Democratic National Convention Discussion

Reply to post by Eurisko2012

i dont understand one thing.

Perhaps you can help me understand.
How can you bitch about the price of gas while simultaneously bitching about mandates concerning automibles getting double the gas mileage?

Im not saying you specifically, but I've seen many on the right bitch about both. Why exactly is that?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

i dont understand one thing.

Perhaps you can help me understand.
How can you bitch about the price of gas while simultaneously bitching about mandates concerning automibles getting double the gas mileage?

Im not saying you specifically, but I've seen many on the right bitch about both. Why exactly is that?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Pardon me if I jump in.... What do you think will happen to fuel prices when mileage requirements are doubled? Do you think oil companies will keep prices low and eat the loss? Or will they simply pace the pricing to offset the lowered demand? Energy prices are increasing to keep pace with all of our high efficiency appliances and cfl light bulbs. As we use less, prices increase to maintain profits...

Let's see what happens... The technology for highly efficient gasoline engines is nothing new its just been kept on the back burner to keep the oil game humming.

So my car will get 60 mpg and I will be paying $8 to $10/gal for fuel...

reply to post by jibeho


I liked her speech. I don't care about her nationality.

reply to post by jibeho

Originally posted by jibeho
Maybe you can join in on this comment

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sure. I didn't contribute on the RNC Convention thread because I didn't watch it and didn't feel it was my place. Or is that the comment you wanted me to join in on?

If not, please specify.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Elizabeth Warren?? Very impressive??

Geronimo Descendant At DNC: Elizabeth Warren 'A Disgrace'
1/32 Cherokee eh??

www.breitbart.com...

Thank you, I appreciate the fact you linked to this video, I had not seen it,

I would love to see a Native American president,



He looks like him

reply to post by spinalremain

Merry Christmas from Government: Chevy Volt Costs Taxpayers Up to $250,000 Per Vehicle Sold

www.lessgovernment.org...

GM SHUTS DOWN CHEVY VOLT PRODUCTION AGAIN

www.breitbart.com...

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by spinalremain

 

Merry Christmas from Government: Chevy Volt Costs Taxpayers Up to $250,000 Per Vehicle Sold

www.lessgovernment.org...

GM SHUTS DOWN CHEVY VOLT PRODUCTION AGAIN

www.breitbart.com...

Just shut it down altogether.

Buy the electric Toyota Rav 4 instead.

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

i dont understand one thing.

Perhaps you can help me understand.
How can you bitch about the price of gas while simultaneously bitching about mandates concerning automibles getting double the gas mileage?

Im not saying you specifically, but I've seen many on the right bitch about both. Why exactly is that?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I just bitch about the price of gas being $3.90 a gallon.

President Mitt Romney will give us drill - baby - drill and reduce the price of gas to $2 a gallon.

That will translate into more disposable income for the everyone.

Consumer spending is 2/3rds of the economy.

------------
Obama wants the price of gas to be $5 a gallon in order to - force - all of us to buy

an electric car. Obama wants the price of gas to be low only during election years.

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

i dont understand one thing.

Perhaps you can help me understand.
How can you bitch about the price of gas while simultaneously bitching about mandates concerning automibles getting double the gas mileage?

Im not saying you specifically, but I've seen many on the right bitch about both. Why exactly is that?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Pardon me if I jump in.... What do you think will happen to fuel prices when mileage requirements are doubled? Do you think oil companies will keep prices low and eat the loss? Or will they simply pace the pricing to offset the lowered demand? Energy prices are increasing to keep pace with all of our high efficiency appliances and cfl light bulbs. As we use less, prices increase to maintain profits...

So you are essentially saying that Market Based economics is a scam...

And you are a Conservative???

As demand decreases, the price should decrease, if you believe in that kind of stuff.

As we use less, prices increase to maintain profits..

So you are saying the Oil market is not based on supply and demand, but
trickery and greed.


I agree with you

reply to post by thepresident


The price of gas is partially controlled by the speculators who swung into action

July 2008 when President George W. Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling.

The speculators forced the price of gas down to $1.61 gallon.

Eventually, supply and demand rose it slowly to about $2.25 a gallon.

reply to post by thepresident


I believe in Market based econ. however those basic core principles don't apply to the oil scam and how its pricing has been artificially manipulated by multiple parties including govts. since the creation of OPEC. Pricing oil at $100 plus a barrel when S&D suggest that it should be closer to $60 or $70 a barrel. etc etc If the core principles were to prevail pricing would not have to be manipulated. What we have with oil is more of a planned economy which is the dominant economy of Saudi Arabia.

Another Bill Clinton DNC quote:

Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

www.washingtonpost.com... 3f495ae70650_print.html

Unfortunately, Bill, a broken clock is still broken.

It appears to me that the only thing "cooperation" has accomplished in the past is a half a$$ed attempt to make it only look like the clock was working when we knew it wasn't.

You know, if you don't replace that broken clock with one that works, you'll not only lose track of time, but lose track of reality. Ooops! It looks like it's too late!

Originally posted by Deetermined
Another Bill Clinton DNC quote:

Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day.

www.washingtonpost.com... 3f495ae70650_print.html

Unfortunately, Bill, a broken clock is still broken.

