Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on April 06, 2011, 07:09:38 PM
-
Well, I would almost say that anyone is an improvement over Pharaoh Obama.
This particular poll surprised me having Donald Trump tied with Mike Huckleberry. The last poll I saw had the illiterate bigot in the lead with Trump nowhere to be found and Mitt Romney well behind. Maybe when we add Ron Paul (the dookie, yes I wrote it and he is a dook grad) into the mix (he will announce very soon I think) the Parson Weems wannabe from Arkansas will fall even farther down in the stats.
I really don't know if anyone has a prayer of beating the Pharaoh this time around. Quite frankly I just don't see it happening but I'd be OK with that as long as the Senate gains a Republican majority (along with the House) to keep The ONE better in check.
Here's how this poll looks:
Mitt Romney, 21%
Donald Trump, 17%
Mike Huckleberry, 17%
Newt Gingrich, 11%
Sarah Palin, 10%
Tim Pawlenty, 6%
Michelle Bachman, 5%
Rick Santorum, 3%
Haley Barbour, 1%
and I guess the remaining 9% don't know who they want to vote for in 2012.
Here's an excerpt from the WSJ, all emphasis is my own:
WSJ/NBC Poll: A Donald Trump Surprise
April 6, 2011, 5:00 PM ET
By Jonathan Weisman and Scott Greenberg
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be the early front-runner in the largely unformed race for the Republican nomination for president, but real estate magnate Donald Trump may be a surprise contender, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Among Republican primary voters, Mr. Romney captured the support of 21% in a broad, nine-candidate field. Mr. Trump was tied for second with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 17%. House Speaker Newt Gingrich got 11%, just ahead of former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s 10%. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a strong contender by political handicappers, remains largely unknown, with just 6% support. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had 5%, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 3%, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour with just 1%.
Mr. Trump “may be a punch line but when he talks about the way to solve our problems, he makes a lot of sense to the average guy out there,†said Todd Mauney, a conservative Republican in Weatherford, Texas. “I don’t know if people can get over him being the butt of every joke but for me, he can be serious when it’s time to make real decisions.“
...
Full story:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/06/wsjnbc-poll-a-donald-trump-surprise/tab/print/
-
He is the master at leading a company through bankruptcy. We are going to need that experience in the white house.
-
He is the master at leading a company through bankruptcy. We are going to need that experience in the white house.
Yes, but the Dems will beat Trumpeth to death with his so called dealings with Gadafi. (yes this is my spelling since there are about 8 differents ways to do so).
-
All are pretty :facepalm:
Only ones I could see possibly voting for would be Romney and Pawlenty.
-
Well, I would almost say that anyone is an improvement over Pharaoh Obama.
This particular poll surprised me having Donald Trump tied with Mike Huckleberry. The last poll I saw had the illiterate bigot in the lead with Trump nowhere to be found and Mitt Romney well behind. Maybe when we add Ron Paul (the dookie, yes I wrote it and he is a dook grad) into the mix (he will announce very soon I think) the Parson Weems wannabe from Arkansas will fall even farther down in the stats.
I really don't know if anyone has a prayer of beating the Pharaoh this time around. Quite frankly I just don't see it happening but I'd be OK with that as long as the Senate gains a Republican majority (along with the House) to keep The ONE better in check.
Here's how this poll looks:
Mitt Romney, 21%
Donald Trump, 17%
Mike Huckleberry, 17%
Newt Gingrich, 11%
Sarah Palin, 10%
Tim Pawlenty, 6%
Michelle Bachman, 5%
Rick Santorum, 3%
Haley Barbour, 1%
Let me add Jindal, Christie, Paul and Johnson (from Wisc I believe)
and I guess the remaining 9% don't know who they want to vote for in 2012.
Here's an excerpt from the WSJ, all emphasis is my own:
Full story:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/06/wsjnbc-poll-a-donald-trump-surprise/tab/print/
My comments in bold and strikethrough.
-
If the R's run any of these:
Mitt Romney, 21%
Donald Trump, 17%
Mike Huckleberry, 17%
Newt Gingrich, 11%
Sarah Palin, 10%
Out of that, Romney is the only one that has a chance at beating Obama......the rest would more than likely get destroyed. Of course things can change quickly, but as of today, that is how I see it.
-
America's youts put Obama in office.
The elderly will take him out. One and done.
Romney will be your next President. Newt will be in the on deck circle.
If Trump gets anywhere near the White House. I will pull an Alec Baldwin.
-
They all suck.
Until we realize that, it'll be the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
-
They all suck.
Until we realize that, it'll be the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
The people most qualified for the job are also too smart to want it.
-
They all suck.
Until we realize that, it'll be the same thing over and over and over and over and over.
Ummm... Most of us realize that, but if you don't vote for the least suckiest one, you may get stuck with one of the worst, which is what we're stuck with now.
-
The people most qualified for the job are also too smart to want it.
You mean jobs.
It's a system wide issue. Everyone in office is greedy. Everyone is power hungry - but not for actual power. Everyone is simply trying to be reelected and keep their opposing party down.
It's like the Auburn-Alabama rivalry. It doesn't matter how much cheating is going on. It doesn't matter how many people you hurt in the process. As long as you win, you're golden. And if the other side falls apart because of your winning, you're god-like.
-
The people most qualified for the job are also too smart to want it.
Zactly...
-
Ummm... Most of us realize that, but if you don't vote for the least suckiest one, you may get stuck with one of the worst, which is what we're stuck with now.
What if they're all awful? Especially right now.
I mean, look at our options for the head of the executive branch of the government:
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Donald Trump
I mean, out of those names, do any of them scream, "strong leadership"? Do anyone of them make you think, "This guy or gal is going to protect my safety and think of me first"?
They all suck. They're all zero. It doesn't matter what you multiply by zero, it's still zero.
And it's not just them. It's these lifetime/career senators and representatives. It's the fact that congress has turned into one big board of trustees working for the same company with the same goal in mind.
Did you know that every president since Nixon has promised to distance America from foreign oil?
Last I check, I was paying a boatload of money to the gas company for oil owned by the bad guys.
(Don't call them bad guys, though. That's mean.)
-
What if they're all awful? Especially right now.
I mean, look at our options for the head of the executive branch of the government:
Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Donald Trump
I mean, out of those names, do any of them scream, "strong leadership"? Do anyone of them make you think, "This guy or gal is going to protect my safety and think of me first"?
Newt and Mitt... I feel most comfortable with them.
They all suck. They're all zero. It doesn't matter what you multiply by zero, it's still zero.
So? What are you saying? Do nothing? Don't vote? Let the least qualified loser continue for another 4 years? I don't mind your assessment, but give us something. What's the solution to this???
And it's not just them. It's these lifetime/career senators and representatives. It's the fact that congress has turned into one big board of trustees working for the same company with the same goal in mind.
Did you know that every president since Nixon has promised to distance America from foreign oil?
Last I check, I was paying a boatload of money to the gas company for oil owned by the bad guys.
(Don't call them bad guys, though. That's mean.)
Just FYI, less than 35% of our oil imports come from the middle east. The majority of our oil is sourced from the Western Hemisphere. Until we get the Taxicrats and Enviro-morons out of the way and start drilling locally, we'll continue to rely heavily on foreign oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
-
And, what about Herman Cain? Personally, I don't believe that he has enough name recognition to carry the votes, but the latest poll numbers are looking promising...
-
My comments in bold and strikethrough.
I like your suggestions, GH, but I don't think that Christie and Jindal will run in 2012. Christie would be such a great candidate. The ONE would wet his pants confronted by him in any debate.
I have constantly been impressed with Paul Ryan of Wisconsin but I don't think he'll run either.
Of course I'd even concede that Ron Paul would be a marked improvement over the Pharoah Obama (despite being a dookie), and I'm sure that he'll run; just not sure that the party elites will get behind him this time either. Having said that though Reince Priebus is a better leader of the Republican Party than Michael Steele was and he might be able to rally the party behind someone outside of the party apparatchik mould.
And, what about Herman Cain? Personally, I don't believe that he has enough name recognition to carry the votes, but the latest poll numbers are looking promising...
I like Herman Cain too. He is going to run and he has been working the Iowa circuit and the Talk Radio shows so he's getting his name out there. He's a very smart businessman.
He'd be tough for the Pharaoh to beat I think.
America's youts put Obama in office.
The elderly will take him out. One and done.
Romney will be your next President. Newt will be in the on deck circle.
If Trump gets anywhere near the White House. I will pull an Alec Baldwin.
I do hope you're right, LT. I am not quite so jaded as some on this entire slate of candidates (Romney, Bachmann, and Pawlenty are all very capable, experienced, candidates with broad appeal).
The concern I see with the upcoming campaign is the messaging. The ONE is very, very good at lying and compulsion and has a War Chest in the billions of shekels. The Republicans have not been successful at messaging or fundraising...but that might change this time around with the Tea Party Movement and other right of center groups getting more active.
