Obama or Romney?

[New England and The Maritimes]

Please don't tell me you think domestic drilling will lower down gas prices.

We have proof it won't, in that we are drilling more than we ever have before and prices are rising. There's this thing called "the global market" which tends to be a big factor in how prices are set.

[Sanguinum Maria]

CPUSA backs Obama in this election...so there's my vote.

[Mavorpen]

Meaningless to me if you don't have sources since I'm armed with sources that back me up.

Under Obama's administration so much money was printed bailing out GM and the bankers that prices have more than doubled due to monetary inflation.

Change we can believe in. Thanks Obama now gas prices have doubled.

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

The more you know

You do realize that the bailout of GM was worth it right? Every economist agrees that it was a success.

"Thanks to"? Did you read your own source? It doubled UNDER Obama. That doesn't mean HE was the cause of it. Also, Obama has pushed for domestic oil heavily. It's complete bullshit that he's a hippy that wants us to live on alternative energy.

The more you know.

[Hittanryan]

You do realize that gas prices were low when he came into office because the economy was falling apart, right?

You have it backwards. He got into office, and so then economy started falling and gas prices became high

Dude, I don't know what kind of substances you've found that destroyed your memory, but I know a guy who would pay good money for them.

[Archliva]

You do realize that gas prices were low when he came into office because the economy was falling apart, right?

You have it backwards. He got into office, and so then economy started falling and gas prices became high

Correlation does not imply causation

[Wamitoria]

You have it backwards. He got into office, and so then economy started falling and gas prices became high

Correlation does not imply causation

Especially when there's no correlation.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Under Obama's administration so much money was printed bailing out GM and the bankers that prices have more than doubled due to monetary inflation.

Change we can believe in. Thanks Obama now gas prices have doubled.

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

The more you know

You do realize that the bailout of GM was worth it right? Every economist agrees that it was a success.
....

Okay, for starters your source is an opinion piece, not some study or something that has any amount of economists saying anything about the bailout. It is about as valid as me posting an opinion piece from Mises.org. So there's one dude at realclearpolitics.com that says the bailouts were a success. woopee.

Second, and this is where we get into a problem that crops up whenever economic arguments arise, we have no idea what may have happened if GM had been allowed to go belly-up or go through regular bankruptcy proceedings. We know now that they're struggling out of the hole they were in (A point that is also debatable if we look at Chevy's %-increase in sales figures versus Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai, KIA, Subaru, and Volkswagen, they are compareable with GM being lower in almost all cases. To my knowledge these companies never received bailout money (Volkswagen may have...are they owned by Fiat/Chrysler or not?)) but we have only speculation as how good or bad it may have been for them to go through restructuring or hell, even collapse and have to sell all their capital to other companies at a loss in order to cover debts. Just because the bailouts aren't going into disastrous companies (in this case), we have little assurance they won't go to them in the future and we have little assurance this was a one-time event because of just how fuckered the economic situation is. Additionally, the subversion of regular market proceedings in the GM case in order to make the company and the union happy only succeeded in sticking it to the average investor in the company who got boned when the company was phased into its present-day form with the massive UAW stock-holdings that is so loudly proclaimed in your opinion piece.

Third, it's more worrisome to me that a communist (I believe that is accurate) is arguing in FAVOR of government bailouts of corporations. Government-ownership I could see you supporting, but bailouts seem to be completely contrary to your philosophy. (If you are a Communist, I may be misremembering to paraphrase George Bush II).

[Wamitoria]

CPUSA backs Obama in this election...so there's my vote.

They do? I'm honestly surprised.

[The Kievan People]

Don't tread on my pipeline!

So I'd have to support Romney. He seems like a very pragmatic and sensible guy, sort of like a Republican Obama.

[Mavorpen]

Third, it's more worrisome to me that a communist (I believe that is accurate) is arguing in FAVOR of government bailouts of corporations. Government-ownership I could see you supporting, but bailouts seem to be completely contrary to your philosophy. (If you are a Communist, I may be misremembering to paraphrase George Bush II).

They ARE contrary to my philosophy.

[Northern Dominus]

You do realize that the bailout of GM was worth it right? Every economist agrees that it was a success.
....

Okay, for starters your source is an opinion piece, not some study or something that has any amount of economists saying anything about the bailout. It is about as valid as me posting an opinion piece from Mises.org. So there's one dude at realclearpolitics.com that says the bailouts were a success. woopee.

