I'm not voting for Obama simply because he couldn't deliver the coup de grace to Clinton in the Texas/Ohio primaries. Which only comes to prove despite the fact that he is charismatic he isn't able to unite the country.
Sure he has a pretty good chance of winning the nomination but I'll only be a bittersweet victory. But quite a few Democrats and independents will turn tail to McCain. Party allegiance isnt set in stone in America unfortunately.
So the only way out of this is if Clinton and Obama sit down and discuss running on the same ticket. Id rather see Clinton or Obama as president then McCain.
I'm not voting for Obama simply because he couldn't deliver the coup de grace to Clinton in the Texas/Ohio primaries. Which only comes to prove despite the fact that he is charismatic he isn't able to unite the country.
Sure he has a pretty good chance of winning the nomination but I'll only be a bittersweet victory. But quite a few Democrats and independents will turn tail to McCain. Party allegiance isnt set in stone in America unfortunately.
So the only way out of this is if Clinton and Obama sit down and discuss running on the same ticket. Id rather see Clinton or Obama as president then McCain.
fortunatly they are not set in stone. im glade i have the choice to vote for the person who
best represents my personal views and morals.I would hate to beforced to vote for some one that i dont feel good about simply for the reason
is hes in my party.
i wont be votiong for hill or obama.
they are both so fake it makes me wanna puke.
ive always been democrat but this year im jumping lines and going for McCain
anyone is better than this retarded fool we have in office now.
Has anyone actually QUESTIONED the reason for raising gas prices as of late?
There isnt one. This guy is robbing the citizens of this country blind, and im WONDERING why none of these fucking political leaders have had the balls to say anything about it.
anyone is better than this retarded fool we have in office now.
Has anyone actually QUESTIONED the reason for raising gas prices as of late?
There isnt one. This guy is robbing the citizens of this country blind, and im WONDERING why none of these fucking political leaders have had the balls to say anything about it.
so one person controls the price of gas in the whole world?
get a grip.
supply and demand. oh and ability to produce gas.
the price of oil is over 100$ a barrel for the whole world not just the us.
ask your self why is does gas cost so much here in u.s? well there are many reason but puting all the blame on one man is ignorance.
it takes somthing like 10 barrels of oil for 1 barrel of gas. oh not to mention plastic come from ail. lots of medications use oil..there are lots of things we use oil for not just gas.
its not that we cant afford 100$ a barrel gas. its that we cant take the oil and make it in to the products we need fast enough.
there has been a new oil refinery built in the us in over 50 some years.
the ones we do have where made the the demand for oil of 50 years and more ago.
and you can thank your local tree huggers for that.
the price of gas has been going up well before bush took office. i remember when i could get gas at 1.25 or so a gallon. now its 3.95 here. the price has went up anout 150% in 10 years.
i can think of some things that have went up much much more then that
i got my fist nintendo for 100 bucks... when the wii first came out they wanted 300 bucks for the damn thing
thats 300% price jump in about the same time as gas.
Well, first of all, comparing Wii to NES, well, that's rather like saying that my Model T doesn't ride as smoothly as my Infiniti.
You are correct to say that it's not the decision of one man or woman that controls the price of oil, but it is also true that Bush has denied the opening of the Petroleum reserves, saving it for a "real emergency", of which the dramatic raise in oil prices seems not to be one.
Also, the Congress has denied exploration in the continental U.S., denying resources that could help to alleviate the present monstrously high price of gasoline.
Now, yes, I know, Europe and other parts of the world have higher gas prices. However, consider that these areas were built up before the advent of the combustion engiune, so that it's not common in, say, Switzerland, for one to drive 40 minutes (about 30-40 miles) to get to work, and another 40 to get home, yet in the U.S., it's very common to have to drive upwards of an hour to find a job that will pay enough to maintain your living style. (for example, I currently pay $1300/mo. for rent, and drive 60 miles, or two gallons a day, to work in a place that pays $7.90/hr. So, I effectively spend an hour's worth of salary paying for the privelege to find a job. And feel free to ask Fuel about the probability of me finding part-time work in my area. Suffice to say, zero is slightly higher than those chances. In Europe, there is the luxury of walking to town. Here in the states, even town is a good five miles away. So, at 4mph for an average walking speed, it's over two hours a day for me if I wanted to do my shopping without a car. That's assuming I could find products that wouldn't go bad in the hour it took me to get home. Hurray, America. )
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
04-28-2008, 09:54 PM
The Bush administration is responsible in some aspects. Through massive deficit spending and a mishandling of the economy, the value of the dollar has been plummeting. Since oil is traded in USD, producers have to increase prices since the money they are getting is worth less. Additionally, many investors buy up oil futures as a hedge against inflation. If the rest of their money is losing value, the increase in the price of oil, thus profit on their investment. As the value of the dollar decreases, there is increased demand, so prices go up even more. If we weren't in a recession, oil may have gone up a little, but not nearly as much.