It appears to me that the only thing "cooperation" has accomplished in the past is a half a$$ed attempt to make it only look like the clock was working when we knew it wasn't.

You know, if you don't replace that broken clock with one that works, you'll not only lose track of time, but lose track of reality. Ooops! It looks like it's too late!

That was a smear at Obama. Obama doesn't compromise. Remember ???

It was December and we needed to get the Bush tax cuts extended.

Obama came out and called the democrats a bunch of sanctimonious fools.

Then he called the republicans a bunch of hostage takers.

The press conference was over and then panic gripped the White House.

Obama didn't bring the republicans and democrats closer together. He just

pushed them further apart. OMG ! Quick ! Somebody - speed dial - Bill Clinton.

Oh look! There in the White House Press Room ! - Bill Clinton ???! -

Bill Clinton stepped in and bailed out the incompetent socialist.


Bill Clinton enjoyed every moment of it.

- Please go ! -

reply to post by RELDDIR


I'm not sure what your definition of 'fact' is...but mine is pretty much limited to that which can be empirically defined/proven.

Which means opinions, while nice and meaningful, are not 'facts.'
Neither are singular anecdotal accounts of situations and events...give me both sides of a story, however, and I know that facts can be gleaned with some measure of reason provided there is no taking of sides beforehand.

That makes the issue of bipartisan politics a particularly slippery slope...much like religion.

I am not aligned with any religion and I am neither a democrat or a republican or even a third party independent. I am simply an American.

So as far as the 'facts' that Clinton might have presented in his speech being a bit off, I was interested in what he said that you have found to be inaccurate and hopefully give some reference to accurate information on the same subject.

Just because an article uses the words "Fact Check" in the title does not necessarily mean facts are provided or checked. I am well aware of the issues and conflicts that have been told to us about the budget compromise that fell through and I know that Obama can be a bit heated and/or intense at times. That all has to do with being human beings...we are all passionate about what we care about and we don't get along with everyone we have to work with...and when two stubborn, or maybe I should say "dedicated," individuals come together to try to work something out, it isn't always smooth and it isn't always successful. No one can say it was all Obama's fault nor can we accuse Boehner of being the reason things didn't go as planned. They both obviously had strong feelings about something they believed to be very important. I feel it could have been handled more productively but then we are talking about two men who are invested in what they are doing. Two women would have worked it out, imo.

But none of that is what I would call 'facts.' The facts that Bill did include in his speech were all things that I had already looked into, myself...not in order to justify Obama...since I have yet to actually cast a vote as a registered voter in my whole life, I have nothing to justify...but just wanting to know what the truth actually is in the face of the increasingly hostile conflicting argument between the parties. Basically I was wanting to know why Obama is so despised. And so I know that Bill was not misrepresenting at all.

According to the transcript of Bill's speech last night, available here :

But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, two full years before the election, their number-one priority was not to put America back to work. It was to put the president out of work.

If the Senate Republican leader (and they know who they are, I'm sure) did NOT make that comment, then Bill is at risk of being sued for defamation of character and/or libel-slander. I don't think Bill is dumb.

And as far as his dishonesty in the past...yes we all know that the House impeached him but the Senate acquitted him...and it is very likely Bill learned a lot from that experience...mainly about how your words can come back and bite you in the butt if you aren't mindful of what you say and whom you say it to. In other words...he got caught in a lie...in front of the whole world. I do not think he will let that happen again.

And the main thing is that Bill isn't a hater...it is the haters that skew the facts and devote so much time to spreading the distortion...if Bill had been all about bashing the other side, then I'd have not cared what he said because I would not have trusted it to be free of emotional bias. And I know he was probably the last person most of us ever expected to see nominating Obama for 2012...we all know why.

I see no reason not to give his speech the benefit of the doubt when it comes to fairness and accuracy.

And your second link to the voters' opinions about the speech only reinforce my confidence in that, rather than undermine it or bring what Bill said into question.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

I just bitch about the price of gas being $3.90 a gallon.

President Mitt Romney will give us drill - baby - drill and reduce the price of gas to $2 a gallon.

That will translate into more disposable income for the everyone.

Good. Because we'll need it to try to clean all the poisons out of our contaminated ground water so we can drink it without turning into glow-worms...

Plus we won't have to worry so much about funeral costs if we have more disposable income.

reply to post by queenannie38

According to the transcript of Bill's speech last night, available here :

"But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, two full years before the election, their number-one priority was not to put America back to work. It was to put the president out of work."

Could part of that have been because Obama started campaigning two years before the election?

That works both ways too. Obama wasted at least a year-and-a-half pushing Obamacare before he ever attempted to address the jobs issue after he took office.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Battleline
The really sad part about the convention is it is full of hate and anger..................just like the Dem party, a perfict example of why socialism is such a fail.......sad!

Denial is not a river in Egypt, you know.

What was it that he said about the Republican statement revealing that it was more important to them to put the President out of a job than it was to put Americans back into jobs?

Who are the haters?
The Democrats don't even hate the GOP for hating the Democrats.

