Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (3 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

Best and worst gas prices in charlotte area

Cheapest price inside of Charlotte Meck is $3.57 highest is $3.87 Typical rate is around $3.75 as I drive..

Also, I'm usually buying Exxon gas. My company gas account is with Exxon.. Which is a little higher..

Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, filling up whenever and wherever.

Plenty of apps for a smartphone to find where the cheapest gas is, and if I drive a guzzler, I have no room to complain about gas prices.

So I guess I should just have a gas account for every station in town so when this phone app tells me the cheapest gas in the area is at some obscure gas station I'll have it covered. So the guys who buy more gas should complain less, yea that makes a lot of sense. Tell you what, you find me a moped that can haul tools, equipment, and materials and we'll talk. Your comment shows you know very little about our industry.

You guys are pretty funny, even if I were to buy gas at the cheapest place in town every time, which is impossible for anyoner in their right mind, I'll still be spending more on gas then most people in my industry spend on mortgage or rent.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Best and worst gas prices in charlotte area

Cheapest price inside of Charlotte Meck is $3.57 highest is $3.87 Typical rate is around $3.75 as I drive..

Also, I'm usually buying Exxon gas. My company gas account is with Exxon.. Which is a little higher..

Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, filling up whenever and wherever.

Plenty of apps for a smartphone to find where the cheapest gas is, and if I drive a guzzler, I have no room to complain about gas prices.

So I guess I should just have a gas account for every station in town so when this phone app tells me the cheapest gas in the area is at some obscure gas station I'll have it covered. So the guys who buy more gas should complain less, yea that makes a lot of sense. Tell you what, you find me a moped that can haul tools, equipment, and materials and we'll talk. Your comment shows you know very little about our industry.

You guys are pretty funny, even if I were to buy gas at the cheapest place in town every time, which is impossible for anyoner in their right mind, I'll still be spending more on gas then most people in my industry spend on mortgage or rent.

If your gas purchases are business expenditures wouldn't they be eligible for a deduction?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

$100-$110 to fill up, I fill up 3-4 times a week, multiplied by 4.2, leaves me somewhere between $1,250 and $1,850/month; them we have the wife's 70+ mile work commute /day - $1,200/month seems very reasonable to me.

Holy cow, man. Unless you're in the delivery business or a trucker, that's an insane amount of fuel consumption. My wife and I have two vehicles, and live an hour from anywhere. Yet we don't consume more than 700 gallons of fuel between us in a year. Haven't for the past nine years. And a lot of that is "recreational" too. My wife visiting family, or running around with the kids. I personally consume about 265 gallons of fuel/year. And if I use the middle of your range and assume $4/gallon for gas (round number, to make the math easier), that's 375 gallons/month of fuel consumption...just for you! Excluding your wife, from the sounds of it.

So the earlier question was actually reasonable then: Do you drive a tank?!

Even if I drive my 5.9L 4wd "tank" 100 miles per day I'm not near $1200/month. If we're talking household, sure. I have 6 cars, 4 of which are driven daily.

I drive a 5.9L 4wd, and I'm close to that.. But yes, we were talking about a household, not an individual vehicle. You can't measure what your family spends on food if you only count what you spend on milk..An average of 100 miles a day is probably high if you live in city and have a desk job, but is probably low if you own a service buisness.

- primary vehicle (many variables here, depending on who drives the most, husband or wife, and what each of them drive)

100 miles per day @ 15 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $186.66 per week = $9706.66 per year

- Secondary vehicle

50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year

- Third vehicle if household includes 1 child of driving age who drives to school/community college/other events.

50 miles per day @ 22 miles per gallon @ $4 per gallon = $63.63 per week = $3309.09 per year

$16,324.84 a year ($1360.30 per month) is a lot of money..

There are many work vehicles in the service industry that get worse than 15 mpg (including my truck). And there are many (most) who drive more than 100 miles per day. Obviously there are also people who can walk to work as well, or use mass transit..