All the presidential candidates have flaws, but I'd vote for Obama if I could vote. and I think its good that he severed ties with his preacher. I was watching the news this morning and saw it; i think he learned that although he was close with his preacher, he wasn't that great of an influence
Posts: 4,040
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
IGN: Squishface
Server: Mushpoie
Guild: Solstice
05-06-2008, 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshineko
You are correct to say that it's not the decision of one man or woman that controls the price of oil, but it is also true that Bush has denied the opening of the Petroleum reserves, saving it for a "real emergency", of which the dramatic raise in oil prices seems not to be one.
It's been a bit, so I don't remember the exact amount - but there's not really THAT much oil in the reserves. I remember when Slick Willy made a huge deal out of taking oil out of the reserves to help lower gas prices, and the price of gas went down about 5 cents a gallon . . . for a week.
edit - Just checked. . . if they drained the entire stockpile of petroleum at the max rate of 4.4 million barrels a day (1/3 of the amount we import a day) the stock pile would last for about 5 months. Of course, then we'd have to turn around and fill it back up. So whatever money you save on gas in that 5 months you'll be paying back in extra taxes for a loooong time. Considering the fact that no matter which of the 3 candidates gets elected taxes will be going up anyway . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonslyer
hilary because when her husband was in office the world was good.
The only good thing about Clinton's presidency was the fact that he didn't really do a damn thing in 8 years. The closest thing to real action Willy took was letting his wife attempt to turn health insurance into a government controlled agency by assuming command of a good percentage of privately owned businesses.
Oh, there were those aspirin factories he had bombed too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meimei
Obama '08??
=.=
Last edited by hazelmurphy; 05-06-2008 at 08:14 AM.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
05-06-2008, 10:29 AM
Hillary is starting to piss me off with this whole gas tax holiday thing. In reality, it simply WILL NOT work. 70 (or some other very high number) of the countries most notable economists, including a few nobel winners. The simple truth of the matter is that when you decrease prices, consumption increases. When demand increases, prices go up. So in the end, the price would just go up to the same pre-gas tax holiday level. Some economists even believe the spiked demand will drive prices even higher!
Hillary probably understands how stupid of an idea it is, but she is preying on the peoples huge fear of gas prices, and taking the chance to frame Obama as wanting to charge more for gas.
Posts: 4,040
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
IGN: Squishface
Server: Mushpoie
Guild: Solstice
05-06-2008, 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhamlaxy
Hillary is starting to piss me off with this whole gas tax holiday thing. In reality, it simply WILL NOT work. 70 (or some other very high number) of the countries most notable economists, including a few nobel winners. The simple truth of the matter is that when you decrease prices, consumption increases. When demand increases, prices go up. So in the end, the price would just go up to the same pre-gas tax holiday level. Some economists even believe the spiked demand will drive prices even higher!
Hillary probably understands how stupid of an idea it is, but she is preying on the peoples huge fear of gas prices, and taking the chance to frame Obama as wanting to charge more for gas.
Honestly, anytime a politician suggests any kind of short term relief to any problem I cringe. Problems on a national scale can not be fixed with short term solutions. That said, I'm not offering to give the government back that 600 bucks they just gave me . . .
Posts: 4,329
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Some Shithole. :V
IGN: Longknife
Server: Lawolf
05-06-2008, 11:51 AM
This is kinda off-topic but...
Aren't presidential candidates in the U.S. these days generally:
A) Former Lawyers, or in some form of law-based job. Nothing against lawyers (I mean wtf, looks like I might be studying to be one soon. xP ), but they definitely, with the demands of their profession, learn every loop-hole and way to break the rules without getting caught while they're looking into how to defend clients. Persuasion is also a good talent to have. Stupid to say any persuasive person is decieving, but the option is always there for them.
B) War veterans. I'm sorry, but honestly, how does getting shot at teach you how to run a country??