By the way, I went round-and-round arguing with someone that it was indeed the youts that put The ONE in office; every demographic was almost evenly divided or weighted towards McCain; but the yout vote, while not the biggest numerically, was extremely weighted towards The Pharaoh.
All are pretty :facepalm:
Only ones I could see possibly voting for would be Romney and Pawlenty.
I'm very proud of you, Chizad, maybe there's hope for you yet.
-
Pawlenty I can live with but would rather have a Christie/Cain/Paul type. A ball buster. A Reagan.
Chris Christie needs to fucking run in 2012!!! Listen to any of his pressers and you will see. And he needs to have either Rand Paul or Herman Cain as VP. I would get drunk all day if that ticket was announced as an option in 2012.
And yes, Paul Ryan is extremely brilliant. Would love to have him as well. But I'm afraid he is one of the few up in DC who GETS it and we need him up there fighting the good fight with the budget. It seems him and Rand are the only 2 on Capitol Hill who see the dire straights of our fiscal situation and the need to STOP spending in a drastic way.
GarMan - Mitt and Newt? Tha fuck? Do you like neocons? Newt is much like Nixon. Very smart guy, HAD some great ideas and sold out to the RINOs years back. Just like Nixon did between 60 and 68. We're just gonna have to disagree on this one.
-
GarMan - Mitt and Newt? Tha eff? Do you like neocons? Newt is much like Nixon. Very smart guy, HAD some great ideas and sold out to the RINOs years back. Just like Nixon did between 60 and 68. We're just gonna have to disagree on this one.
I think you're holding out for the near-impossible. You might as well vote for Santa Claus or the Toof Fairy based on today's numbers.
Newt is a fiscal conservative. He'll get the spending under control, and I do trust him more than others when it comes to national security and foreign relations. Unfortunately, I also agree with you about his RINO/Neo-Con ways. He's more likely to pull a GWB with another prescription drug program for deadbeats... or continue with some sort of healthcare to appease the Socialists in our country.
I see Mitt as the most Conservative of the leads, but I'm also the guy who brought Cain into this discussion. Mitt was also a governor, and Cain was a CEO. I see the leadership quality with them...
-
I think you're holding out for the near-impossible. You might as well vote for Santa Claus or the Toof Fairy based on today's numbers.
Newt is a fiscal conservative. He'll get the spending under control, and I do trust him more than others when it comes to national security and foreign relations. Unfortunately, I also agree with you about his RINO/Neo-Con ways. He's more likely to pull a GWB with another prescription drug program for deadbeats... or continue with some sort of healthcare to appease the Socialists in our country.
I see Mitt as the most Conservative of the leads, but I'm also the guy who brought Cain into this discussion. Mitt was also a governor, and Cain was a CEO. I see the leadership quality with them...
Mitt I could probably be 'ok' with. Not sure on Newt. I think you are right about GWB potential there although Newt is leap and bounds ahead of GWB on the IQ chart but hell, so is my dog.
-
Just FYI, less than 35% of our oil imports come from the middle east. The majority of our oil is sourced from the Western Hemisphere. Until we get the Taxicrats and Enviro-morons out of the way and start drilling locally, we'll continue to rely heavily on foreign oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
True, but slightly misleading. Iraq and Kuwait sit upon 20 percent of the world's known oil; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates sit upon another 25 percent. The Middle East has far more proven oil reserves than every other region, and even when you take into consideration the existence of recoverable and unconventional oil reserves, they're still in a very strong second.
(http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/BP_reserves_global_550x375.gif)
(http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/proved.versus2.gif)
So even though we may not directly be getting the majority of our oil from the Middle East, the ultimate source may often be from the Middle East. Case in point: Canada imports 55% of its oil, most of which comes from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Algeria. Libya exports 85% of its oil to Europe, from which we import, albeit from only a handful of countries.
Of course, this doesn't mean that a majority of our oil necessarily comes from the Middle East originally; I haven't looked at every country's oil import percentages by country, but I'm relatively certain that your basic premise about the majority of our oil not coming from the Middle East is correct. Countries like Colombia, Angola, and especially Venezuela obviously export oil without a need to import it. Nonetheless, the fact that we import X% of oil from non-Middle Eastern countries doesn't always mean that the source of the entirety of that X% of oil is not from a Middle Eastern country originally.
-
So even though we may not directly be getting the majority of our oil from the Middle East, the ultimate source...
Of course, this doesn't mean that a majority...
Nonetheless, the fact that we import...
World oil reserves really have no part in this discussion. You're suggesting that some of our imported oil could be pass-through imports, but you've provided no evidence of that. In fact, your speculation is based on no verifiable information. The US imports approximately 55% of our oil. Of the oil that is imported, only 35% is "directly" sourced from the middle east region. Imports originally sourced from the middle eastern region and passed through another country for importing to the US could be possible, but is it really plausible? Especially, an amount large enough to notably influence these statistics? Talk about misleading... And, don't tell anyone that oil is secretly produced by grinding up unicorns and boiling leprechauns.
-
Imported oil doesn't bother me. As long as we keep enough domestic oil production going to keep the Amercain industry from going under.
Let's use up all the foreign oil before we drain our own. That's a bit simplistic, but hopefilly you get my point.
-
Imported oil doesn't bother me. As long as we keep enough domestic oil production going to keep the Amercain industry from going under.
Let's use up all the foreign oil before we drain our own. That's a bit simplistic, but hopefilly you get my point.
I'm with you on that, but I'm tired of the artificial inflation on energy. The US does have enough reserves locally to keep this country going for 300-400+ years based on current consumption rates, but we're not permitted to touch it. We could literally drive sub-$1 / gallon prices if they'd let us go after it.
-
I'm with you on that, but I'm tired of the artificial inflation on energy. The US does have enough reserves locally to keep this country going for 300-400+ years based on current consumption rates, but we're not permitted to touch it. We could literally drive sub-$1 / gallon prices if they'd let us go after it.
People really are in the dark about how much oil we are sitting on here. No, not in the Gulf. In Colorado, Alaska, Montana. And they will peddle the line that "its unextractable". Bullshit. Thats a nice convenient excuse for environmentalists. Oil companies and exploration experts have said that this oil is extractable. The reason we aren't doing so is due to the gov't and the EPA. The EPA needs to be abolished completely.
-
I'm with you on that, but I'm tired of the artificial inflation on energy. The US does have enough reserves locally to keep this country going for 300-400+ years based on current consumption rates, but we're not permitted to touch it. We could literally drive sub-$1 / gallon prices if they'd let us go after it.
Help me out here, this is a serious question, not a smart ass comment.
Don't the traders in the financial markets have a lot to do with the higher prices ? Not just supply and demand ?
-
Help me out here, this is a serious question, not a smart ass comment.
Don't the traders in the financial markets have a lot to do with the higher prices ? Not just supply and demand ?
Of course they do but they too are driven in part by what they see in the market conditions; seeing a 'safe' source of oil opened quells the "fear" part of the Fear and Greed tenets that they always use as a guage for any commodity.
-
More germane to the topic; here are the results of a new poll regarding Republican Presidential Candidates for 2012 released by Public Policy Polling just yesterday:
...
DONALD TRUMP 27%
MIKE HUCKLEBERRY 17%
MITT ROMNEY 15%
NEWT GINGRICH 11%
SARAH PALIN 8%
RON PAUL 5%
TIM PAWLENTY 4%
MICHELLE BACHMANN 4%
HALEY BARBOUR 3%
...
Full Poll Data Here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0414925.pdf
-
More germane to the topic; here are the results of a new poll regarding Republican Presidential Candidates for 2012 released by Public Policy Polling just yesterday:
Quote
...
DONALD TRUMP 27%
MIKE HUCKLEBERRY 17%
MITT ROMNEY 15%
NEWT GINGRICH 11%
SARAH PALIN 8%
RON PAUL 5%
TIM PAWLENTY 4%
MICHELLE BACHMANN 4%
HALEY BARBOUR 3%
...
Full Poll Data Here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0414925.pdf
35% of Americans are absolutely fucking stupid and should be disenfranchised.
Just sayin'.
-
More germane to the topic; here are the results of a new poll regarding Republican Presidential Candidates for 2012 released by Public Policy Polling just yesterday:
Full Poll Data Here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0414925.pdf
"The god damn Germans got nothin' to do with it!"
-
"The god damn Germans got nothin' to do with it!"
"Germane" As in Germane Jackson. You know, Tito, Michael and all that? Duh!
-
More germane to the topic; here are the results of a new poll regarding Republican Presidential Candidates for 2012 released by Public Policy Polling just yesterday:
Full Poll Data Here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0414925.pdf
So in other words, when it should be a slam dunk for the republicans, they are going to run their "I'm not Obama" candidate just like the Dems did with Kerry and Obama is going to win?
