|
|
On May 01 2012 02:14 zachMEISTER wrote:I want to see where they obtained all the "all time high" stats. I don't think our the Nation's fuel production is at an 8 year high, I think we've been running at maximum capacity for quite a while, and the reason our gas prices are so high is because our fuel infrastructure can't handle the volume. Though, I don't know much about these kinds of things. Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that.
You know, you "thinking" the statement is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong... Why would you say it's "misinformation" and say it's appalling they're doing that when the statement is in reality perfectly true, as can be easily verified?
http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/monthly-fuel-ethanol-production-demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States
|
|
|
As a neighbour from the north, I find following these pro-anti Obama debates interesting.
I'll throw out something positive that's come during his presidency (and please read the following explanation)- everybody stopped hating the US.
>> Now I'm not saying I do, or that I think it's justified, but there has been an obvious air of dislike when it comes to the US in the international community over the last decade. I don't attribute all of that to Bush, but quite frankly, many people outside of the US thought he was a war monger (I am not one of them). This "Amerrrkuhhh is the best" mentality strikes a lot of nerves internationally (look no further than the "X is from America, because he's a foreigner, and ALL foreigners are American" comments that pop up in every SC2 live report imaginable). When Obama was elected, a lot of the stereotypical prejudices- again just or not- were shed. As a Canadian I never thought I'd see the day where the right-wing (or more honestly, the redneck population) would allow an elected black president. I know it's not in their control, but I'm sure many other internationals felt similarly. Low and behold, it did come about. Obama doesn't really deserve credit for this, nor should that earn him another 4 years in office. However I feel it's worth noting that the sharp contrast he presented to the 8 years prior of governing was a welcomed change abroad. Not everyone agrees with his politics, but at least globally, just about everyone prefers him running your country to George Dubya.
[edit: this is meant to imply that most people do not like the correlation a Republican brings with them (re Bush). When Republicans are so fanatical and right wing these days, the contrast between Obama/Republican Candidate is sharpened, and the republican is associated to being more "Bush'like" - something I think most people even inside the US do not want]
Onto the topic at hand- I really think the American electorate should turn it's magnifying glass inwards at the senseless extremes of your current bi-partisan politics. Watching Obama try to get anything through the senate/congress is like watching paint dry. The worst part is, you know the paints a wrong colour, and nothing will come of it anyways. I don't think Obama has lived up to the hype of "CHAAAANGE" he brought with him. I do not believe he has done enough to rid himself of the burdens left to him from the previous presidency, though I do not think George W. Bush is the reason for all that has gone wrong in the US. Obama is doing nothing because he can't get anything done. I have great admiration for the principles of bi-partisan politics and what it means to Americans, but the fanaticism from both parties has handcuffed your President and his presidency, and I don't see a change in sight until something changes in that regards.
Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ .
Thoughts?
|
On May 01 2012 02:14 zachMEISTER wrote:I want to see where they obtained all the "all time high" stats. I don't think our the Nation's fuel production is at an 8 year high, I think we've been running at maximum capacity for quite a while, and the reason our gas prices are so high is because our fuel infrastructure can't handle the volume. Though, I don't know much about these kinds of things. Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that.
I followed the link at the end of the video. The fuel production being the highest in 16 years is from here:
http://www.barackobama.com/energy-info
The source for the graph in that link is apparently the US Energy Information Administration.
|
On May 01 2012 02:43 Durp wrote:
As a neighbour from the north, I find following these pro-anti Obama debates interesting.
I'll throw out something positive that's come during his presidency (and please read the following explanation)- everybody stopped hating the US.
>> Now I'm not saying I do, or that I think it's justified, but there has been an obvious air of dislike when it comes to the US in the international community over the last decade. I don't attribute all of that to Bush, but quite frankly, many people outside of the US thought he was a war monger (I am not one of them). This "Amerrrkuhhh is the best" mentality strikes a lot of nerves internationally (look no further than the "X is from America, because he's a foreigner, and ALL foreigners are American" comments that pop up in every SC2 live report imaginable). When Obama was elected, a lot of the stereotypical prejudices- again just or not- were shed. As a Canadian I never thought I'd see the day where the right-wing (or more honestly, the redneck population) would allow an elected black president. I know it's not in their control, but I'm sure many other internationals felt similarly. Low and behold, it did come about. Obama doesn't really deserve credit for this, nor should that earn him another 4 years in office. However I feel it's worth noting that the sharp contrast he presented to the 8 years prior of governing was a welcomed change abroad. Not everyone agrees with his politics, but at least globally, just about everyone prefers him running your country to George Dubya.