What I'm trying to explain though, these service industry workers/buisness owners are mostly part of the lower middle class and gas prices are killing them. Most of them pay more for gas on a monthly basis then they pay on mortgage/rent.. Gas prices have a huge impact on the middle class

Didn't you say you live in NC around Charlotte?? Gas prices aren't $4 for unleaded. They are close to that for Diesel. I suggest you go to one of the stations that isn't screwing you out of your money if you really are paying $4 a gallon.

Can you show me where I said I was paying $4 per gallon? The #'s above refer to typical mileage for someone in my line of work reflecting the cost of gas at the pump refered to in the debate..Price at the pump here ranges from 3.50 to 3.85.. And the common price is around 3.70+

Regardless, the number would still show many Americans pay more for gas than for mortgage/rent..

Sorry...I'm still stuck on YOUR personal claim that you pay $1200 a month for gas for your household. I probably should have quoted that set of posts rather than the shifted goalpost quotes above. Can you help me understand how you pay this much for gas?

He doesn't read or understand his own posts. It's best to ignore his ignorance.

You shouldn't trouble yourself by trying to read, you'll only be further confused.. You have yet to make one valid point..

You just still fail to comprehend the fallacy of your initial post that i keep referring to. It was not in reference to whether Obama's claim was right or wrong. It was about you completely missing the argument being presented and then twisting it in such a way that made no sense. You neither understand cause and effect nor do you retain the ability to articulate a rational thought or argument.

You tried to rationalize the comment with a ridiculous assertion. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand. The gas price comment by Obama had no basis in reality,

 

[DoubleG]

Oh, and in regards to the "gas prices" argument that is going on between Carolina Hustler and...well...everyone else, can we just cut to the chase?

This time I'll be more careful in my interpreation of the following chart:

My careful link.

Last time I was railed for accidentally suggesting that Obama started in 2008 - clearly he took office in 2009.

Summary of article as pertaining to gas price argument:

Gasoline prices

2009 - $1.74

2010 - $2.72

2011 - $3.12

Jan. 2012 - $3.36

April/May 2012 - $3.73

...or more than doubled. Yes, they have gone up...considerably. Regardless as to how much Hustler drives, everyone is paying twice as much for gas (or more) than they were four years ago. As you can see by the above chart, many other things are more expensive as well - and have gone up at higher rates than most median incomes.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I'm not going to lay out my personal accounting for you, but $1200 per month for a household in this line of buisness is actually low.. As I said in previous posts, some guys drive all day long, 3-7 stops per day..At $3.75 per gallon (the current national average) using the above calculation that household would be spending $15,252.54 ($1271.04 per month) on gas in one year.. An enormous expense..

What does a "household in this line of business" mean? Is it a household, or a business? They're two different things, and presenting business-related fuel costs as household expenses is silly.

For an S corp, the only difference between buisness related expenses and personal expenses is the amount you can write off on your taxes. If it's buisness related I can write off 100% and it has to go through the company books and paid out of a company account. Ultimately the money is all mine, and the taxes all go together. I only leave what's for the expenses my accountant says can be listed buisness expenses in the buisness account. Pay myself a modest salary and Dividends are paid quarterly.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Best and worst gas prices in charlotte area

Cheapest price inside of Charlotte Meck is $3.57 highest is $3.87 Typical rate is around $3.75 as I drive..

Also, I'm usually buying Exxon gas. My company gas account is with Exxon.. Which is a little higher..

Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, filling up whenever and wherever.

Plenty of apps for a smartphone to find where the cheapest gas is, and if I drive a guzzler, I have no room to complain about gas prices.

So I guess I should just have a gas account for every station in town so when this phone app tells me the cheapest gas in the area is at some obscure gas station I'll have it covered. So the guys who buy more gas should complain less, yea that makes a lot of sense. Tell you what, you find me a moped that can haul tools, equipment, and materials and we'll talk. Your comment shows you know very little about our industry.