-
So in other words, when it should be a slam dunk for the republicans, they are going to run their "I'm not Obama" candidate just like the Dems did with Kerry and Obama is going to win?
Exactly! Like I said, they're going to screw this up...
-
So in other words, when it should be a slam dunk for the republicans, they are going to run their "I'm not Obama" candidate just like the Dems did with Kerry and Obama is going to win?
I don't know, AUT1, Trump is not quite the personality that I think the Republican Party needs right now; he's got the rock star name recognition but I think he's weak on the details.
I'm getting less and less enthusiastic about this campaign every day; here we have the Pharaoh Obama with approval ratings in the low 40s and yet he still has rock star status; campaigning being his one and only strong point.
Meanwhile the Republicans best guy right now is Trump? or Huckleberry?
It's really quite a shame because the Pharaoh can be defeated!
Where's our Moses when we need him?!
-
Exactly! Like I said, they're going to screw this up...
and that makes me :facepalm:
-
Help me out here, this is a serious question, not a smart ass comment.
Don't the traders in the financial markets have a lot to do with the higher prices ? Not just supply and demand ?
Oh, I do agree with that to an extent, but we have OPEC artificially driving the prices up by reducing the supply. This uncontrollable variability just sends the markets into a frenzy. Compound that with Obama's refusal to negotiate with this diamond-syndicate-like mafia and his admitted interest in driving all energy prices higher to spark interest and pseudo-viability in alternative energies. In other words, we're going to be paying $5+/gallon by the end of summer for all the wrong reasons. Rather than letting market interest drive alternative energies, he's playing politics with our economy and beating the crap out of the lower and middle classes. When GWB opened up exploration in the US during his second term, gas prices dropped to the $1.65/gallon range. Now that Obama's stopped that again, the prices have increased at a rate faster than ever...
-
World oil reserves really have no part in this discussion. You're suggesting that some of our imported oil could be pass-through imports, but you've provided no evidence of that. In fact, your speculation is based on no verifiable information. The US imports approximately 55% of our oil. Of the oil that is imported, only 35% is "directly" sourced from the middle east region. Imports originally sourced from the middle eastern region and passed through another country for importing to the US could be possible, but is it really plausible? Especially, an amount large enough to notably influence these statistics? Talk about misleading... And, don't tell anyone that oil is secretly produced by grinding up unicorns and boiling leprechauns.
If you're talking about the production of oil, then the proven oil reserves do have a part in the discussion, as that is the source of the vast majority of produced oil. And when the Middle East clearly has the vast majority of those proven reserves, then it becomes a higher mathematical possibility for "pass through" imports from the Middle East. As a country which accounts for a quarter of total world oil imports, it's almost unfathomable to conclude that we're not getting pass through imports to some degree. Of the 12 OPEC countries, eight are Middle Eastern. Around the world, about 84 million barrels of oil are produced each day, around 32 million of which are produced in Middle Eastern countries.
Again, I agree with you that it's not as if we're receiving a significant portion of our oil from the Middle East in the form of a pass through import, but when the country that is highest on our import list receives 55% of its supply from mostly Middle Eastern countries, and when so much of the world's supply is from Middle Eastern sources, I'd certainly call the possibility of Middle Eastern pass through imports plausible.
This was all conjecture based upon the above quoted figures, but just from doing a little more research on the topic, there's a book (http://books.google.com/books?id=79Do_9yoBw4C&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=United+States+indirectly+imports+oil+from+Middle+East&source=bl&ots=sVGN7gPwyQ&sig=V6DznYhL4kqj4_1m751vC55OEFM&hl=en&ei=EjWrTbLcC7KF0QGms4z5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false) which, in one of its sections, attempts to quantify the amount of indirectly imported oil from the Middle East.
But I do have to completely disagree with you about the production of oil...it's clearly made from infant orphans.
-
Help me out here, this is a serious question, not a smart ass comment.
Don't the traders in the financial markets have a lot to do with the higher prices ? Not just supply and demand ?
Commodities "speculators". And yes. Many of them artificially drive up the price because of supply/demand.
I.e. - US expects travel to be up 10% this Summer, so the price of sweet crude went up 1.50 a barrel today. DEMAND.
I.e. - Libya troubles drive a barrel of light sweet crude up 2 dollars. SUPPLY
-
Back to the topic, if TRUMP becomes president I am moving to another country. Understand when I say this I vote Republican.
-
Back to the topic, if TRUMP becomes president I am moving to another country. Understand when I say this I vote Republican.
It wouldn't be worse than what is up there now. Just saying.
-
Commodities "speculators". And yes. Many of them artificially drive up the price because of supply/demand.
I.e. - US expects travel to be up 10% this Summer, so the price of sweet crude went up 1.50 a barrel today. DEMAND.
I.e. - Libya troubles drive a barrel of light sweet crude up 2 dollars. SUPPLY
That's the other thing about the oil market. Even if America were to effectively reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil to the point that we were importing none from the Middle East in any form or fashion, the oil market is global. Any potential unrest or effects to the supply in the Middle East will cause spectators to predict less of a supply, thereby affecting all prices regardless of the source, mostly due to the massive amounts of oil that the Middle East supplies to other countries within the market. Like GarMan said, ultimately we're going to have to move away from all types of foreign oil reliance (or reliance upon oil in general) in order to prevent this type of instability.
But yeah, back to the topic...Trump >>>>>> Obama. Although I'd probably prefer to see Warren Buffett if we're going to propose financial gurus for president.
-
It wouldn't be worse than what is up there now. Just saying.
This is hitting an all time low. Between those two, they could really fuck a country up.
-
That's the other thing about the oil market. Even if America were to effectively reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil to the point that we were importing none from the Middle East in any form or fashion, the oil market is global. Any potential unrest or effects to the supply in the Middle East will cause spectators to predict less of a supply, thereby affecting all prices regardless of the source, mostly due to the massive amounts of oil that the Middle East supplies to other countries within the market. Like GarMan said, ultimately we're going to have to move away from all types of foreign oil reliance (or reliance upon oil in general) in order to prevent this type of instability.
But yeah, back to the topic...Trump >>>>>> Obama. Although I'd probably prefer to see Warren Buffett if we're going to propose financial gurus for president.
This is true.
-
90% of all the shrimp we consume in the U.S. come from Asian waters.
-
But yeah, back to the topic...Trump >>>>>> Obama. Although I'd probably prefer to see Warren Buffett if we're going to propose financial gurus for president.
Trump is not a financial guru. He is a marketing guru. And that means Trump = Obama.
-
Trump is not a financial guru. He is a marketing guru. And that means Trump = Obama.
Ding, Ding, Ding
-
Trump is not a financial guru. He is a marketing guru. And that means Trump = Obama.
If we can just declare bankruptcy and start over, Trump is our man.
-
If you're talking about the production of oil, then the proven oil reserves do...
Again, I agree with you that it's not as if we're receiving a significant portion of our oil from the Middle East...
Playing the odds... I see what you're attempting to say, but as you've admitted, a significant amount of pass-through oil imports is unlikely to tip the scale here.
But I do have to completely disagree with you about the production of oil...it's clearly made from infant orphans.
That's just a fairy tale... Everybody knows the infant orphans are used to make whiskey.
-
Trump is not a financial guru. He is a marketing guru. And that means Trump = Obama.
If you're speaking in terms of building a traditional portfolio, then yes, Trump is not a financial guru in that sense. Buffett's career may be more attuned to the widely accepted idea of a financial guru, but ultimately he was investing in something (shares of stock) just as Trump invested in something (real estate). Sure, Trump's line of work involving real estate has more of a marketing component to it, but ultimately he used his abilities to become a millionaire, and then subsequently to rebuild his business by coming out of billions of dollars of debt. He used his marketing prowess to make money, which, in my book, makes him a financial guru. Maybe "successful business man" would have been a better term? Semantics, I suppose.
-
Playing the odds... I see what you're attempting to say, but as you've admitted, a significant amount of pass-through oil imports is unlikely to tip the scale here.
Probably. It would be damn near difficult to prove or disprove that with certainty, as it would involve not only determining which countries import oil from where, but also an in-depth review of various trade documentation (to which we will never have access) to determine whether Middle Eastern oil was actually exported after being imported. Many of these countries produce their own oil, so the question would be whether they are exporting their own oil, or exporting oil which they have previously imported.
Imported crude oil is often refined and then exported as a finished product of some sort, usually refined petroleum. But again, how much of that is refined from non-Middle Eastern crude oil? I don't think we're in a position to know that without access to the aforementioned trade documentation.
But, yes, by playing the odds, I'm assuming that there must be a significant portion of Middle Eastern oil indirectly imported to many countries, even if those countries aren't America. It would be highly unlikely that Middle Eastern oil isn't being indirectly imported to some degree, given the fact that nearly 40% of all oil produced daily is from the Middle East, and an even larger percentage of proven reserves in the world exist in the Middle East. And with the United States importing 25% of the total world's traded oil, I would assume that some percentage (even though it may or may not be a small percentage) of the oil that we import comes indirectly from the Middle East. Again, I think that number can not be quantified without access to some very complex government trade documentation, but I do think that the number exists.