[edit: this is meant to imply that most people do not like the correlation a Republican brings with them (re Bush). When Republicans are so fanatical and right wing these days, the contrast between Obama/Republican Candidate is sharpened, and the republican is associated to being more "Bush'like" - something I think most people even inside the US do not want]
Onto the topic at hand- I really think the American electorate should turn it's magnifying glass inwards at the senseless extremes of your current bi-partisan politics. Watching Obama try to get anything through the senate/congress is like watching paint dry. The worst part is, you know the paints a wrong colour, and nothing will come of it anyways. I don't think Obama has lived up to the hype of "CHAAAANGE" he brought with him. I do not believe he has done enough to rid himself of the burdens left to him from the previous presidency, though I do not think George W. Bush is the reason for all that has gone wrong in the US. Obama is doing nothing because he can't get anything done. I have great admiration for the principles of bi-partisan politics and what it means to Americans, but the fanaticism from both parties has handcuffed your President and his presidency, and I don't see a change in sight until something changes in that regards.
Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ .
Thoughts?
The better metaphor is that the paint never dries because the legislation can't be passed to buy the paint and put the paint on the surface.
|
An interesting stat is the following.
At 1:59 of the video it shows a graph that says 4.1 million private sector jobs have been created under Obama (compared to the 4.4 million lost from the start of the crisis up until his inauguration).
Therefore, it seems the private sector is pretty much back to where it was pre-GFC.
But what about the public sector?
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/25/opinion/042512krugman4/042512krugman4-blog480.jpg)
Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/american-austerity/
On one hand, Obama's failure to do more to help public sector employment has been very bad for the economy. The above stats show that private sector seems pretty much fine.
On the other hand, the GOP claiming that Obama has presided over a massive expansion of government is a complete and utter lie.
Obama != big government.
|
On May 01 2012 02:43 Durp wrote:
I'll throw out something positive that's come during his presidency (and please read the following explanation)- everybody stopped hating the US.
This is something people like to say but I don't see any substantive changes in attitude toward the US. I think it was easy and acceptable to do lots of America-bashing when Bush was president, just like it's nice to pay lip service to how great America is when we have a Democratic president.
But how much has actually changed? Not that much. The US still struggles with trade and currency tiffs. At the end of the day, Canada's oil and timber still goes to the highest bidder. Diplomatically, the Obama administration still has to twist arms and trade horses like Bush did.
In the end, I think this kind of superficial "I hate X leader or X party" is an idiotic reason to support one side or the other. The question is whether Obama or Romney will enact policies that are better for America and better for the world. With these economic debates, both sides are partially right. Democrats are right in saying that if America has a choice between protecting its credit rating or mitigating suffering among citizens, the government must always first do right by the people. But Republicans are right to question whether the solutions Obama has tried are cost-effective and pointing out that giving the government more power has troubling implications.
IMO you're not going to get very far insisting that one side is always right and the other is always wrong. Politics necessarily has to play out that way, but citizens need to take a more reasonable attitude.
|
Gah I had a funny feeling that "we killed osama" would be used in the re-election... Call me a consipracy nut, but it does seem rather coincidental that they "finally" find him, he got younger, almost the entire special forces team died weeks later in a helicopter crash, they shot him unarmed, and they dumped his body in the ocean, and showed no proof to anyone that it even happened... SEEEMSS rather odd.
Anywho, cool video nonetheless, I'm sure all of the brainwashed civilians will vote for it, but between Romney and Obama, I mean... Choose between corruption and even more corruption, might as well stay with obama because at least he can put on a nice smile as he lies, and not sound like a neo-bush, intellectually handicapped this one be !
|
On May 01 2012 03:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Gah I had a funny feeling that "we killed osama" would be used in the re-election... Call me a consipracy nut, but it does seem rather coincidental that they "finally" find him, he got younger, almost the entire special forces team died weeks later in a helicopter crash, they shot him unarmed, and they dumped his body in the ocean, and showed no proof to anyone that it even happened... SEEEMSS rather odd.