You guys are pretty funny, even if I were to buy gas at the cheapest place in town every time, which is impossible for anyoner in their right mind, I'll still be spending more on gas then most people in my industry spend on mortgage or rent.

If your gas purchases are business expenditures wouldn't they be eligible for a deduction?

Every dime I can attribute as a buisness related expense can be written off. In the case of gasoline, you can either write off you vehicle and transportation expenses, or you can take a milage deduction.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Best and worst gas prices in charlotte area

Cheapest price inside of Charlotte Meck is $3.57 highest is $3.87 Typical rate is around $3.75 as I drive..

Also, I'm usually buying Exxon gas. My company gas account is with Exxon.. Which is a little higher..

Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, filling up whenever and wherever.

Plenty of apps for a smartphone to find where the cheapest gas is, and if I drive a guzzler, I have no room to complain about gas prices.

So I guess I should just have a gas account for every station in town so when this phone app tells me the cheapest gas in the area is at some obscure gas station I'll have it covered. So the guys who buy more gas should complain less, yea that makes a lot of sense. Tell you what, you find me a moped that can haul tools, equipment, and materials and we'll talk. Your comment shows you know very little about our industry.

You guys are pretty funny, even if I were to buy gas at the cheapest place in town every time, which is impossible for anyoner in their right mind, I'll still be spending more on gas then most people in my industry spend on mortgage or rent.

If your gas purchases are business expenditures wouldn't they be eligible for a deduction?

Every dime I can attribute as a buisness related expense can be written off. In the case of gasoline, you can either write off you vehicle and transportation expenses, or you can take a milage deduction.

So in fact your gasoline expenses should be reduced significantly, right? I mean it's not fair to say you're paying $3.75 or whatever as if you pay the same price as a family heading to the Outer Banks for the week or something.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You just still fail to comprehend the fallacy of your initial post that i keep referring to. It was not in reference to whether Obama's claim was right or wrong. It was about you completely missing the argument being presented and then twisting it in such a way that made no sense. You neither understand cause and effect nor do you retain the ability to articulate a rational thought or argument.

You tried to rationalize the comment with a ridiculous assertion. Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand. The gas price comment by Obama had no basis in reality,

I didn't try to rationalize it myself or say he was correct. I just explained what he and whomever he got that talking point from actually meant. You then asserted that only an idiot would agree that lowering gas prices hurt the American economy. Something that nobody ever said.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I notice you didn't bother to defend your error about suing Arizona "on behalf of Mexico." That was the right move, because it was an obvious error. You might be better off waving the white flag on this one, too.

My linkAnother

You guys like Huff

Yes, it's a little biased

Perhaps the wording would have been better stated "to make Mexico happy"?

Yes, I realize the final link is froma conservative website, but Reuters & Huff are fairly non-extremeist...usually.

But hey, if your good with the administration joining with foreign nations in lawsuits against sovereign states, that's your perrogative. I, for one, am not a big fan - call me "old-fashioned" (and by old fashioned I mean someone that actually believes in State's rights)

Jesus Christ. I'm trying to be respectful, but you keep posting pure garbage and it makes it REALLY hard to do that.Let me try to explain this to you again.

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona. Mexico and other nations filed an Amicus brief. Anyone can file an Amicus brief. Obama didn't tell them to do it. What you are saying is a complete lie, and none of the links help your argument. The first is from a news article that says nothing about Mexico being a party or the US acting "on behalf of" Mexico. The Huff Post article says what I just said- that the other nations filed an Amicus brief (that's what "in support of" is, first line of the article). The second and fourth appear to be from idiot right wing nutjobs with about the same grasp of the nuances of litigation as you have.

You know what's crazy? I'm left-leaning, but with the exception of gay rights stuff I really don't care that much about political fights. What I care about is people who spout total , because I hate when people spread lies and misinformation as truth. If you don't care to read or understand the facts, that's fine, but you shouldn't spout those lies to people who may no know better. It's just not cool. And I find myself on the opposite side of you around here far more than anyone else. Seriously, just stop being so wrong so much, and you and I would get along swimmingly.