What I have found out from retort's from Dems is that if they say it, it must be true. Fact is the president has not put anyone back to work, look up the facts, not the lies on Democratic control web site, try a site that is netural...............but then that would show you who is really in deniel here............wouldnt it? I mean when you have no way to defend Obama's last four years all thats left is lies and anger which purity much equils "hate" when a Dem gets wound up.
What else are you going to talk about, how great Socialism is? you people are way past deniel.

Did Barack Obama hold 100-plus fundraisers while his jobs council never met?

www.politifact.com... le-h/

...the RNC’s claim is correct.

Asked about the lack of meetings in a July 18, 2012, press briefing, Carney said "the president solicits and receives input and advice from members of his jobs council and others about economic initiatives all the time. … There’s no specific reason (why they haven’t met) except the president has obviously got a lot on his plate."

Why can't I get any of these links to work today? If need be, Google....

"did barack obama hold 100 plus fundraisers while his jobs council never met"

reply to post by RealSpoke

Did I say that?

You didn't need too. It's quite obvious that you feel that the term "minority" should only apply to your preferred groups.

Nope, if you read the chart you would see that only 23% of the US population identifies to be catholic. The democratic party is 24% catholic, they are proportionally over represented. Not a minority in the group.

Using that silly bit of logic (?), Blacks within the Democratic Party are not a "minority", and non Hispanic Whites are! I reckon that would make "Slick Willy" a "token" speaker because non Hispanic Whites are under represented within the party.

If you had read the source properly, you would have noticed that Protestants/Other Christians make up 48% percent of the group, thereby making the Catholics a minority group.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by Battleline
What I have found out from retort's from Dems is that if they say it, it must be true.

Well, I'm not a 'dem.' And I don't think my reply to you was a 'retort.' If it seemed that way, I apologize.

Someone claiming that a statement is true or false can be done without the excessive rancor and animosity that is more and more evident around here...and out in the real world, too...

I simply did not see any kind of hate or negative emotions coming through what I watched both nights of the DNC. I see a lot of hate from many people on ATS toward Obama...and in people I know off-line, too...and many of them have no real basis for their hate other than it seems to be some sort of subliminal message they are receiving...but I'm not. And I don't see Clinton hating on anyone, even Obama. And if anyone could say they had a reason to feel disgruntled toward the President, it would be Hillary's husband and Hillary, too, perhaps.

I don't need to know what party someone aligns themselves with to judge whether what they say is truth or not. I have other ways of knowing these things...other ways that everyone else could employ if they wanted to but many do not seem to either know this or want to make the effort required which largely seems burdened by the tendency to let emotions lead instead of reason.

Fact is the president has not put anyone back to work, look up the facts, not the lies on Democratic control web site, try a site that is netural...............but then that would show you who is really in deniel here............wouldnt it? I mean when you have no way to defend Obama's last four years all thats left is lies and anger which purity much equils "hate" when a Dem gets wound up.
What else are you going to talk about, how great Socialism is? you people are way past deniel.

"You people?"
Okay.

Well, anyway...I don't have to find a way to defend Obama's last four years...I did not vote in the last election and I am not a democrat or a republican. I am not on Obama's staff and I am not employed by anyone, especially the government. I have no reason to feel the need to defend anyone. I do often feel the need to defend or at least speak up about what I know to be true and not because I listened to someone else's opinion that felt good to adopt but because I like to FIND OUT. Simply because that way I don't have to wonder or be confused and I can devote my mental energy to more productive endeavors besides speculation and extrapolation.

You say Obama has not put anyone back to work.
Do I take that literally as in NOT ONE SINGLE person has come off of unemployment directly or indirectly because of anything in which Obama possibly was involved?
Or do I just write it off as an emotionally driven grandiose generalization for which you really have no reason to declare as the truth other than that it seems right to you to say that it is?

reply to post by Deetermined


Yes, I'd already read that a few weeks back.

But today I went to the website of the job council and actually read the minutes of the last meeting and watched enough of the video to see that the room was full of important-looking people.

Scheduling meetings that everyone can attend must be a logistical nightmare.
Not an excuse...just an observation.
The minutes of the public portion of the meeting are very interesting, imo.
They can be read here.


But something dawned on me, just today, reading the politifact page again....Obama went golfing 10 times in 6 months.

That comes out to less than a half a day spent golfing for every week out of those 6 months.
0.417 times.... per every 7 days, to be specific.


SERIOUSLY??


I really don't see how anyone could feel justified in pointing that out as if were some sort of breach of contract or blatant disregard for the responsibility the President has, as POTUS. As if he is a BAD President for daring to golf 10 times out of a whole 6 months.

Geez.

I think that is a shamefully minimal amount of personal leisure time for anyone! And even more so for someone who has the kind of heavy duty job that the Presidency is. And we know it is because of how much they all age while in office!

Leisure time is crucial for mental health and for job performance.
We ALL know this.

Work hard...play harder....many like to say, anyway.


But it seems that the President is always expected to work harder...but it is never hard enough...and when he does play a little, it is somehow considered to be out of line or a sign of disregard for his job.