He did not get younger, and the men who died were not the same who participated in the operation. There was nothing odd about the operation, it simply happened.
|
On May 01 2012 03:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 03:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Gah I had a funny feeling that "we killed osama" would be used in the re-election... Call me a consipracy nut, but it does seem rather coincidental that they "finally" find him, he got younger, almost the entire special forces team died weeks later in a helicopter crash, they shot him unarmed, and they dumped his body in the ocean, and showed no proof to anyone that it even happened... SEEEMSS rather odd. He did not get younger, and the men who died were not the same who participated in the operation. There was nothing odd about the operation, it simply happened.
Additionaly Clinton already had a shot at killing Osama but couldnt because his intelligence wasnt willing to sign off on the kill. Bush later stopped the search and moved the rescources to hunting other terrorists while Obama then assigned them back to it. found him again and finaly got everyone to agree to kill him.
|
On May 01 2012 02:43 Durp wrote:
As a neighbour from the north, I find following these pro-anti Obama debates interesting.
I'll throw out something positive that's come during his presidency (and please read the following explanation)- everybody stopped hating the US.
>> Now I'm not saying I do, or that I think it's justified, but there has been an obvious air of dislike when it comes to the US in the international community over the last decade. I don't attribute all of that to Bush, but quite frankly, many people outside of the US thought he was a war monger (I am not one of them). This "Amerrrkuhhh is the best" mentality strikes a lot of nerves internationally (look no further than the "X is from America, because he's a foreigner, and ALL foreigners are American" comments that pop up in every SC2 live report imaginable). When Obama was elected, a lot of the stereotypical prejudices- again just or not- were shed. As a Canadian I never thought I'd see the day where the right-wing (or more honestly, the redneck population) would allow an elected black president. I know it's not in their control, but I'm sure many other internationals felt similarly. Low and behold, it did come about. Obama doesn't really deserve credit for this, nor should that earn him another 4 years in office. However I feel it's worth noting that the sharp contrast he presented to the 8 years prior of governing was a welcomed change abroad. Not everyone agrees with his politics, but at least globally, just about everyone prefers him running your country to George Dubya.
[edit: this is meant to imply that most people do not like the correlation a Republican brings with them (re Bush). When Republicans are so fanatical and right wing these days, the contrast between Obama/Republican Candidate is sharpened, and the republican is associated to being more "Bush'like" - something I think most people even inside the US do not want]
Onto the topic at hand- I really think the American electorate should turn it's magnifying glass inwards at the senseless extremes of your current bi-partisan politics. Watching Obama try to get anything through the senate/congress is like watching paint dry. The worst part is, you know the paints a wrong colour, and nothing will come of it anyways. I don't think Obama has lived up to the hype of "CHAAAANGE" he brought with him. I do not believe he has done enough to rid himself of the burdens left to him from the previous presidency, though I do not think George W. Bush is the reason for all that has gone wrong in the US. Obama is doing nothing because he can't get anything done. I have great admiration for the principles of bi-partisan politics and what it means to Americans, but the fanaticism from both parties has handcuffed your President and his presidency, and I don't see a change in sight until something changes in that regards.
Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ .
Thoughts?
Does not really bother me that he is refered to as Obama. I am pretty sure Bush was sometimes refered to as just "Bush" during those elections. Plus Romney and other republicans are just trying to connect with the average American (well the average independent or republican) who thinks of Obama as... Obama. I mean who actually refers to him as "President Obama" all the time unless they are a blind supporter. Anyway I think you can find examples of both references from most of the repbulican candidates.
|
Romney hasn't won the nomination. This thread has no validity.
|
On May 01 2012 04:32 kevinmon wrote:
Romney hasn't won the nomination. This thread has no validity.
Then don't post in it and go to the "Republican nominations" thread if you want to discuss the Republican nominations :-)
|
On May 01 2012 02:43 Durp wrote:
Also, and this is a question to the Americans here: Does it not bother any of you that during all the Republican primaries and debates, and on television, that Barack Obama is not referred to as President Obama? I've always felt that the Presidency was something to be treated with respect, and it always seems so classless to me when I'm watching a Romney or a Santorum or a ________ (insert Republican) refer to him as "Obama." To him, and every other American, he ought to be President Obama, at least for about another year. I assume if the Republican was elected, they would expect to be referred to as President (Romney) ___ .
Thoughts?