 

[DoubleG]

Oh...and can I get a list of "poor decisions" made by the President overseas the last four years as well as "good decisions"....TIA.

FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.

"SUCCESSES":

His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.

BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.

Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.

But other than the above, he's been solid.

I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.

My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.

Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:

1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.

2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.

In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.



Pun fully intended

Without going into detail on all of these (many of which are just personal opinion more than fact and none of which are supported with links) I can pick out at least two things that are fairly characterized as a "crock of poo."1. He didn't sue Arizona on behalf of Mexico. That's just nonsense. I tried to do a google search to figure out what the heck you were even talking about, and all I got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit, which I then read further and discovered that even that was overstating it- Mexico simply filed an Amicus brief in support of the US side. You want to get your news from extremist nutjobs like these, fine, but at least you should consider Fox News, where they are actually held accountable for the facts they publish.

Does Huff count? You guys like Huff Reuters okay? Or too extremist?

Maybe biased - but the wording seems to be similar...

Conservative link

If you like your President and his administration joining and filing law suits alongisde foreign nations against sovereign states, that's your perrogative. I am "old-fashioned" - and by old fashioned I mean I beleive in state's rights.

 

[timschochet]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.

Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

 

[Joe T]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Oh...and can I get a list of "poor decisions" made by the President overseas the last four years as well as "good decisions"....TIA.

FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.

"SUCCESSES":

His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.

BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.

Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.

But other than the above, he's been solid.

I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.

My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.

Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:

1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.

2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.

In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.



Pun fully intended

Without going into detail on all of these (many of which are just personal opinion more than fact and none of which are supported with links) I can pick out at least two things that are fairly characterized as a "crock of poo."1. He didn't sue Arizona on behalf of Mexico. That's just nonsense. I tried to do a google search to figure out what the heck you were even talking about, and all I got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit, which I then read further and discovered that even that was overstating it- Mexico simply filed an Amicus brief in support of the US side. You want to get your news from extremist nutjobs like these, fine, but at least you should consider Fox News, where they are actually held accountable for the facts they publish.

Does Huff count? You guys like Huff Reuters okay? Or too extremist?

Maybe biased - but the wording seems to be similar...

Conservative link

If you like your President and his administration joining and filing law suits alongisde foreign nations against sovereign states, that's your perrogative. I am "old-fashioned" - and by old fashioned I mean I beleive in state's rights.

See above. And PLEASE stop lying. It's pretty annoying. Think what you want to think about Obama or the issues or whatever, that's cool. But don't tell people things that are false and pretend that they are true. Let other people have discussions and evaluate issues without the distraction of lies.

 

[timschochet]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

I don't believe we will ever be energy independent, and certainly not by 2020.Again, it seems to me that the cost of energy in this country is largely dictated by the international marketplace, and we can't control it no matter how much of it we produce ourselves. What we can do, however, is seek alternatives to carbon based fuels. The two I'm most interested in are natural gas and nuclear. I'm skeptical that wind and solar will ever be able to turn a profit, though who knows? Nuclear energy will involve a very large government investment and I haven't heard either candidate push for this (though Obama did in 2008, and never followed up.) My understanding is that natural gas can be produced without government investment because it produces profit- all the government has to do is allow it to happen. This is an area where the election of Mitt Romney may be a demonstrable positive.

 

[DoubleG]

Oh...and can I get a list of "poor decisions" made by the President overseas the last four years as well as "good decisions"....TIA.

FAILURES:His failed personal effort to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago. His failed personal effort to negotiate a climate-change deal at Copenhagen in 2009. His failed efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that year and this year. His failed effort to improve America’s public standing in the Muslim world with the now-forgotten Cairo speech. His failed reset with Russia. His failed effort to strong-arm Israel into a permanent settlement freeze. His failed (if half-hearted) effort to maintain a residual U.S. military force in Iraq. His failed efforts to cut deals with the Taliban and reach out to North Korea. His failed effort to win over China and Russia for even a symbolic U.N. condemnation of Syria’s Bashar Assad. His failed efforts to intercede in Europe’s economic crisis.