That's just a fairy tale... Everybody knows the infant orphans are used to make whiskey.
Oh...no wonder whiskey tastes like heaven.
-
If you're speaking in terms of building a traditional portfolio, then yes, Trump is not a financial guru in that sense. Buffett's career may be more attuned to the widely accepted idea of a financial guru, but ultimately he was investing in something (shares of stock) just as Trump invested in something (real estate). Sure, Trump's line of work involving real estate has more of a marketing component to it, but ultimately he used his abilities to become a millionaire, and then subsequently to rebuild his business by coming out of billions of dollars of debt. He used his marketing prowess to make money, which, in my book, makes him a financial guru. Maybe "successful business man" would have been a better term? Semantics, I suppose.
You do make an interesting point though. No doubt, the guy has a financial mind.
One has to remember that Trump has been in real estate. Which is extremely volatile. He plays the market well and does as well as one can do in that line of business. Especially in Nevada. Not sure how Steve Wynn has been able to do as well as he has in LV the last 10 years.
-
You do make an interesting point though. No doubt, the guy has a financial mind.
One has to remember that Trump has been in real estate. Which is extremely volatile. He plays the market well and does as well as one can do in that line of business. Especially in Nevada. Not sure how Steve Wynn has been able to do as well as he has in LV the last 10 years.
People give Trump a lot of flack about declaring bankruptcy, but as you said, the real estate market is extremely volatile. Add onto that the fact that there was a (short-lived) recession in the early 1990's (Trump's first bankruptcy was in 1991), and I think it's not quite as big of a deal as people make it. Especially when you look at the fact that he managed to bounce back. It wasn't as if he was operating on a flawed financial scheme which would only support him for a limited time before the bubble would burst; he just hit some hard times and then bounced back doing exactly what he had done before.
But, in all honesty, I'm actually making myself a little nauseous by defending Trump. He's definitely not an ideal candidate for president. It's simply that Trump ≥ Obama.
-
But, yes, by playing the odds, I'm assuming that there must be a significant portion of Middle Eastern oil indirectly imported to many countries, even if those countries aren't America. It would be highly unlikely that Middle Eastern oil isn't being indirectly imported to some degree, given the fact that nearly 40% of all oil produced daily is from the Middle East, and an even larger percentage of proven reserves in the world exist in the Middle East. And with the United States importing 25% of the total world's traded oil, I would assume that some percentage (even though it may or may not be a small percentage) of the oil that we import comes indirectly from the Middle East. Again, I think that number can not be quantified without access to some very complex government trade documentation, but I do think that the number exists.
The "proven oil reserves" position is of no consequence. These "proven oil reserves" are not exactly marketable commodities and have no value in this discussion. They don't really impact trade until they are physically extracted. Dems bring this stuff up all of the time, but it's just a diversionary tactic. It's production that matters, along with the amounts that are traded between countries. The US could easily produce 2-3 times what we produce today, but our own gubme't is handicapping us.
-
The "proven oil reserves" position is of no consequence. These "proven oil reserves" are not exactly marketable commodities and have no value in this discussion. They don't really impact trade until they are physically extracted. Dems bring this stuff up all of the time, but it's just a diversionary tactic. It's production that matters, along with the amounts that are traded between countries. The US could easily produce 2-3 times what we produce today, but our own gubme't is handicapping us.
The existence of proven oil reserves indicate what a country could produce, absent various factors that affect production. Generally speaking, the more proven oil reserves that are owned by a country, the more oil that country will produce, which explains why 40% of the oil extracted/produced comes from Middle Eastern countries. As mentioned, there are a variety of factors that can affect this general premise, such as the Iraq war, but typically speaking, if a region has more proven oil reserves, they're going to produce and export more oil.
Even if this general idea of more supply = more production is still rejected as tenuous, the production/extraction figures directly show that the Middle East produces more oil than any other region. Not only do they simply produce/extract more oil than any other region, but they export more oil than any other region. That wouldn't be possible if they didn't sit on a massive amount of proven oil reserves like they do.
So yes, the mere existence of proven oil reserves doesn't directly prove that more oil is produced, but it is a logical assumption that more oil would be produced in countries with more proven oil reserves; this assumption is supported by the figures which do directly show the amount of oil produced and exported from Middle Eastern countries to be greater than other regions, which also happen to sit on fewer proven oil reserves.
However, I would have to disagree with you in regard to one thing: the marketability of proven oil reserves as a commodity. The commodities market deals with future interests; contracts are made today based upon predictions of the existence of extracted oil in the future, as well as other predictions involving demand, politics, war, and numerous other factors. This means that if the supply (number and size of proven oil reserves) is reported as getting smaller, then the price of oil cited in these futures contracts will increase; the proven oil reserves do affect the commodities trade even before being extracted. Because the storage costs of maintaining oil is too high to simply perform a massive extraction and stockpile what may be needed in the future, these contracts are based on commodities that have not yet been extracted. As a result, proven oil reserves are marketable commodities due to the fact that they are traded in the futures market, as most commodities are.
-
People give Trump a lot of flack about declaring bankruptcy, but as you said, the real estate market is extremely volatile. Add onto that the fact that there was a (short-lived) recession in the early 1990's (Trump's first bankruptcy was in 1991), and I think it's not quite as big of a deal as people make it. Especially when you look at the fact that he managed to bounce back. It wasn't as if he was operating on a flawed financial scheme which would only support him for a limited time before the bubble would burst; he just hit some hard times and then bounced back doing exactly what he had done before.
But, in all honesty, I'm actually making myself a little nauseous by defending Trump. He's definitely not an ideal candidate for president. It's simply that Trump ≥ Obama.
I'm in the same boat as you bolded above. I respect Trump a lot. Not sure if I want him to be my President though. Who knows - he could do a bang up job. But I wouldn't feel good about the prospects. At this point, he is better than Obama like you said. And thats why its easier to defend him. He is also making some valid points about Obama's lacking of good decision making.
-
Rofl my fucking copters...
How not to win the Presidency example #1...
Trump says he has good relationship with 'the blacks'
Washington (CNN) - As he continues to mull a presidential bid, or say he is mulling a presidential bid, business mogul Donald Trump is lamenting the fact President Obama appears to have locked up the black vote.
"I have a great relationship with the blacks," Trump told Albany's Talk Radio 1300 Thursday. "I've always had a great relationship with the blacks."
But Trump says it's a "very sad thing" such a high percentage of that demographic supports President Obama, for reasons, he believes, that are largely influenced by race. The discussion was spawned by a recent poll of New York voters that found 95 percent of black voters there approve of the president's job performance. The same poll found that the president's overall approval rating in New York stands at 54 percent.
"Look at Hillary Clinton," the reality television star continued in reference to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race. "Hillary Clinton did so much for the black population, so much and got very few votes."
"Look, I tell it like it is," he added. "Then you hear a political reporter go on and say, 'It had nothing to do with race.' But how come she got such a tiny piece of the vote. It's a very sad thing."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/14/trump-says-he-has-good-relationship-with-the-blacks/?iref=obinsite
-
The existence of proven oil reserves indicate what a country could produce, absent various factors that affect production...
Even if this general idea of more supply = more production is still rejected as tenuous, the production/extraction figures directly show that the Middle East produces more oil than any other region...
So yes, the mere existence of proven oil reserves doesn't directly prove that more oil is produced, but it is a logical assumption that more oil would be produced in countries with more proven oil reserves; this assumption is supported by the figures which do directly show the amount of oil produced and exported from Middle Eastern countries to be greater than other regions, which also happen to sit on fewer proven oil reserves.
I honestly don't understand how you seem so confident making this leap of fate. Yes, they have more "proven oil reserves", but US oil exploration is also tightly regulated. We don't exactly know what we have in the Gulf, ANWR, or along the eastern seaboard, so making your stretch is only possible as long as the Dems keep our oil industry handicapped, essentially manipulating the known supply. Again, they're artificially inflating energy prices by over-regulating our own oil industry. They don't have this in the Middle East as oil is their primary industry with exploration and production supported by their leaders.
However, I would have to disagree with you in regard to one thing: the marketability of proven oil reserves as a commodity. The commodities market deals with future interests; contracts are made today based upon predictions of the existence of extracted oil in the future, as well as other predictions involving demand, politics, war, and numerous other factors. This means that if the supply (number and size of proven oil reserves) is reported as getting smaller, then the price of oil cited in these futures contracts will increase; the proven oil reserves do affect the commodities trade even before being extracted. Because the storage costs of maintaining oil is too high to simply perform a massive extraction and stockpile what may be needed in the future, these contracts are based on commodities that have not yet been extracted. As a result, proven oil reserves are marketable commodities due to the fact that they are traded in the futures market, as most commodities are.