Just to answer your question. It doesn't bother me that people just call him Obama, just like it didn't bother me when people didn't call Bush President Bush. I rarely hear anyone, Republican or Democrat, call him President Obama. It's not like it is just something Republicans are doing out of disrespect.
|
On May 01 2012 02:26 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:14 zachMEISTER wrote:I want to see where they obtained all the "all time high" stats. I don't think our the Nation's fuel production is at an 8 year high, I think we've been running at maximum capacity for quite a while, and the reason our gas prices are so high is because our fuel infrastructure can't handle the volume. Though, I don't know much about these kinds of things. Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that. You know, you "thinking" the statement is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong... Why would you say it's "misinformation" and say it's appalling they're doing that when the statement is in reality perfectly true, as can be easily verified? http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/monthly-fuel-ethanol-production-demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States
I was never meaning for my "thought" to be taken as word. The entire comment was more a mental summary of my thoughts, rather than trying to persuade anyone. I have just heard several times from several sources, albeit over a long period of time without my taking serious mental notation every time I heard said fact. But I just feel that it's misinforming the public with some kind of fact that's not actually true.
Such as saying fuel production is at an 8 year high, when it's actually just been the same production rate for 8 years.
That would be something I'd consider misinformation. Why?
We've maintained our fuel output rate at maximum level for 8 years!
doesn't sound as good. But it seems it
Which leads to me saying that, "I think we've been running at maximum capacity..."
Continuing that statement, I said, "Though I don't know much about these kinds of things."
I guess you'd feel better if I said, "I think those are just tid bits of misinformation.."??
I don't understand how you can read what I said, and feel like I'm declaring it as truth.
IF what I think is true, then it's appalling they're shedding those "statistics" as some kind of awesome, powerful, pro-Obama fact
|
On May 01 2012 06:02 zachMEISTER wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 02:26 kwizach wrote:On May 01 2012 02:14 zachMEISTER wrote:I want to see where they obtained all the "all time high" stats. I don't think our the Nation's fuel production is at an 8 year high, I think we've been running at maximum capacity for quite a while, and the reason our gas prices are so high is because our fuel infrastructure can't handle the volume. Though, I don't know much about these kinds of things. Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that. You know, you "thinking" the statement is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong... Why would you say it's "misinformation" and say it's appalling they're doing that when the statement is in reality perfectly true, as can be easily verified? http://ethanolrfa.org/pages/monthly-fuel-ethanol-production-demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States I was never meaning for my "thought" to be taken as word. The entire comment was more a mental summary of my thoughts, rather than trying to persuade anyone. I have just heard several times from several sources, albeit over a long period of time without my taking serious mental notation every time I heard said fact. But I just feel that it's misinforming the public with some kind of fact that's not actually true. Such as saying fuel production is at an 8 year high, when it's actually just been the same production rate for 8 years.That would be something I'd consider misinformation. Why? We've maintained our fuel output rate at maximum level for 8 years! doesn't sound as good. But it seems it Which leads to me saying that, "I think we've been running at maximum capacity..." Continuing that statement, I said, "Though I don't know much about these kinds of things." I guess you'd feel better if I said, "I think those are just tid bits of misinformation.."?? I don't understand how you can read what I said, and feel like I'm declaring it as truth. IF what I think is true, then it's appalling they're shedding those "statistics" as some kind of awesome, powerful, pro-Obama fact
Yes, I do think writing "Those are just tid bits of misinformation that mislead large amounts of people and I find it appalling that they do that" makes you sound more assertive than you say you were. I just gave you two links that show your impression/feeling was wrong, though, so do you acknowledge it wasn't misinformation? :-)
|
On May 01 2012 04:32 kevinmon wrote:
Romney hasn't won the nomination. This thread has no validity.
So come back in a few months
|
On May 01 2012 04:32 kevinmon wrote:
Romney hasn't won the nomination. This thread has no validity.
This. The rules for this thread say we can't talk about people who won't be on the ballot in November. However, we don't know who will be on the ballot, so how are we supposed to know who we can and can't talk about?
|
Stop living in your own little world. Fine Ron Paul might drag this out untill the convention but he will never be able to secure the nomination.
Liking a guy and supporting his ideas is nice but be realistic.
|
Taking bets that Romney wins and Paul does not. I will give you amazing odds, 10 bucks for every dollar you put in. I.E. if you bet 5 dollars and Paul wins, then you get 50. If he does not win I get your 5 dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
