It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sarah Palin Is about to become the GOP Lead Candidate for POTUS !

page: 24
18
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
It looks like everybody just loves Gov. Sarah Palin !

- Sarah Palin on the Move -



edit on 26-5-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


On the move yes, downward. Whoops, new poll:



Rudy Giuliani 16%

Mitt Romney 15%

Sarah Palin 13%

Ron Paul 12%

Herman Cain 10%

Newt Gingrich 8%

Michele Bachmann 7%

Tim Pawlenty 5%

Rick Santorum 2%

Jon Huntsman 1%

Gary Johnson 1%

Buddy Roemer *

Someone else 3%

None/ No one 5%

No opinion 2%


blogs.abcnews.com...

As we all realize: "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." -Warren Buffett

ADDING TO ORIGINAL COMMENT:


Call it a sign of how unsettled the GOP presidential field remains: Two of the three people at the top of new national poll in the battle for the Republican nomination may not even run for the White House. And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also suggests that there is not a lot of enthusiasm about any of the major candidates.


politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
edit on 28-5-2011 by MaskedDebater because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



Originally posted by mishigas


That only works if the supply is constant. Drill baby drill eliminates that, at least partly.


Sort of. Considering the correlation you are trying to prove is tenuous at best. But even assuming it does effect prices significantly, and the drop in prices you are referring to wasn't DIRECTLY related to the collapse of the housing bubble, what makes you think that drilling for more NOW will keep prices lower in the LONG RUN? If oil is finite, then drilling to lower prices NOW will only ensure a rise in prices in the future.


OK. Determining the factors that affect oil prices is difficult. I realize that. And there are some theories that say oil is not finite. Not saying I agree,just saying.

But oil is only one source of energy. It will be replaced by something like hydrogen in the future. What DBD will do is buy us some time and a cushion until alt energy is plentiful.

The fact is, our energy policy sucks. I can't even describe it. It's not only oil. We use lots more coal and Obama wants to bankrupt that industry. We don't have enough nuclear or hydro, wave or wind.

Let me ask you a question: someone said that we could eliminate the effects of wild speculation by requiring that the speculators take physical possession of the oil they trade. What do you think?



So basically you are saying you dont car if your kids wont be able to afford the cost of a gallon of gas in two decades, because you want to keep the price of gas artificially low for your own use.


Not at all. In 20 ys I hope we're weaned off of oil and onto something cheaper.


The REAL issue is oil is finite, we use a lot of it, and the price is never going to return to past lows. Just like a candy bar will never again cost a nickle. It's called inflation.


I'd settle for $2.50 / gal.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
And there are some theories that say oil is not finite. Not saying I agree,just saying.


Not engaging you in debate, but could you provide any links for me to review? The concept of infinite supply of crude oil seems preposterous. I'd love to study this theory further.

Thank you. /MD



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


Originally posted by mishigas
Unless you can give me the reasons why we as a nation cannot create an energy policy similar to what I proposed, then please keep your sophomoric comments to yourself.

Try to debate like an adult. New experience, I understand, but we'll help you along.


Several posters have already done a wonderful job of explaining the huge flaws in your thinking. Instead of responding to them by discussing like and adult, you come to me and ask me to explain it all over again. How mature. Maybe you should explain how it would work in the first place. Explain Oil markets, OPEC, Globalization, etc. Then explain how you get around all these things. I just want the most basic question answered. How are you going to tell an oil company that they have to sell to a smaller market at lower prices. Then explain basic econ to me and see if you can get any of that stuff to not completely destroy itself once mixed together.


First of all, nobody has given one good reason why it can't happen. Your problem is that you are trying to make it fit into today's petro-economic model. In effect, you're saying "This is the way we've always done it."

Please with the OPEC, Globalization, etc. Are you trying to sound intelligent? You probably weren't around in 1973. Oil was scarcer than hen's teeth because OPEC pulled an oil embargo. A bunch of Arabs decided they didn't like us selling guns to Israel, so they turned the spigot off, causing a world-wide energy crisis. Car were lined up for blocks trying to get their ration - yes, I said ration - of gas. And OPEC suddenly realized the control they had over our pumps.