Second, and this is where we get into a problem that crops up whenever economic arguments arise, we have no idea what may have happened if GM had been allowed to go belly-up or go through regular bankruptcy proceedings. We know now that they're struggling out of the hole they were in (A point that is also debatable if we look at Chevy's %-increase in sales figures versus Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai, KIA, Subaru, and Volkswagen, they are compareable with GM being lower in almost all cases. To my knowledge these companies never received bailout money (Volkswagen may have...are they owned by Fiat/Chrysler or not?)) but we have only speculation as how good or bad it may have been for them to go through restructuring or hell, even collapse and have to sell all their capital to other companies at a loss in order to cover debts. Just because the bailouts aren't going into disastrous companies (in this case), we have little assurance they won't go to them in the future and we have little assurance this was a one-time event because of just how fuckered the economic situation is. Additionally, the subversion of regular market proceedings in the GM case in order to make the company and the union happy only succeeded in sticking it to the average investor in the company who got boned when the company was phased into its present-day form with the massive UAW stock-holdings that is so loudly proclaimed in your opinion piece.

Third, it's more worrisome to me that a communist (I believe that is accurate) is arguing in FAVOR of government bailouts of corporations. Government-ownership I could see you supporting, but bailouts seem to be completely contrary to your philosophy. (If you are a Communist, I may be misremembering to paraphrase George Bush II).

Double standard much there? You lambast Marv's sources as biased but leave Yandree's propaganda pieces and fluff wiki article out of it.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Under Obama's administration so much money was printed bailing out GM and the bankers that prices have more than doubled due to monetary inflation.

Change we can believe in. Thanks Obama now gas prices have doubled.

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

The more you know

You do realize that the bailout of GM was worth it right? Every economist agrees that it was a success.

"Thanks to"? Did you read your own source? It doubled UNDER Obama. That doesn't mean HE was the cause of it. Also, Obama has pushed for domestic oil heavily. It's complete bullshit that he's a hippy that wants us to live on alternative energy.

The more you know.

The GM bail-out will be viewed as a failure in the near future.There are a surplus of cars in the United states, and car sales are going down not to mention that a great portion of Americans are buying imports.

Not only that but GM has posted losses for Europe and South America. Sure GM made record profits in 2011, but that won't last for long with prices raising in the US and GM's poor foreign market performance.

Obama is the cause of raising gas prices for the reasons aforementioned

Obama has pushed for oil so heavily that he put a moratorium on oil costing people their jobs(sarcasm

[New England and The Maritimes]

Don't tread on my pipeline!

So I'd have to support Romney. He seems like a very pragmatic and sensible guy, sort of like a Republican Obama.

Keystone XL is a shit idea that will do fuck all for anyone but oil fatcats. It's not like it's going to go anywhere else, honestly, since activists in Canada were just as successful at blocking its construction there, going to anywhere at all, as people here have been in getting it declined.

[Archliva]

You do realize that the bailout of GM was worth it right? Every economist agrees that it was a success.

"Thanks to"? Did you read your own source? It doubled UNDER Obama. That doesn't mean HE was the cause of it. Also, Obama has pushed for domestic oil heavily. It's complete bullshit that he's a hippy that wants us to live on alternative energy.

The more you know.

The GM bail-out will be viewed as a failure in the near future.There are a surplus of cars in the United states, and car sales are going down not to mention that a great portion of Americans are buying imports.

Not only that but GM has posted losses for Europe and South America. Sure GM made record profits in 2011, but that won't last for long with prices raising in the US and GM's poor foreign market performance.

Obama is the cause of raising gas prices for the reasons aforementioned

Obama has pushed for oil so heavily that he put a moratorium on oil costing people their jobs(sarcasm

>obama is the cause

As a capitalist yourself, I thought you knew the world economy determines that and not the president.

[TaQud]

Don't tread on my pipeline!

So I'd have to support Romney. He seems like a very pragmatic and sensible guy, sort of like a Republican Obama.

Keystone XL is a shit idea that will do fuck all for anyone but oil fatcats. It's not like it's going to go anywhere else, honestly, since activists in Canada were just as successful at blocking its construction there, going to anywhere at all, as people here have been in getting it declined.

So now the canadiens are getting involved with comparasion to Obama, romney

[Northern Dominus]

Obama has pushed for oil so heavily that he put a moratorium on oil costing people their jobs(sarcasm

This point would be more believable if it didn't come from a biased source
Here's the same link in URL form
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/house-gop-subpoenas-obama-administration-oil-drill/

and once again, here's why that link is not credible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Political_leanings

[Hittanryan]

Don't tread on my pipeline!

So I'd have to support Romney. He seems like a very pragmatic and sensible guy, sort of like a Republican Obama.

Fuck off pipeline. Won't bring gas prices down at all and it'll just give the oil industry more money with which to block alternative energy.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Don't tread on my pipeline!

So I'd have to support Romney. He seems like a very pragmatic and sensible guy, sort of like a Republican Obama.