"SUCCESSES":

His successful personal effort to insult the head of state and prime minister of America’s closest ally (as well as removing the bust of its wartime prime minister from the Oval Office); his successful personal effort to put daylight between the U.S. and Israel; his successful effort to ostracize Honduras for enforcing its constitution against a Hugo Chavez wannabe; his successful effort to become the first U.S. president to chair a UN meeting; his successful effort to ignore the efforts of Iranian citizens protesting the stolen 2009 presidential election and then ignore seriatim deadlines for Iran to accept his outstretched hand; his successful efforts to oppose Congressional attempts to strengthen Iran sanctions, while touting each round of non-crippling sanctions as the “toughest ever”; his successful effort to ward off pressure to visit Israel from liberal Israeli columnists, Jewish Democrats in Congress, and friendly rabbis; his successful effort to jettison a U.S. ally in Egypt and reportedly invite the new Pharaoh to the U.S.; . . . . his successful effort to delay executing an already-negotiated free trade agreement with the closest U.S. ally in Latin America; his successful effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf; his successful effort to build a knee-slapping relationship with Dmitri Medvedev to deliver a deferred flexibility message to Vladimir; and his winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.

BTW, while he will likely claim Bin-laden as a success, Obama managed to mishandle that situation in many ways as well. There was a myriad of al Qadea intellignece that was found in Bin-laden's "lair". Obama, instead of allowing the information to be used to gain access to splinter cells, whereabouts of various top officials, secret funding sources, decided to go on TV as soon as possible to announce the "victory". He fumbled away the militray advantage of suprise, instead choosing to be quick to make sure he got credit. A couple of weeks later he could have been touting the death of Al Qaeda, by using the information and intelligence gained to eliminate the entire orginization. Instead, he opted to let the news be known hours after it happened, giving al Qaeda time to disappear back into the shadows...for now. Secondly, Bin-laden was killed - again, giving away opportunity to gain useful information about al Qaeda. A law in the mission plan as well as it's execution (no pun intended). Do we even need to get into how many times the story of the actual event changed? "40 minute fire fights" that were later determined to be only a few minutes long? Wives being used as "human shields" - only to find out later that wasn't the case. Navy SEALs later (well after the fact - unlike Obama's handling of the situation) disputing several of the "official" account details the White House was perpetuating.

Oh yeah, and that entire Liby debacle.

But other than the above, he's been solid.

I'll take the guy with little/no experience to the one who has a 4 year record with that many mistakes.

My assessment of you was that you were one of the few sane Republican posters and most often your stuff was worth reading. The above is a crock of poo more worthy of Boneyard Dog than you.

Interesting. While I appreciate the thought in regards to my other posts, I would like to hear exactly what of the above you take issue with?You see, several have made similar such claims, and only Tim has actually argued against any of the above points. From my perspective (and likely any intelligent person's perspective) - when someone is presented with a long list of items they have failed in, there are typically two courses of action:

1) Defense of the actions taken - or at least a reasonable (and this is important) explanation as to why the failures occurred.

2) As is typical of young children, simply denying that the event/failure ever actually happened.

In this thread, I see very little attempt at #1, yet many of the liberal posters are quite enjoying posting a great deal of #2.



Pun fully intended

Without going into detail on all of these (many of which are just personal opinion more than fact and none of which are supported with links) I can pick out at least two things that are fairly characterized as a "crock of poo."1. He didn't sue Arizona on behalf of Mexico. That's just nonsense. I tried to do a google search to figure out what the heck you were even talking about, and all I got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit, which I then read further and discovered that even that was overstating it- Mexico simply filed an Amicus brief in support of the US side. You want to get your news from extremist nutjobs like these, fine, but at least you should consider Fox News, where they are actually held accountable for the facts they publish.

Does Huff count? You guys like Huff Reuters okay? Or too extremist?

