddin? Woah. I never knew that before. I mean, really, oil is a speculative market? You fuckin' opened my EYES, man. I never looked at it this way before. It's, like, a whole new fuckin' universe in front of me.

Speculative? No shit? I had no idea whatsoever. I though the price per barrel was determined by those little wind tunnels they use on Saturday night television to show you the local "Pick 6" numbers written on the ping pong balls. They gotta use 'em for something from Monday to Friday. That's what I've always said.

oil companies get about 10 cents per gallon profit while congress gets around 60 cents in taxes. You tell me that's not out of whack? Maybe when gas prices are low that makes sense, but in a time when so many problems are being caused by high gas prices that's just obscene. That's why whenever there are hearing with the gas corporation the congress are like a bunch of idiots because they know they are the biggest problem. I guess you're going to tell me that cutting that tax in half wouldn't help the economy. Oh, that's right, the best way to help the economy is to tax the hell out of anything and everything you can find. Thank god the democracts are there to make sure my money goes to everything but me.

Yes, let's cut that in half. Brilliant plan. You can make W's record deficits look like we just misplaced a couple bucks somewhere.

As a Democrat, I demand to know where you get your money for your internet. I hope it's not from your paycheck, since we want to take every last penny of that. If it is, I'll have to make sure we raise taxes (MU-HA-HA) so you have no more money. And we'll spend it all on abortions and decorations for gay weddings, and molotov cocktails for churches!!!!!

Really, as a wise man once said "Get a Brain! Morans"

[n25philly]

Oh, I didn't know oil was a speculative market. You mean to tell me, then, that we don't know how much oil we have? That prices rise and fall based on an estimate of demand and an estimate of supply? That we don't have gnomes in hard hats running under the continental shelf with oil-o-meters, telling us how much oil we have?

No kiddin? Woah. I never knew that before. I mean, really, oil is a speculative market? You fuckin' opened my EYES, man. I never looked at it this way before. It's, like, a whole new fuckin' universe in front of me.

Speculative? No shit? I had no idea whatsoever. I though the price per barrel was determined by those little wind tunnels they use on Saturday night television to show you the local "Pick 6" numbers written on the ping pong balls. They gotta use 'em for something from Monday to Friday. That's what I've always said.



Yes, let's cut that in half. Brilliant plan. You can make W's record deficits look like we just misplaced a couple bucks somewhere.

As a Democrat, I demand to know where you get your money for your internet. I hope it's not from your paycheck, since we want to take every last penny of that. If it is, I'll have to make sure we raise taxes (MU-HA-HA) so you have no more money. And we'll spend it all on abortions and decorations for gay weddings, and molotov cocktails for churches!!!!!

Really, as a wise man once said "Get a Brain! Morans"




1) if you know it's speculative then why can't you see how drilling will improve things now, other than perhaps just shutting you eyes pretening things don't exist

2) right, the answer to overspending isn't to cut spending but to just tax more.

Of course you want to blame the economy that fell apart under a democratic congress on republicans, say adding taxes to the wealthy that provide the jobs will solve anything and then say that you won't actually enact the policy if we are still in the recessions because it would only hurt the economy more, so I guess that would make sense in comparison.

3) if you really do what you promised there I'll gladly give up my paycheck!

[KingBroly]

Saying drilling now won't solve anything now is true. Saying it won't solve anything in the future is bullshit. It's called countermeasures.

[Koggit]

Saying drilling now won't solve anything now is true. Saying it won't solve anything in the future is bullshit. It's called countermeasures.

That's actually completely backwards...

Allowing companies to drill, even if no company drills, will lower prices. Congress simply saying "Okay, you can drill" will lower speculative prices. It's a market of futures, and allowing the supply to increase in the future lowers the price today.

However, by the time we actually see that oil, if oil companies even choose to drill it, it will no longer matter.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Do you not realize that the money was given to Alaska for infrustrcture and that's exactly where the money went? It simply went to different projects. What do you think she pocketed it?

I believe others have stated the money is residing in an Alaskan bank without being challenged.

If that is true, then, yes, the money has been pocketed.

See, a reformer doesn't reform a crooked system by knowing how to game the system.

A reformer states the system is crooked and tries to modify it for the better.

Of course, the methods to reform the system can generate a skeleton of contention with different parties.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

For those of you that consume gasoline, the station I bought gas yesterday for $3.599 at 10AM and $3.859 at 2PM is now selling the same gasoline for $4.099.

