Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.

1212224262745

Comments

  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,268member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    218 reasons NOT to vote for Obama



    ^^^All points are sourced/cited.



    That's a lot of reading. Followed a couple of links though and all I can say is I'm glad I didn't vote for him. MJ's right though, the Repub's are voting the same way.



    I'm nowhere near as purist as you guys, but a lot of this is an atrocity. We The People should be renamed We The Evil Doer Terrorists, according to these parasitic, sterilised, fearmongering control freaks.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    When the Presidential candidates from both major parties (except one...you know who he is) support this insanity, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could possibly support them.



  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post


    I might agree with you if i thought his mind was set to begin with. As with most politicians of both sides the decision is based on political expedience rather than reason and principle.





    Hope, change, more of the same.



    I think George Soros is really behind Obama and backing him up every which way he can.Truthfully political decision is the real key factor in most of his decisions not the principle which it should be.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I don't have "Republican" viewpoints. I have MY viewpoints, which themselves are primarily conservative and/or libertarian, depending on the issue. As for your post, please don't respond on jimmac's behalf.



    Most of your viewpoints are one sided as i read them here
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,184member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    Most of your viewpoints are one sided as i read them here



    A viewpoint is one-sided by nature. That's why it's called a viewpoint.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,701member
    Well this certainly seems safer for the environment than a pipeline continuously monitored by computer tracking and automatic shut-off protocols.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,184member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    Well this certainly seems safer for the environment than a pipeline continuously monitored by computer tracking and automatic shut-off protocols.



    No worries, they'll ban that type of transport, too.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    No worries, they'll ban that type of transport, too.



    The TSA will cover this. Unless they're otherwise pre-occupied with molesting innocent American citizens.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    The TSA will cover this. Unless they're otherwise pre-occupied with molesting innocent American citizens.



    They're protecting us from the dire threat of wheelchair-bound toddlers with broken legs.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    The Keystone XL pipeline, the extension to the Gulf Coast, is not for the benefit of Americans--it's for the benefits of the multinational oil corporations' bottom lines. That oil, which currently stops in the Midwest at the end of the Keystone pipeline, gets refined and sold in that region. The Keystone XL would allow for those Midwestern refineries to be bypassed and the end product more easily shipped overseas. That hurts the US--not helps, hurts.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    The Keystone XL pipeline, the extension to the Gulf Coast, is not for the benefit of Americans--it's for the benefits of the multinational oil corporations' bottom lines. That oil, which currently stops in the Midwest at the end of the Keystone pipeline, gets refined and sold in that region. The Keystone XL would allow for those Midwestern refineries to be bypassed and the end product more easily shipped overseas. That hurts the US--not helps, hurts.



    Why don't you come back when you know what you're talking about.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Why don't you come back when you know what you're talking about.



    Cited. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...p-US-consumers



    What I said was correct. Face the FACTS.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,701member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Cited. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...p-US-consumers



    What I said was correct. Face the FACTS.



    No, you're just being the typical arrogant American.



    There is no scenario that allows your country to gain all the economic benefits from every drop of oil that Canadians drill for and sell on the open market.



    Some of that oil will be exported overseas. If the U.S. blocks access to its refineries and ports in the South, we will build our own pipelines to the sea, and export it ourselves.



    Everyone is entitled to a fair share of wealth. The world does not exist solely for the benefit of Americans.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Not saying it should. My point is that extending the pipeline to the gulf will hurt the Midwest. MJ disagreed. I showed him the facts. You seem to agree yourself that the Keystone XL is not designed with the sole purposes of American prosperity in mind.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,701member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Not saying it should. My point is that extending the pipeline to the gulf will hurt the Midwest. MJ disagreed. I showed him the facts. You seem to agree yourself that the Keystone XL is not designed with the sole purposes of American prosperity in mind.



    The article you cited uses the term "oversupply" for the Midwest, so that alone should tell you it's a temporary phenomena. You can't possibly think that economic forces will allow for the continued oversupply in a local region while the rest of the country/continent/planet goes thirsty. While liberals usually base economic decisions on faulty assumptions, that one will set some kind of record.



    Secondly, while would a pipeline carrying Canadian oil be designed "solely" for American prosperity?



    U.S. communities and companies will certainly benefit, but this is a continent that is economically integrated to a large degree. It does not make economic or environmental sense for Canadians to pay a billion dollars or more to construct a new refinery and port distribution system while U.S. refineries and ports have excess capacity.



    Bottom line is that prices are going to rise in the Midwest no matter what happens, and some of the oil is going to be exported as well. But I thought the holdup on Keystone was really due to environmental concerns?
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    My point is that much of the short-term economic benefit that Republicans claim is nonsense. First, the pipeline wouldn't be done for a few years so current gas prices will remain unaffected. Second, the Midwest will feel those rising gas prices as those refineries are bypassed for the ones farther south.



    I was not commenting on the environmental concerns. I was commenting on the right wing nonsense of immediate economic benefits.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,701member
    I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I know today's gas price doesn't have a whole lot to do with the previous cost of production. It seems to have more on the expectation of future supply (Again, I know next to nothing about how Futures markets operate.)



    But it does seem possible - or even probable - to me that an expectation of a secure future supply because of the Keynote project could have some near-immediate economic benefits.
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    A viewpoint is one-sided by nature. That's why it's called a viewpoint.



    I guess you are one sided than.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Frank777 got it. Kudos for him.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I know today's gas price doesn't have a whole lot to do with the previous cost of production. It seems to have more on the expectation of future supply (Again, I know next to nothing about how Futures markets operate.)



    Please show some data that supports this theory in this particular industry. I suppose gas prices must have dropped through the floor when the Iraq invasion plans became public, seeing as everyone who supported those plans expected a huge change in oil supply to be one of the results of the action? Is that what happened?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Frank777 got it. Kudos for him.



    Hold that thought.
Sign In or Register to comment.