Your wonderful theories wouldn't have bought a gallon of gas.


You are just saying random, happy sounding, impossible things that have been explained to you in this thread. There must be a reason that instead of actually explaining the flaws in your plan, you are asking me to again point them out.


I'm saying OPEC created their own reality in 1973, and we can create our own reality today.


How about you give us a little proposal. Start a thread on it. Present your plan. Then let everyone have a chance to actually DISCUSS it where it will not be so off topic. I will join you.


That might happen. Not tonight, though. Or maybe, after the game.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MaskedDebater
 


OK, but I'll have to do some digging...it might be awhile.

Here's one link. It's not the one I wanted to find, but it's a start. I'll keep looking.



edit on 28-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Much obliged.
I'm familiar with "peak oil" but not inverse.

/MD



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yes, because her extensive foreign travels abroad includes 5 (!!!) countries: England, Israel, Hong Kong, Germany, and a US airbase in Kuwait!


GAG! I have over twice her experience (over a dozen countries) and I saw the actual countryside.... Well the UNDERSIDE (I was spelunking in all of them)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 





How are you going to tell an oil company that they have to sell to a smaller market at lower prices....


History shows you can not: Several US businesses dealt with Hitler during WW!!. Cargilland others sold American grain to the USSR during the "Cold War"



...Cargill [privately held] began as a single grain warehouse. Today it belongs to an exclusive club of global commodity merchants that some traders dub the "ABCDs," namely Archer Daniels Midland Co., Bunge Ltd., Cargill and "Dreyfus," or privately held Louis Dreyfus Group. Cargill is the largest, employing 160,000 people. These companies can play on the geopolitical stage in unusual ways.

During the Cold War, Cargill and others famously sold grain to the Soviet Union in the 1970s -- sometimes when the U.S.'s own supplies were low -- sparking congressional hearings. www.reservoirresearch.com...





IBM and the Holocaust is a book by investigative journalist Edwin Black which details the business dealings of the American-based multinational corporation International Business Machines (IBM) and its German and other European subsidiaries with the government of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s and the years of World War II. In the book, Black outlines the way in which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide against the Jewish people through generation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data.... en.wikipedia.org...-Preston2001-0




From the "Trading With the Enemy" cover blurb;

"Here is the extraordinary true story of the American businessmen and government officials who dealt with the Nazis for profit or through conviction throughout the Second World War: Ford. Standard Oil, Chase Bank and members of the State Department were among those who shared in the spoils. Meticulously documented and dispassionately told, this is an alarming story. At its centre is 'The Fraternity', an influential international group associated with the Rockefeller or Morgan banks and linked by the ideology of Business as Usual.

Higham starts with an account of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland - a Nazi-controlled bank presided over by an American, Thomas H. McKittrick, even in 1944. While Americans were dying in the war, McKittrick sat down with his German, Japanese, Italian, British and American executive staff to discuss the gold bars that had been sent to the Bank earlier that year by the Nazi government for use by its leaders after the war. This was gold that had been looted from the banks of Austria, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia or melted down from teeth fillings, eyeglass frames, and wedding rings of millions of murdered Jews.

But that is only one of the cases detailed in this book. We have Standard Oil shipping enemy fuel through Switzerland for the Nazi occupation forces in France; Ford trucks transporting German troops; I.T.T. helping supply the rocket bombs that marauded much of London ; and I.T.T. building the Focke-Wulfs that dropped those bombs. Long and shocking is the list of diplomats and businessmen alike who had their own ways of profiting from the war."
==============

From the book TRADING WITH THE ENEMY: An Exposé of The Nazi-American Money-Plot 1933-1949 by Charles Higham; Hale, London, 1983.
libcom.org...