Sort of... I see what you're saying, but we're nowhere near scraping the bottom of the "barrel" when it comes to the supply available in these "proven oil reserves". Then, there's South Dakota, Norway, etc., etc... The known supply is far greater than the current production run rates over decades, if not centuries. I see how "supply" directly impacts futures trading of cows, corn, wheat and pork bellies, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch with oil. Production capability would seem to be a greater influence on the futures markets, and known supplies depleting to a level that would significantly impact future price is likely less of a concern right now. Of course, I'm looking at the overall picture and not considering the micro-issues associated with a particular region, company and/or single reserve.
-
I honestly don't understand how you seem so confident making this leap of fate. Yes, they have more "proven oil reserves", but US oil exploration is also tightly regulated. We don't exactly know what we have in the Gulf, ANWR, or along the eastern seaboard, so making your stretch is only possible as long as the Dems keep our oil industry handicapped, essentially manipulating the known supply. Again, they're artificially inflating energy prices by over-regulating our own oil industry. They don't have this in the Middle East as oil is their primary industry with exploration and production supported by their leaders.
It's not really a stretch. Yes, America may be sitting on more oil, but until you've found it, it can't be considered a proven oil reserve. Countries with more proven oil reserves are going to naturally export more oil than those with fewer proven oil reserves, regardless of the reason why there are fewer proven oil reserves in certain countries. You may be sitting on it, but until you find it, you can't export it. On the other hand, if you're sitting on it and you've found it in abundance, then it's a pretty safe assumption that you will export oil in relative proportion to the amount that you have readily available in the proven oil reserves.
Sort of... I see what you're saying, but we're nowhere near scraping the bottom of the "barrel" when it comes to the supply available in these "proven oil reserves". Then, there's South Dakota, Norway, etc., etc... The known supply is far greater than the current production run rates over decades, if not centuries. I see how "supply" directly impacts futures trading of cows, corn, wheat and pork bellies, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch with oil. Production capability would seem to be a greater influence on the futures markets, and known supplies depleting to a level that would significantly impact future price is likely less of a concern right now. Of course, I'm looking at the overall picture and not considering the micro-issues associated with a particular region, company and/or single reserve.
Definitely, the proven oil reserves that we have found so far will last us quite some time, and there are even other reserves that have not yet been exploited. However, various governments (and probably OPEC) keep estimates of whether oil reserves are decreasing or increasing. There have been a number of years when fossil fuel oil reserves have "decreased," according to the "experts." This can cause the price of oil to increase. Remember from 1990 - 1999, gas consistently hovered at around 99 cents a gallon? In mid to late 1999, the price spiked to around $1.10 and then aggressively increased from there, maintaining an average of about $1.40 for 2000-2003'ish before spiking again due to the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, etc.
This was largely due to the alleged "energy crisis" that was referred to in reports from the United States Department of Energy. Some of these reports went so far as to claim that oil reserves were decreasing in size, but most of the reports focused on a more quantifiable and believable stance: the rate at which we are finding new oil reserves is decreasing so that we will not be able to sustain our rate of oil consumption, which continued to grow each year. The last source I checked indicated that, based upon our current consumption rate and knowledge of existing oil reserves, we would be out of oil within 47 years if no additional reserves were to be found.
Now, as you said, there are a variety of oil reserves that have yet to be discovered, but with a futures market that revolves around speculation, these reports on the status of proven oil reserves do affect prices, even if those reports don't necessarily indicate that we're close to scraping the bottom of the barrel yet. Afterall, it's a futures market, so the speculators are more worried about instability in the long run than they are stability in the present.
-
Futures markets aren't as connected to reality as most people think. They are mainly used to "gamble" on the market or to protect a short position. Most futures contracts are never paid off in the traditional sense of the word. Holders normally buy an offsetting position to close their obligation. Makes this market even more of a self fulfilling prophesy than the equity or bond markets.
And fuck Donald Trump, and the horse that road in on him.
-
Back to the topic for a minute.......so what you are saying is that Trump is actually being taken serious?
-
Back to the topic for a minute.......so what you are saying is that Trump is actually being taken serious?
I understood him to say that a horse fucked him.
-
I understood him to say that a horse effed him.
Gonna have to give me a hint on that one.
So, really, people are taking Trump seriously?
-
It's not really a stretch. Yes, America may be sitting on more oil, but until you've found it, it can't be considered a proven oil reserve. Countries with more proven oil reserves are going to naturally export more oil than those with fewer proven oil reserves, regardless of the reason why there are fewer proven oil reserves in certain countries. You may be sitting on it, but until you find it, you can't export it. On the other hand, if you're sitting on it and you've found it in abundance, then it's a pretty safe assumption that you will export oil in relative proportion to the amount that you have readily available in the proven oil reserves.
You continue to parrot the party line simplistically tying this concept of "proven oil reserves" to production without acknowledging the handicapping impact of government over-regulation. My point here is that the US oil industry would explore (in other words, find more proven oil reserves) and produce more if the government would merely ease regulations. You are discussing a logical relationship of cause and effect, but you stop short of identifying the true cause as in why these "proven oil reserves" in the US seem to be on the decline. Today, we have more regulation on our oil industry than ever before, and some regulations evolve with our political climate.
Remember from 1990 - 1999, gas consistently hovered at around 99 cents a gallon? In mid to late 1999, the price spiked to around $1.10 and then aggressively increased from there, maintaining an average of about $1.40 for 2000-2003'ish before spiking again due to the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina, etc.
Actually, I remember paying 70 cents per gallon in the late 80s and early 90s.
This was largely due to the alleged "energy crisis" that was referred to in reports from the United States Department of Energy. Some of these reports went so far as to claim that oil reserves were decreasing in size, but most of the reports focused on a more quantifiable and believable stance: the rate at which we are finding new oil reserves is decreasing so that we will not be able to sustain our rate of oil consumption, which continued to grow each year. The last source I checked indicated that, based upon our current consumption rate and knowledge of existing oil reserves, we would be out of oil within 47 years if no additional reserves were to be found.
Yeah... There's always an apocalypse on the horizon, but as in most cases, this one is caused and hyped by an over-reaching government hellbent on obtaining more power and control. It's 47 years today, 25 years tomorrow and 53 years 2 weeks from now. In fact, I even recall hearing that we had less than 10 years before we ran out of oil. I've heard it all before. They just conveniently forget to tell us that we still have far more "unproved reserves" than all the "proven reserves" combined over the last 50+ years.
Now, as you said, there are a variety of oil reserves that have yet to be discovered, but with a futures market that revolves around speculation, these reports on the status of proven oil reserves do affect prices, even if those reports don't necessarily indicate that we're close to scraping the bottom of the barrel yet. Afterall, it's a futures market, so the speculators are more worried about instability in the long run than they are stability in the present.
Meanwhile, in the real world, futures traders are more skittish than stray dogs. The average futures trader doesn't have a clue about any proven oil reserves. Many are merely holding out for the next crisis that drives oil prices up and put several grand in their pocket.
-
You continue to parrot the party line simplistically tying this concept of "proven oil reserves" to production without acknowledging the handicapping impact of government over-regulation. My point here is that the US oil industry would explore (in other words, find more proven oil reserves) and produce more if the government would merely ease regulations. You are discussing a logical relationship of cause and effect, but you stop short of identifying the true cause as in why these "proven oil reserves" in the US seem to be on the decline. Today, we have more regulation on our oil industry than ever before, and some regulations evolve with our political climate.
Actually, I remember paying 70 cents per gallon in the late 80s and early 90s.
Yeah... There's always an apocalypse on the horizon, but as in most cases, this one is caused and hyped by an over-reaching government hellbent on obtaining more power and control. It's 47 years today, 25 years tomorrow and 53 years 2 weeks from now. In fact, I even recall hearing that we had less than 10 years before we ran out of oil. I've heard it all before. They just conveniently forget to tell us that we still have far more "unproved reserves" than all the "proven reserves" combined over the last 50+ years.
Meanwhile, in the real world, futures traders are more skittish than stray dogs. The average futures trader doesn't have a clue about any proven oil reserves. Many are merely holding out for the next crisis that drives oil prices up and put several grand in their pocket.
BINGO ^^^
-
Gonna have to give me a hint on that one.
So, really, people are taking Trump seriously?
If by 'people' you mean the Republican establishment; then I'd have to say the answer is 'no', he's not being taken seriously.
My personal, anecdotal-based opinion is that he's having a little fun with this like he's done in the past but he's not going to run for office.
I do think that the general public likes his brash, in-your-face attitude. Even I enjoyed seeing him smack-down little Georgi Stephanopoulous recently.
-
If by 'people' you mean the Republican establishment; then I'd have to say the answer is 'no', he's not being taken seriously.
My personal, anecdotal-based opinion is that he's having a little fun with this like he's done in the past but he's not going to run for office.