Maybe biased - but the wording seems to be similar...

Conservative link

If you like your President and his administration joining and filing law suits alongisde foreign nations against sovereign states, that's your perrogative. I am "old-fashioned" - and by old fashioned I mean I beleive in state's rights.

See above. And PLEASE stop lying. It's pretty annoying. Think what you want to think about Obama or the issues or whatever, that's cool. But don't tell people things that are false and pretend that they are true. Let other people have discussions and evaluate issues without the distraction of lies.

- 4 links, at least 2 to reputable sources like Reuters and Huff - and you are accusing me of lying. Oh boy. I just present the information - occasionally summarizing for those too lazy to actually click the links and read. And the only reason for the second post of the links was for some reason, the interwebs ate my original response - the only place it can be seen is on your quote.

As I said, if you like an administration joining with (or leading the way or following along with or siding with) foreign nations in bringing legal action against soveriegn states, you are free to hold that belief, but please don't call me a liar for pointing out that's what happened - especially, since you clearly didn't try very hard to google search for information on the above.

If you want to argue the point - have at it, but this constant accusation of lies, despite several links to the contrary is getting tiresome. Especially since you claimed to have searched and only "got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit" - which is clearly not true - unless you consider Reuters and Huff as "far right wing blogs". So let's turn the "LIAR!" stuff way down.

 

[TobiasFunke]

- 4 links, at least 2 to reputable sources like Reuters and Huff - and you are accusing me of lying. Oh boy. I just present the information - occasionally summarizing for those too lazy to actually click the links and read.

And the only reason for the second post of the links was for some reason, the interwebs ate my original response - the only place it can be seen is on your quote.

As I said, if you like an administration joining with (or leading the way or following along with or siding with) foreign nations in bringing legal action against soveriegn states, you are free to hold that belief, but please don't call me a liar for pointing out that's what happened - especially, since you clearly didn't try very hard to google search for information on the above.

If you want to argue the point - have at it, but this constant accusation of lies, despite several links to the contrary is getting tiresome. Especially since you claimed to have searched and only "got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit" - which is clearly not true - unless you consider Reuters and Huff as "far right wing blogs". So let's turn the "LIAR!" stuff way down.

Sorry, you are lying, so I will call you a liar. You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona. Mexico and other countries filed amicus briefs in support of the DOJ petition. That is what happened. The links you gave and other news sites made that very clear. That some idiot who understands litigation as poorly as you do characterized that as "joining" the lawsuit is misleading I suppose, but even if that characterization was 100% accurate (again, it is NOT), it wouldn't make your statement that we sued Arizona on Mexico's behalf any more true.When you say somethings that isn't true, after someone points out to you that it's not true, that's a lie. Link And when you tell lies, that makes you a liar. Another link.

I would be happy to argue the point if you had one. You don't. You're making things up. I can't argue fiction. You shouldn't ask me to, any more than I would ask you to argue about whether it's OK that Romney and his 12 year old sex slave murdered a kindergarten class last night. If you want to have a discussion about policy or politics, you have to start with the facts.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I just present the information - occasionally summarizing

 

[Willie Neslon]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

 

[Joe T]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

 

[squistion]

- 4 links, at least 2 to reputable sources like Reuters and Huff - and you are accusing me of lying. Oh boy. I just present the information - occasionally summarizing for those too lazy to actually click the links and read.

And the only reason for the second post of the links was for some reason, the interwebs ate my original response - the only place it can be seen is on your quote.

As I said, if you like an administration joining with (or leading the way or following along with or siding with) foreign nations in bringing legal action against soveriegn states, you are free to hold that belief, but please don't call me a liar for pointing out that's what happened - especially, since you clearly didn't try very hard to google search for information on the above.

If you want to argue the point - have at it, but this constant accusation of lies, despite several links to the contrary is getting tiresome. Especially since you claimed to have searched and only "got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit" - which is clearly not true - unless you consider Reuters and Huff as "far right wing blogs". So let's turn the "LIAR!" stuff way down.