Purchase Book from: AMAZON

edit on 28-5-2011 by crimvelvet because: fumble fingers



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


People's memories are so short...have they already forgotten the last campaign? Again, I want her to run, because the first campaign was hilarious, so many funny clips...but to take her serious is ridiculous




And lets not forget the latest fun facts



edit on 28-5-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MaskedDebater
 




Rudy Giuliani 16% ...


OH brother, another Lawyer turned banker and Democrat turned Republican. WIKI

And People think Ron Paul is a kook!

(Make sure you are not eating or drinking before viewing)
Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump... Yes, it's former NYC mayor Rody Giuliani in drag having his "breasts" shamelessly violated by "Apprentice" tycoon Donald Trump.





posted on May, 28 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MaskedDebater
 





Not engaging you in debate, but could you provide any links for me to review? The concept of infinite supply of crude oil seems preposterous. I'd love to study this theory further.


I can.... DIG, DIG, DIG....


It is called "Abiotic Oil "


Mantle Hydrocarbons: Can they form in the deep Earth?

Now for the first time, scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle -the layer of Earth under the crust and on top of the core. The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical....




The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum origin has allowed Russia (9.5 mbpd) to surpass Saudi Arabia (9.2 mbpd) as the world's biggest oil producer: Russia is world's biggest oil producer, above Saudi.

In contrast, the absurd idea that hydrocarbons miraculously evolve from biological organisms in blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics caused American production to peak. In the absense of seismic data, the success rate of American and British petroleum geologists using the biogenic theory has been an absolute failure, 1 sucessful oilwell for every 28 dry holes.... oilismastery.blogspot.com...


From another blog (original not available)


Here's a post from Vince Page concerning Abiotic oil, He is a former GE technology officer, now with Mustang Engineering working on rotating equipment issues on the BP Thunderhorse platform. Details can be found at:
www.bp.com...=7005415


"My personal opinion is that there are now two theories which predict why and where oil is to be found. I see nothing wrong with using both of them, even though they are mutually exclusive. It would not be the first such occurrence of two contrary theories proving useful. Dr. Gold's hypothesis that oil can be found in igneous rock has now been confirmed and -- excepting for the rather weak "crack in the earth" hypothesis proposed by biogenics -- his theory is the only one that can explain such a thing. This has led to other successful igneous rock explorations in the East which have proven fruitful, so the results are also repeatable. This cannot be easily dismissed.

With regard to DNA, Dr. Gold contends that the hopanoids are the bacteria which prove his theory, since living matter is known to contain hopanoids at the lower end of the carbon number spectrum, but only bacteria contain carbon molecules C35 and higher. As the following article shows, both are typically present, but the article also states, "In all of the environments studied, the C-32,33,34,35 tetrafunctionalised hopanoids were by far the most abundant biohopanoid group. Of these, bacteriohopanetetrol was generally only a minor component, suggesting that composite hopanoids (i.e. those with a biochemical functionality at C-35) are abundant constituents of sediments of diverse origin." Why should that be, if the sedimentary material is not uniform? Biogenics has no answer.

www.ceg.ncl.a...opanoid...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





People's memories are so short...have they already forgotten the last campaign? Again, I want her to run, because the first campaign was hilarious, so many funny clips...but to take her serious is ridiculous


Palin did EXACTLY what TPTB was hoping she would do.

Remember the Tea Party was an out growth of Ron Paul's Presidential campaign in 2008. When the Campaign group did not die after the election but morphed into the Tea Party, TPTB moved quickly to throw Palin their V.P. choice at the Tea Party to get the dissenters back under control.

Ron Paul + Sarah Palin = 25% of the vote. She split that vote neatly in half and therefore sidelined Dr. Paul as a viable Republican candidate.

edit on 28-5-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 




How are you going to tell an oil company that they have to sell to a smaller market at lower prices....


History shows you can not: Several US businesses dealt with Hitler during WW!!. Cargilland others sold American grain to the USSR during the "Cold War"


How many of those examples you gave were examples of following US foreign policy, and not rogue behavior? Even your link states that the grain sales prompted congressional hearings.