I do think that the general public likes his brash, in-your-face attitude. Even I enjoyed seeing him smack-down little Georgi Stephanopoulous recently.
Curious, I heard he is polling pretty well and I saw where he interviewed on Gretta Man Susteren and Hannity doing some interviews. I am not keeping up like I should, but it's easy to start listening to the news and then drinking heavily or finding something to do outside.
-
Curious, I heard he is polling pretty well and I saw where he interviewed on Gretta Man Susteren and Hannity doing some interviews. I am not keeping up like I should, but it's easy to start listening to the news and then drinking heavily or finding something to do outside.
Thats relative.
Polling well against other GOPs? Yes.
Polling well against the Obama-nation? Hell no. He would lose by double digits today per all the major polls.
-
Thats relative.
Polling well against other GOPs? Yes.
Polling well against the Obama-nation? Hell no. He would lose by double digits today per all the major polls.
I haven't looked at any polls, just hear the occasional headline or someone say, Trump is polling well.
-
To hell with Trump running for Prez. What a fucking joke. As far as getting Obama Bin Laden, I think Gingrich will be the only one capable of doing that.
-
Curious, I heard he is polling pretty well and I saw where he interviewed on Gretta Man Susteren and Hannity doing some interviews. I am not keeping up like I should, but it's easy to start listening to the news and then drinking heavily or finding something to do outside.
:suicide:
To hell with Trump running for Prez. What a fucking joke. :thumsup: As far as getting Obama Bin Laden, I think Gingrich will be the only one capable of doing that.
... :suicide: :suicide:
-
:suicide:
... :suicide: :suicide:
Yeah, yeah...... I actually like Greta Man, to me she has the least bias. I don't like Hannity that much, but I love me some Alisyn Camerota, Megyn Kelly, Jenna Lee, Julie Banderas, Courtney Friel.....I think you get the picture.
-
Yeah, yeah...... I actually like Greta Man, to me she has the least bias. I don't like Hannity that much, but I love me some Alisyn Camerota, Megyn Kelly, Jenna Lee, Julie Banderas, Courtney Friel.....I think you get the picture.
:thumsup:
Andrea Tantaros, Martha MacCallum, Ainsley Earhardt, Sandra Smith - you get the picture.
And I actually have to agree with AWK on Gingrich. Dude sold out to the neocons YEARS ago, post Contract with America. He's another Bush now IMHO.
-
:thumsup:
Andrea Tantaros, Martha MacCallum, Ainsley Earhardt, Sandra Smith - you get the picture.
And I actually have to agree with AWK on Gingrich. Dude sold out to the neocons YEARS ago, post Contract with America. He's another Bush now IMHO.
Palin, Trump, Newt: Do Not Want. Don't really care for Romney, damn sure don't want Crazy Mike.......sigh...........
-
Palin, Trump, Newt: Do Not Want. Don't really care for Romney, damn sure don't want Crazy Mike.......sigh...........
CHRIS FUCKING CHRISTIE needs to enter this race. Its his for the taking!! Same goes for Ryan, Jindal, Paul. Fuck the rest of em.
-
CHRIS effING CHRISTIE needs to enter this race. Its his for the taking!! Same goes for Ryan, Jindal, Paul. eff the rest of em.
Yeah, that would make me excited about it. I am really hoping that Jindal, Duncan D Hunter (the son), Paul and some of the others make huge strides and are able to make a go at it for the next round of elections. I don't think they are ready atm.
Uncle Sani, you and Jarhead would probably like to read up on Hunter. He is one of Americas best.
-
I'm not saying I like ole Newt either, I'm just speaking in terms of who I think would have the best chance of taking the White House. There will be tons of people who vote that will rely on name recognition, that sucks but I think this is the case for lots of folks who don't know shit about politics.
-
I'm not saying I like ole Newt either, I'm just speaking in terms of who I think would have the best chance of taking the White House. There will be tons of people who vote that will rely on name recognition, that sucks but I think this is the case for lots of folks who don't know shit about politics.
Tactically in a debate.....yes.
PR wise, in the light of public perception....no.
Newt, much like Palin, is very polarizing. He has a ton of skeletons in his closet as well personally, and don't think for a minute that the Obama-nation won't use it to lessen him.
Christie/Cain.
Christie/Paul.
Jindal/Ryan.
Christie/West
Hell, any combo of any of the above names is fine with me.
And yes, Hunter is good AUT1. His dad made a lot of sense in the last election. Like Tancredo and Paul, he was very blunt and said a lot of things that were true that people didn't wanna hear. Duncan D. would be fine by me.
-
Tactically in a debate.....yes.
PR wise, in the light of public perception....no.
Newt, much like Palin, is very polarizing. He has a ton of skeletons in his closet as well personally, and don't think for a minute that the Obama-nation won't use it to lessen him.
Christie/Cain.
Christie/Paul.
Jindal/Ryan.
Christie/West
Hell, any combo of any of the above names is fine with me.
And yes, Hunter is good AUT1. His dad made a lot of sense in the last election. Like Tancredo and Paul, he was very blunt and said a lot of things that were true that people didn't wanna hear. Duncan D. would be fine by me.
Like all of those combos as well................................but..........but, If I am just dreaming up a ticket. Give me Duncan D as Pres and Ron Paul as VP and I can call it a day and know that the country is in pretty good hands.
I know that several don't like ole Ron, but by god I do. His foreign policy scares the shit out of, but deep down I agree with it. I would love to pull all troops home, close off the borders, become self sufficient and tell the rest of the world to piss up a rope. In reality we can't afford to allow it, and as far as ebing self sufficient, it would take several years to get the infrastructure in place. Oh, but it would be nice.
-
Christie/Cain.
Christie/Paul.
Jindal/Ryan.
Christie/West
That does sound nice, but ask yourself how did Obama get to the White House? For the majority, its a popular thing. No one knew shit about this guy except for he could be the first African American President and lots of folks hated Bush, which meant they hated Republicans. People who didn't even usually voted came out for this guy. Every media outlet was pushing Obama and raised him up on a high cloud. Who ever is on the Republican ticket will have to sell their face just has much has their points; and be DAMN good doing it. Yes, Obama is taking a hit in the popular polls now but the man also has deep pockets. The Republicans can do it but they had better be smart on who gets to the "Finals" with tons of money to keep up. This is why who ever the Republican face will be, needs to be just has polarizing has Obama was the first go around.
-
That does sound nice, but ask yourself how did Obama get to the White House? For the majority, its a popular thing. No one knew shit about this guy except for he could be the first African American President and lots of folks hated Bush, which meant they hated Republicans. People who didn't even usually voted came out for this guy. Every media outlet was pushing Obama and raised him up on a high cloud. Who ever is on the Republican ticket will have to sell their face just has much has their points; and be DAMN good doing it. Yes, Obama is taking a hit in the popular polls now but the man also has deep pockets. The Republicans can do it but they had better be smart on who gets to the "Finals" with tons of money to keep up. This is why who ever the Republican face will be, needs to be just has polarizing has Obama was the first go around.
He won on pretty slogans, being against anything Bush, playing the "first african american" card to the max, style over substance and having the media (paper, magazines and tv) in his back pocket. Thats how.
Allen West or Herman Cain were much more deserving of being the first black President. And they are actually "African American", not mullato. Sounds harsh, but its true.
-
He won on pretty slogans, being against anything Bush, playing the "first african american" card to the max, style over substance and having the media (paper, magazines and tv) in his back pocket. Thats how.
Allen West or Herman Cain were much more deserving of being the first black President. And they are actually "African American", not mullato. Sounds harsh, but its true.
Thats exaclty my point. He was and will be a media darling during the Presidential race. The Republicans will have to have a guy ready to take that head on and have his own savvy to hang. Somebody that has iron balls and the wit to mind whip somebody. I'm telling you, this is how it is.
For the record, I wish Colin Powell would run for President. Everyone has their faults but this guy has Presidential material. Just wishful thinking.
-
Thats exaclty my point. He was and will be a media darling during the Presidential race. The Republicans will have to have a guy ready to take that head on and have his own savvy to hang. Somebody that has iron balls and the wit to mind whip somebody. I'm telling you, this is how it is.
For the record, I wish Colin Powell would run for President. Everyone has their faults but this guy has Presidential material. Just wishful thinking.
Colin Powell is a RINO. That is all.
-
For the record, I wish Colin Powell would run for President. Everyone has their faults but this guy has Presidential material. Just wishful thinking.
Him and Watts can kiss my ass. Their reasoning for voting for Obama, "The history of the occasion", not about what's best for our country, but for the history of the occasion. :facepalm: Worst reason I have ever heard for voting for someone.
In other words they voted for him for one reason and one reason only, even when their politics couldn't be any more different. It wasn't about race, or at least it shouldn't have been. It should have been about a guy who had almost no experience, shaddy connections, who was/is one of the most if not the most liberal man that was in Congress and how he would govern. Instead you had people like them coming out and the MSM making it all about race.