Fuck off pipeline. Won't bring gas prices down at all and it'll just give the oil industry more money with which to block alternative energy.

Not to mention the Canadians achieved on their end what we achieved on ours and it's doubtful any pipeline will be built at all right now.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Obama has pushed for oil so heavily that he put a moratorium on oil costing people their jobs(sarcasm

This point would be more believable if it didn't come from a biased source
Here's the same link in URL form
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/house-gop-subpoenas-obama-administration-oil-drill/

and once again, here's why that link is not credible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Political_leanings

The point of the article was to enlighten people on the moratorium. Obviously though as the quote in the article says it has costs jobs and resources

[Wamitoria]

This point would be more believable if it didn't come from a biased source
Here's the same link in URL form
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/house-gop-subpoenas-obama-administration-oil-drill/

and once again, here's why that link is not credible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Political_leanings

The point of the article was to enlighten people on the moratorium. Obviously though as the quote in the article says it has costs jobs and resources

It also prevented a second oil spill right after the BP one.

[Northern Dominus]

This point would be more believable if it didn't come from a biased source
Here's the same link in URL form
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/house-gop-subpoenas-obama-administration-oil-drill/

and once again, here's why that link is not credible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times#Political_leanings

The point of the article was to enlighten people on the moratorium. Obviously though as the quote in the article says it has costs jobs and resources

No, the point was to throw up a smoke screen. It's bunk anyway, the neo-cons are all about oil and drilling and whatnot until somebody else does it and their propaganda machines, like the Washington Times, like The Weekly Standard and DEFINITELY Fox anything turn up the volume to 11 and repeat it nonstop. Just like brainwashing.

And that pipeline was stopped because it was safe. The only reason it was investigated was because big oil told their congressional lap dogs to go stir up trouble:[url]
http://www.politicolnews.com/keystone-a ... tleblower/[/url]

And you didn't read that article did you? Ill spell it out. THE WASHINGTON TIMES IS BIASED, therefore rendering it an unreliable and invalid source.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

The point of the article was to enlighten people on the moratorium. Obviously though as the quote in the article says it has costs jobs and resources

No, the point was to throw up a smoke screen. It's bunk anyway, the neo-cons are all about oil and drilling and whatnot until somebody else does it and their propaganda machines, like the Washington Times, like The Weekly Standard and DEFINITELY Fox anything turn up the volume to 11 and repeat it nonstop. Just like brainwashing.

And that pipeline was stopped because it was safe. The only reason it was investigated was because big oil told their congressional lap dogs to go stir up trouble:[url]
http://www.politicolnews.com/keystone-a ... tleblower/[/url]

And you didn't read that article did you? Ill spell it out. THE WASHINGTON TIMES IS BIASED, therefore rendering it an unreliable and invalid source.

Safe or not it doesn't matter. The US government has no constitutional authority to stop the drilling even if they did as much as I love nature it's better for them to risk an oil spill if they fill it's necessary than to not drill at all. Spills should be settled in courts between those affected and the owners of the corporations should be held responsible. Unfortunately they aren't held responsible corporations themselves are held as to be responsible as natural entities

[Archliva]

No, the point was to throw up a smoke screen. It's bunk anyway, the neo-cons are all about oil and drilling and whatnot until somebody else does it and their propaganda machines, like the Washington Times, like The Weekly Standard and DEFINITELY Fox anything turn up the volume to 11 and repeat it nonstop. Just like brainwashing.

And that pipeline was stopped because it was safe. The only reason it was investigated was because big oil told their congressional lap dogs to go stir up trouble:[url]
http://www.politicolnews.com/keystone-a ... tleblower/[/url]

And you didn't read that article did you? Ill spell it out. THE WASHINGTON TIMES IS BIASED, therefore rendering it an unreliable and invalid source.

Safe or not it doesn't matter. The US government has no constitutional authority to stop the drilling even if they did as much as I love nature it's better for them to risk an oil spill if they fill it's necessary than to not drill at all. Spills should be settled in courts between those affected and the owners of the corporations should be held responsible. Unfortunately they aren't held responsible corporations themselves are held as to be responsible as natural entities

Except for the fact that drilling will accomplish nothing at the pump.

Zero. The only entity that it's benefitting is the corporations and not the people paying for gas. The environment gets destroyed, the people don't benefit so a buck can be made. Drill baby drill.

[Wikkiwallana]

I hate Romney, but I DESPISE Barry.

Is it too hard to type the one extra letter in Barack?

[Wikkiwallana]

If you went into a store and there were only two types of bread, they'd call that communism -snip-

Then whoever "they" are would be wrong. On many levels.