Is that because the price of oil has gone up 14% in the last day?

Wait, it hasn't?

To the brilliant one stating there are no alternatives readily available, what is T. Boone Pickens talking about then?

I'm no fan of his plan (a giant handout to wind farm owners such as himself), but those cars running on natural gas already exist and they are already produced by the same companies we have in the United States.

Does anybody want to argue these companies couldn't be generating Natural Gas cars by 2010?

Does anybody want to argue that said Natural Gas cars wouldn't have a bigger impact on the price of oil (and gasoline) than possible oil supply improvements in 2018?

[SpazX]

Where are you getting your informtion, Obama's plan is to raise capital gains to 39%, not 20.

Firstly, Obama - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

But also www.taxpolicycenter.org, which uses his stated plan anyway, obviously, so it has the same data just with more examination into its effects on people's income.

Obama's plan has income tax increase to 39.6% in the top bracket, so you might have gotten confused by that.

[Msut77]

Saying drilling now won't solve anything now is true. Saying it won't solve anything in the future is bullshit. It's called countermeasures.

You should look up the definition of "solved" I have seen it argued that it will help but solve the problem?

Not at all, not even close.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I remember when the original talk of hitting up ANWR centered around the mere promise of oil. But its contents are uncertain, and that it would take a decade to get rolling.

And now I'm supposed to believe that it's an immediate fix, unlike searching for and transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources. Because we want our immediate gratification!

Boy howdy, those folks are gonna be pissed when they discover how the monied interests on the right pulled the wool over their eyes again, and we won't have a domestic increase in supply until 2018 at the earliest.

QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW!

As for Congress - who am I fooling? You're a blithering idiot. Yes, Congress gets the profit. For every gallon of gas you buy, Nancy Pelosi gets 45 cents towards her next gay marriage. Robert Byrd gets 45 cents that he puts in his pocket and gives to a POOR PERSON! Dennis Kucinich (Representative, I know, but bear with me here) gets 45 cents towards a package of 'soysage'.

Yeah, because corporate profits and tax revenue are so fuckin' comparable. Grow up or stop typing. You aren't doing yourself any favors.

Oh, Mr. Vermin, your hangover is hurting your debate skills.

Big Oil "makes" 10 cents per gallon of fuel sold. Where does that 10 cents go? Big Oil's back pocket aka profit.

The amount of money Big Government "makes" per gallon of fuel sold is irrelevant. The money "made" goes into infrastructure such as highways, bridges, levees and secondary roads aka not profit. If government chose to no longer repair roads and such, what market would Big Oil have in 5 years? Here's a hint: none.

If Chevron was filling in the pot holes, the Big Government making more money per gallon of gas than Big Oil might be valid.

Gubmint creates the environment Big Oil requires to survive.

[thrustbucket]

For those of you that consume gasoline, the station I bought gas yesterday for $3.599 at 10AM and $3.859 at 2PM is now selling the same gasoline for $4.099.

Is that because the price of oil has gone up 14% in the last day?

Wait, it hasn't?


It's likely because of Ike.

Which is further evidence of just how sensitive gas prices are to speculation.

I would still love to see Newt's plan put into effect; to release half the oil reserves into market. Then, every couple months, announce we are going to do it again, and only do so half the time. Watch how many people dare gamble on the oil speculation market after that. I seriously think that would shave 80 cents a gallon, permanently, right there.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It's likely because of Ike.

Which is further evidence of just how sensitive gas prices are to speculation.

I would still love to see Newt's plan put into effect; to release half the oil reserves into market. Then, every couple months, announce we are going to do it again, and only do so half the time. Watch how many people dare gamble on the oil speculation market after that. I seriously think that would shave 80 cents a gallon, permanently, right there.

Well, I guess I can give you half credit.

Yes, prices are higher because of Hurricane Ike. There's your half point.

Here's where you are wrong. Gas prices have not increased in the last day due to speculation. Gas prices have increased because refineries that transform oil into gasoline are shut down. What happens when demand curve is constant and the point on the supply curve is kicked back to the left? Price has to go up to taper demand or there is a shortage.

While I liked the Contract with America, Newt's plan for oil prices is crap. Why? A responsible government doesn't actively lie to its people.

Furthermore, releasing oil into a system that can't process it into gasoline doesn't change anything.