C) Businessmen. This is probably just a bad idea entirely, cause I seriously doubt a 50 year old dude isn't gonna have some large business investments somewhere.
Now I don't think I'm the only one that looks at the government right now, and has trouble trusting any of those guys. Bush just plain sucks ass, to begin with. After that comes Hillary, Obama, and McCain. Hillary has really just turned into She-Hulk, and has gone wild with slander, lies, and underhanded techniques to bring her closer to winning ever since she noticed she was behind in the polls. I'm sorry but part of being President is seeing to the needs and wants of the people, and if they WANT Obama, don't sit there and give a speech about how Florida and Michigan's not-so-accurate poll results in your favor should be kept and used in the election, just because it's likely you'll lose a shitload if the polls are properly and FAIRLY conducted. (P.S., is this not the third election in a row Florida has fucked up on? What the hell is going on down there?)
Obama, while he's still my pick, I still have issues trusting him. Honestly, I can't think of any good criticism for him that really makes me just shut him out. The only thing that turned me off to him was based more on intuition and instinct: It was when he gave that speech cutting ties to his preacher. From the context I don't doubt I word spoken. What kinda scared me though was he was letting out "uuuhh..."'s like Bush for a moment there. D:
McCain it's like...I am SO sick of trying to have a discussion with a McCain voter, and then when I ask why they like him, it's "HE'S A VIETNAM WAR VETERAN!"
Oh, great!! I bet that means he'd be excellent at bettering our education system, kicking the economy back into shape, and exploring new energy options, since everyone knows that the military only drafts and accepts super-humans who are coincidentally perfectly qualified to be presidents! Yes I realize of course there's other points to him, but personally I do kind of get turned off to a candidate when their supporters only look at ONE issue for the candidate.
Plus, weren't all three of these people in the Senate during the Bush administration?? It's not like they don't hold SOME responsibility for the current administration's failures...
So as you can see, I'm really iffy about any of those dudes, and don't feel any outstanding need to support them.
Then there's my other country. Here in Germany we got Merkel. She's just...pretty awesome. ;O One thing I was impressed to hear about her is that Angela Merkel is also a scientist.
I just mean...am I the only one that simply thinks, we need politicians with different backrounds?? With Lawyers I just expect someone to be extremely by-the-book and not so into change, or someone who's rather sly, and while I think sly CAN be good and helpful to a normal client with a special case, I don't think it's neccesarily useful to a president, who simply needs to watch over and make sure everything's functioning good; not someone who can find a loop-hole to help a person with an issue that no one else can help.
I've already said how I don't see the connection between soldier and politician.
And businessman, well need I say more? There's been all sorts of business scandals in politics, probably since the 1900's.
Now at this same time, when this election started, there was one candidate I was interested in, but knew he'd never make it: Mike Gravel. If you look into his backround, you'll just find Real estate, military service, economic studies, and various odd-jobs. He really doesn't HAVE a high-up history like most candidates, and has honestly been rather poor most of his life. (hopefully that would mean he could deal with staying poor and not get wrapped up in scandals. xP ) More importantly, the thing that caught my eye for him, was simply that he was passionate about his political stances. He's spoken up against the draft, nuclear power and weapons, and has for a long time supported a more universal health care plan. He's also been really on-again off-again in politics in general, which kinda makes it difficult for him to get tied in with any crap.
ANOTHER candidate that got a lot of attention, but didn't make it the whole way, is Ron Paul. Guess what this guy is? A physician. He also has a military history like Mike Gravel's (by like Mike Gravel's, I mean you don't hear ONLY about his military career and nothing about his actual politics.) He's also very passionate about what he believes in, and practically has a rulebook he follows when deciding on how he'll vote on an issue. (preaches wildly about the constitution, for example)
One of these guys is obviously Democrat (or was; Gravel went Libertarian), while the other is Republican. Still, both got plenty of underground attention, and the things I'd say they have in common are 1) They stick to their shit, 2) They're passionate about what they do, 3) They have interesting backrounds (have explored various areas) 4) Don't have the traditional politician backround.
Now I mean, of course what I'm saying here also, in theory, says "VOTE SCHWARZENEGGAR" and other folks who would be looked at as mock-candidates, but I just wonder...
Does anyone agree with me that we need varying politicians that aren't all coming from these same damn traditional backrounds over and over?
04-22-2008, 10:12 AM
)
Linear Mode