Look, I don't care if a guy is black, brown, white, green, orange, purple, pink....etc...etc...etc, if our politics line up, then I can and will support them.
-
There's an orange guy running for President?
-
Yes, this has been posted before but Glo-Zell's videos crack me up.
http://youtu.be/TswMeHnh2cA
-
There's an orange guy running for President?
If they are from the cast of Jersey Shore, then yes, there is a real good chance they are orange.
-
Him and Watts can kiss my ass. Their reasoning for voting for Obama, "The history of the occasion", not about what's best for our country, but for the history of the occasion. :facepalm: Worst reason I have ever heard for voting for someone.
In other words they voted for him for one reason and one reason only, even when their politics couldn't be any more different. It wasn't about race, or at least it shouldn't have been. It should have been about a guy who had almost no experience, shaddy connections, who was/is one of the most if not the most liberal man that was in Congress and how he would govern. Instead you had people like them coming out and the MSM making it all about race.
Look, I don't care if a guy is black, brown, white, green, orange, purple, pink....etc...etc...etc, if our politics line up, then I can and will support them.
The same people screaming that people didn't vote for Obama because he is black are the same people who voted for him BECAUSE he is black. Irony? Hypocrisy? I think so.
Note: Obama is technically only about 40% African/Black as his father had a slight bit of Middle Eastern descent through HIS father and grandfather, as well as the African (Kenyan) we all know about. Point being is that its techincally more accurate to use the term "First President of African American descent" than it is to say "the first Black President" since he is technically more white than he is anything else.
-
I don't remember hearing that. Powells reasoning for voting for Obama that is. If thats the case I must retract my earlier statement. That is a dumb ass reason to vote for someone. Exactly the same reason why so many others did. I don't give a rats ass if our President is black as long as he isn't shady like Obama. I just would like to see a guy in the White House with balls and intestinal fortitude. That is why I brought up Powell. There are a lot of characteristics of Powell I do like and are certainly a far cry from Obama.
-
You continue to parrot the party line simplistically tying this concept of "proven oil reserves" to production without acknowledging the handicapping impact of government over-regulation. My point here is that the US oil industry would explore (in other words, find more proven oil reserves) and produce more if the government would merely ease regulations. You are discussing a logical relationship of cause and effect, but you stop short of identifying the true cause as in why these "proven oil reserves" in the US seem to be on the decline. Today, we have more regulation on our oil industry than ever before, and some regulations evolve with our political climate.
I never said that there weren't "true" causes beyond the logical relationship that I stated. Regardless of why proven oil reserves aren't currently found in abundance in America, the basic premise still stands: More proven oil reserves = more oil production.
I agree with you as to why there aren't as many proven oil reserves in America, but that doesn't refute the logical premise that was stated. All you're saying is that if America changed its stance on drilling for oil domestically, and if we find more proven oil reserves, then America would be in a better position to produce more oil domestically and rely less on foreign oil. This is true, and in fact just goes to support my premise that more proven oil reserves = more oil production.
Yeah... There's always an apocalypse on the horizon, but as in most cases, this one is caused and hyped by an over-reaching government hellbent on obtaining more power and control. It's 47 years today, 25 years tomorrow and 53 years 2 weeks from now. In fact, I even recall hearing that we had less than 10 years before we ran out of oil. I've heard it all before. They just conveniently forget to tell us that we still have far more "unproved reserves" than all the "proven reserves" combined over the last 50+ years.
Meanwhile, in the real world, futures traders are more skittish than stray dogs. The average futures trader doesn't have a clue about any proven oil reserves. Many are merely holding out for the next crisis that drives oil prices up and put several grand in their pocket.
Of course, I agree there...that's why I said the following:
The commodities market deals with future interests; contracts are made today based upon predictions of the existence of extracted oil in the future, as well as other predictions involving demand, politics, war, and numerous other factors. This means that if the supply (number and size of proven oil reserves) is reported as getting smaller, then the price of oil cited in these futures contracts will increase; the proven oil reserves do affect the commodities trade even before being extracted.
I'm with you in stating that all of these studies and reports are complete guesses based upon estimated information, and that more often than not, they are exaggerated so as to create fear and rumors about our "vastly depleted" source of energy. The futures market speculators obviously paid attention to the big "energy crisis" reported in 2000, which partially explains the sudden spike in gas prices during that time. Did the speculators believe the hype? Maybe, maybe not, but my point was that reports on the status of oil reserves do affect the market, regardless of whether they affect the market out of fear or greed.
-
I never said that there weren't "true" causes beyond the logical relationship that I stated. Regardless of why proven oil reserves aren't currently found in abundance in America, the basic premise still stands: More proven oil reserves = more oil production.
I agree with you as to why there aren't as many proven oil reserves in America, but that doesn't refute the logical premise that was stated. All you're saying is that if America changed its stance on drilling for oil domestically, and if we find more proven oil reserves, then America would be in a better position to produce more oil domestically and rely less on foreign oil. This is true, and in fact just goes to support my premise that more proven oil reserves = more oil production.
I understand what you're saying, but as they say, "correlation does not [always] imply causation." We could produce more even with the currently known reserves. Several of these known reserves don't even have extraction/production facilities because the gubme't won't permit them under the current political leadership.
-
I understand what you're saying, but as they say, "correlation does not [always] imply causation." We could produce more even with the currently known reserves. Several of these known reserves don't even have extraction/production facilities because the gubme't won't permit them under the current political leadership.
True...and I think the reason that the government won't permit more production is because of all of the inaccurate propaganda being spread concerning the capacity of the reserves. That and the fact that they can, in effect, have more control over the prices by producing less. Yay government control!
-
True...and I think the reason that the government won't permit more production is because of all of the inaccurate propaganda being spread concerning the capacity of the reserves. That and the fact that they can, in effect, have more control over the prices by producing less. Yay government control!
You seem to have changed your stripes a bit since your last visit in 2010. Good to see you and GarMan getting along. :thumsup:
-
You seem to have changed your stripes a bit since your last visit in 2010. Good to see you and GarMan getting along. :thumsup:
Not sure what you mean by changing my stripes. If you're referring to my political stances having changed, they haven't; this is just a different political topic than has previously been discussed. If you're talking about a change in attitude...well, my last discussions with GarMan just went sour and insults were thrown about on both sides. It's not really a change in attitude, it's just how things are after a cooling off period.
Oh, and I'm only getting along with GarMan because I miss his weiner. <3 :wartim: <3
-
Oh, and I'm only getting along with GarMan because I miss his weiner. <3 :wartim: <3
It's true. He loves teh cock! He can't get enough.
-
It's true. He loves teh cock! He can't get enough.
I'm sensing that two are about to become one.
-
I'm sensing that two are about to become one.
(http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/997/661386.JPG)
-
I'm sensing that two are about to become one.
(http://www.brokebacklist.com/brokeback-bruce.jpg)
-
Oh, and I'm only getting along with GarMan because I miss his weiner. <3 :wartim: <3
It's true. He loves teh cock! He can't get enough.
I'm sensing that two are about to become one.
Thread just took an interesting turn. AWK will be jealous about the 2nd quote.
-
Not sure what you mean by changing my stripes. If you're referring to my political stances having changed, they haven't; this is just a different political topic than has previously been discussed. If you're talking about a change in attitude...well, my last discussions with GarMan just went sour and insults were thrown about on both sides. It's not really a change in attitude, it's just how things are after a cooling off period.
Oh, and I'm only getting along with GarMan because I miss his weiner. <3 :wartim: <3
I just meant you seem more moderate and negotiable this go round. Thats a good thing.
A couple of years under the ONE will do that. :poke: J/k ya.
-
Landing in my Inbox today... I hope none of these guys end up near the top.
Paul essentially claims that Islamic extremism is our fault. Blame America first? Never mind history...
http://www.youtube.com/v/XYbLR03JnYE
Gingrich is as much a part of the energy problem as the extreme Leftists and other RINOs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265555/gingrich-received-over-300k-work-ethanol-lobbying-group-katrina-trinko
Trump is a fraud. You don't give money to Democrats while claiming to be a Repiglican.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/04/trump-donated-50000-to-rahm-emanuels-mayoral-bid.html
-
If Trump continues to show up on Anderson Cooper every other night, we want have to worry about him making it to the run-offs.
-
I thought you only loved me Garman, you cheating whure.
-
Landing in my Inbox today... I hope none of these guys end up near the top.
Paul essentially claims that Islamic extremism is our fault. Blame America first? Never mind history...
http://www.youtube.com/v/XYbLR03JnYE
Gingrich is as much a part of the energy problem as the extreme Leftists and other RINOs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265555/gingrich-received-over-300k-work-ethanol-lobbying-group-katrina-trinko
Trump is a fraud. You don't give money to Democrats while claiming to be a Repiglican.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/04/trump-donated-50000-to-rahm-emanuels-mayoral-bid.html
Agree with you on Newt, his energy policy would be shit. Still can't believe that he did the commercial with Pelosi a few years back. I can't see the Paul video here at work, they have the youtubes blocked.