To imply that we cannot control our own natural resources is incongruous and defeatist.

edit on 28-5-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 





Palin did EXACTLY what TPTB was hoping she would do.

Remember the Tea Party was an out growth of Ron Paul's Presidential campaign in 2008. When the Campaign group did not die after the election but morphed into the Tea Party, TPTB moved quickly to throw Palin their V.P. choice at the Tea Party to get the dissenters back under control.

Ron Paul + Sarah Palin = 25% of the vote. She split that vote neatly in half and therefore sidelined Dr. Paul as a viable Republican candidate.


Ron Paul never stood a chance of getting any nomination, regardless of Sarah Palin. If she was able to draw votes away from RP, his votes were never very solid to begin with.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 




I can.... DIG, DIG, DIG....

It is called "Abiotic Oil "


Yes, we know. But thanks anyway.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


reply to post by crimvelvet
 



Thanks to you both. I was not familiar with these techniques/theories.

I'll "explore" them further.

/MD



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by MaskedDebater
 




Rudy Giuliani 16% ...


OH brother, another Lawyer turned banker and Democrat turned Republican. WIKI

And People think Ron Paul is a kook!

(Make sure you are not eating or drinking before viewing)
Rudy Giuliani in Drag Smooching Donald Trump... Yes, it's former NYC mayor Rody Giuliani in drag having his "breasts" shamelessly violated by "Apprentice" tycoon Donald Trump.




Well he's certainly no Klinger that is for sure. LOL To be clear I was merely pointing out the new poll. In NO WAY endorsing or advocating Rudy. I loathe the guy.

/MD



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The USA runs on high octane capitalism!


No it doesn't. In fact Hong Kong and Singapore are the only two countries that can fairly be classified as capitalist. I guess you must be suckered by the news media into believing the free market rules the economy in the US. Ron Paul is a bigtime free market advocate. Do you think he would vote for NAFTA (the "free trade agreement"). Buzzzzzzz... wrong. NAFTA is hundreds of pages of heavily regulated trade. Do you also believe the patriot act was named that because its patriotic? So again, no, a 100% regulated banking system isn't exactly a free market. In fact its quite obviously the exact opposite of free... its a slave market system run by the slavemasters at the Federal Reserve banks.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



Ron Paul never stood a chance of getting any nomination, regardless of Sarah Palin. If she was able to draw votes away from RP, his votes were never very solid to begin with.


First of all, Paul clearly has already won several nominations, including a US presidential nomination. So you are very clearly wrong about, though you are welcome to correct yourself with a more specific "can't win" claim.

And what did you ever say about Rand Paul's electability for the the Kentucky senate Mr. pessimist?
edit on 29-5-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 



Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by crimvelvet


Ron Paul never stood a chance of getting any nomination, regardless of Sarah Palin. If she was able to draw votes away from RP, his votes were never very solid to begin with.


First of all, Paul clearly has already won several nominations, including a US presidential nomination. So you are very clearly wrong about, though you are welcome to correct yourself with a more specific "can't win" claim.


OK, bunky, here ya go! Notice the undelined parts...

Ron Paul 2008


Ron Paul was a Republican Party primary candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election.

Initial opinion polls during the first three quarters of 2007 showed Ron Paul consistently receiving support from 3% or less of those polled. In 2008, Paul's support among Republican voters remained in the single digits, and well behind front-runner John McCain.[1]
< snip >
As of February 5, 2008, Paul had won sixteen delegates to the Republican National Convention, placing him last amongst the four Republican candidates still in the race at that time.[10] ] The campaign projected on February 6 to have secured at least 42 delegates to the national convention.[11]





And what did you ever say about Rand Paul's electability for the the Kentucky senate Mr. pessimist?


Mr. pessimist?
You mean Mr. Stark Reality!

I was hoping that Rand would win, to secure a Senate seat out of Dirty Harry's control.

And in the future, don't equate truth with support. Just because I point out the truth doesn't necessarily mean I wanted Ron Paul to lose.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join