I can't blame Trump in a way. It makes for shitty politics, but it makes for smart business. I know a guy that owns a paving company, he will donate to both parties, he hates everything a Dem stands for, but if we get a Dem gov, it looks good that his company donated funds.
-
More on Trump...
1) "I probably identify more as Democrat."
--Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2004
Then, run as a Democrat.
2) "I've been around for a long time. And it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
--Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2004
I guess you haven't been paying attention.
3) "Nancy — you're the best. Congrats. Donald."
--Handwritten note to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, January 2007
Really?
4) "Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States."
--Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2007
Oh... But now, you're saying Obama is the worst.
5) "I'm totally pro-choice."
--Interview with Fox News Sunday, October 1999
Good for you!
6) "I want to see the abortion issue removed from politics. I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors."
--Remarks to reporters, December 1999
Yeah! Keep those stupid males out of it! And, let's hear it for those partial birth and late term abortions!!!
7) "I'm very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health care."
--Interview with CNN's Larry King, October 1999.
With abortions on demand, for everyone!
8) "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans... We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan."
--Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
Health insurance and personal responsibility could accomplish the same thing without the government forcing everyone to stand in line.
9) "By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest individuals and trusts, we can put America on sound financial footing for the next century."
--Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000
Today, it would be $5M for every person with a net worth over $1M, over $10M for every tax return filed by the top 1% of wage earners, and over $100k for every personal income tax return filed in the US.
10) "I think he [Obama] has a chance to go down as a great president."
--Interview with NY1, November 2008
I "think" you were wrong... again.
-
I thought you only loved me Garman, you cheating whure.
Don't hate! You'll always be my favorite Sissy-Boy. Bitch...
-
Not making a case for Trump, just that I don't blame him from a business standpoint of donating to both parties and then later cashing in on those political favors. That is the way the system works currently. The system needs to be overhauled, but at status quo, you can't blame him for that. Now, you can blame him for the comments you listed.
-
And I still can't believe that we are talking about Trump like he has a real chance.
-
And I still can't believe that we are talking about Trump like he has a real chance.
Personally, I don't believe that he really has a chance, but I'm concerned that he'll pull a Perot by launching an independent campaign pulling voters away from the Republican candidate.
-
Personally, I don't believe that he really has a chance, but I'm concerned that he'll pull a Perot by launching an independent campaign pulling voters away from the Republican candidate.
That is the most likely case.
-
Personally, I don't believe that he really has a chance, but I'm concerned that he'll pull a Perot by launching an independent campaign pulling voters away from the Republican candidate.
Not to sound tin foil or anything, but SOME think this is his ultimate plan. To keep Obama in power.
Somewhat agree with you on the Ron Paul Islamic stand. If its our fault, then why in the hell have they been practicing Jihad since the 7th Century. It's like blaming global warming in the 1700's on automobiles. I do like how he wants to just leave them the hell alone over there, let em kill each other, seal up the borders and as AUT1 said - tell em all to piss up a rope.
-
Somewhat agree with you on the Ron Paul Islamic stand. If its our fault, then why in the hell have they been practicing Jihad since the 7th Century. It's like blaming global warming in the 1700's on automobiles. I do like how he wants to just leave them the hell alone over there, let em kill each other, seal up the borders and as AUT1 said - tell em all to piss up a rope.
If that would only work... This Islamic Extremism hates the Western World. There is no ignoring them. We have to directly deal with them, and eventually on a broader scale to resolve this for the future.
-
If that would only work... This Islamic Extremism hates the Western World. There is no ignoring them. We have to directly deal with them, and eventually on a broader scale to resolve this for the future.
I'm thinking these plans should include pig fat somewhere.
-
Not to sound tin foil or anything, but SOME think this is his ultimate plan. To keep Obama in power.
I now am behind this 100% but I really don't think Trump even gives a shit about even making it to actual voting. The quotes G-man points out sure is interesting. I know this also may sound all tin-foil and shit but I seriously think that this is a Dem ploy having Trump in the pic. Trump keeps opening his mouth and shit comes out. CNN is hammering away on Trump and his Obama so called "vandetta". Before too long this will be see has a racism thing and the Republicans will be blamed. I'm telling you, this is a ploy.
-
I'm thinking these plans should include pig fat somewhere.
Bacon... Everything is better with bacon.
-
I now am behind this 100% but I really don't think Trump even gives a shit about even making it to actual voting. The quotes G-man points out sure is interesting. I know this also may sound all tin-foil and shit but I seriously think that this is a Dem ploy having Trump in the pic. Trump keeps opening his mouth and shit comes out. CNN is hammering away on Trump and his Obama so called "vandetta". Before too long this will be see has a racism thing and the Republicans will be blamed. I'm telling you, this is a ploy.
CNN and the Obama camp hammering him makes sense. If what I said is true, then Trump would be aiming at taking away votes from the right/middle, not the left. He'll split the ticket ala Taft(GOP)/Teddy(Progressive/Bull Moose) in 1912. And to a lesser extent like Perot in 1992.
-
There is no ignoring them. We have to directly deal with them butt rape their families, and eventually on a broader scale turn their homeland into glass to resolve this for the future.
FTFY.
-
FTFY.
Pretty much!
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824.html
Sorry, birthers.
-
Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama's Placenta
AUGUST 27, 2009 | ISSUE 45•35
WASHINGTON–In the continuing controversy surrounding the president's U.S. citizenship, a new fringe group informally known as "Afterbirthers" demanded Monday the authentication of Barack Obama's placenta from his time inside his mother's womb. "All we are asking is that the president produce a sample of his fetal membranes and vessels—preferably along with a photo of the crowning and delivery—and this will all be over," said former presidential candidate and Afterbirthers spokesman Alan Keyes, later adding that his organization would be willing to settle for a half-liter of maternal cord plasma. "To this day, the American people have not seen a cervical mucus plug, let alone one that has been signed and notarized by a state-certified Hawaiian health official. If the president was indeed born in the manner in which he claims, then where is his gestation sac?" Keyes said that if Obama did not soon produce at least a bloody bedsheet from his conception, Afterbirthers would push forward with efforts to exhume the president's deceased mother and inspect the corpse's pelvic bone and birth canal
http://www.theonion.com/articles/afterbirthers-demand-to-see-obamas-placenta,6866/
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824.html
Sorry, birthers.
Looks shopped to me.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824.html
Sorry, birthers.
And thats fine. That's all anyone ever asked for. Keep in mind that Obama made the big deal out of this by NOT showing it a lot sooner. He could have avoided this hoopla a long time ago.
-
And thats fine. That's all anyone ever asked for. Keep in mind that Obama made the big deal out of this by NOT showing it a lot sooner. He could have avoided this hoopla a long time ago.
Agreed!
Now, I hope Trump shuts the hell up about it and moves on.....which will be something else for him to bitch about.
-
And thats fine. That's all anyone ever asked for. Keep in mind that Obama made the big deal out of this by NOT showing it a lot sooner. He could have avoided this hoopla a long time ago.
Well, all of the doubts about his citizenship began in 2008 to my recollection. He released an image of his birth certificate on June 12, 2008.
Sure, people claimed it was photoshopped, but apparently people were also harassing the Hawaii Department of Health regarding his birth certificate. Although you can't obtain a certified copy of someone else's birth certificate, they are public records.
So why didn't any of the birthers who looked into this produce the information that they obtained from public records? Did they think the public records had been tampered with as well? If that's the case, then I don't see why this certified birth certificate would make any difference to them, which I think is the point Obama was trying to make.
-
Well, all of the doubts about his citizenship began in 2008 to my recollection. He released an image of his birth certificate on June 12, 2008.
Sure, people claimed it was photoshopped, but apparently people were also harassing the Hawaii Department of Health regarding his birth certificate. Although you can't obtain a certified copy of someone else's birth certificate, they are public records.
So why didn't any of the birthers who looked into this produce the information that they obtained from public records? Did they think the public records had been tampered with as well? If that's the case, then I don't see why this certified birth certificate would make any difference to them, which I think is the point Obama was trying to make.
Agree. I just think he dealt with/handled this poorly.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824.html
Sorry, birthers.
Not that I thought there was ever an issue, something stinks about this. The excuse for not sharing this sooner doesn't hold water.
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187604576288811924282824.html
Sorry, birthers.
Not that I thought there was ever an issue, something stinks about this. The excuse for not sharing this sooner doesn't hold water.
This issue regarding the Birth Certificate has been a very convenient red herring for the Pharaoh Obama's Administration to exploit at the expense of the opposition for years! The only reason The ONE is releasing this information now is that he needs a distraction from the real problems...and the high gas price, which affects everyone, is the top of the list.
It's all part of the political game.
And what you're smelling is the stink of the political red herring.