Sorry, you are lying, so I will call you a liar. You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona. Mexico and other countries filed amicus briefs in support of the DOJ petition. That is what happened. The links you gave and other news sites made that very clear. That some idiot who understands litigation as poorly as you do characterized that as "joining" the lawsuit is misleading I suppose, but even if that characterization was 100% accurate (again, it is NOT), it wouldn't make your statement that we sued Arizona on Mexico's behalf any more true.When you say somethings that isn't true, after someone points out to you that it's not true, that's a lie. Link And when you tell lies, that makes you a liar. Another link.

I would be happy to argue the point if you had one. You don't. You're making things up. I can't argue fiction. You shouldn't ask me to, any more than I would ask you to argue about whether it's OK that Romney and his 12 year old sex slave murdered a kindergarten class last night. If you want to have a discussion about policy or politics, you have to start with the facts.

It is either sad or laughable that he obviously has no clue as to what an amicus brief is. And that is evidenced by his linking the HuffPo article as some sort of proof that these nations have "joined" Mexico in supposedly bringing legal action against the United States.

 

[Hang 10]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

:sharkjump:

 

[The Commish]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

 

[TobiasFunke]

- 4 links, at least 2 to reputable sources like Reuters and Huff - and you are accusing me of lying. Oh boy. I just present the information - occasionally summarizing for those too lazy to actually click the links and read.

And the only reason for the second post of the links was for some reason, the interwebs ate my original response - the only place it can be seen is on your quote.

As I said, if you like an administration joining with (or leading the way or following along with or siding with) foreign nations in bringing legal action against soveriegn states, you are free to hold that belief, but please don't call me a liar for pointing out that's what happened - especially, since you clearly didn't try very hard to google search for information on the above.

If you want to argue the point - have at it, but this constant accusation of lies, despite several links to the contrary is getting tiresome. Especially since you claimed to have searched and only "got were a small handful of far right wing blogs complaining about Mexico "joining" the lawsuit" - which is clearly not true - unless you consider Reuters and Huff as "far right wing blogs". So let's turn the "LIAR!" stuff way down.

Sorry, you are lying, so I will call you a liar. You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona. Mexico and other countries filed amicus briefs in support of the DOJ petition. That is what happened. The links you gave and other news sites made that very clear. That some idiot who understands litigation as poorly as you do characterized that as "joining" the lawsuit is misleading I suppose, but even if that characterization was 100% accurate (again, it is NOT), it wouldn't make your statement that we sued Arizona on Mexico's behalf any more true.When you say somethings that isn't true, after someone points out to you that it's not true, that's a lie. Link And when you tell lies, that makes you a liar. Another link.

I would be happy to argue the point if you had one. You don't. You're making things up. I can't argue fiction. You shouldn't ask me to, any more than I would ask you to argue about whether it's OK that Romney and his 12 year old sex slave murdered a kindergarten class last night. If you want to have a discussion about policy or politics, you have to start with the facts.

It is either sad or laughable that he obviously has no clue as to what an amicus brief is. And that is evidenced by his linking the HuffPo article as some sort of proof that these nations have "joined" Mexico in supposedly bringing legal action against the United States.

But even if they had actually joined the litigation as plaintiffs somehow, it wouldn't make his statement that we sued Arizona on their behalf true. That's what's amazing. It's a false premise built upon a false premise.Sorry if I took the thread off the rails for a bit there; I just have a sore spot for people who say things in a public forum that aren't true. If you want to form your opinions and vote on misinformation, that's your business I guess. But don't try to win over other people to your "side" with mistakes, or even worse, with lies. You're just making the whole thing worse for everyone.

 

[sporthenry]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

You think OPEC will sit by idly.

 

[Sam Quentin]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

You think OPEC will sit by idly.

If they throttle production, they'll be cutting their own throats.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

MNF and a Game 7. I will be "watching" the debate through this thread most likely. So, keep it entertaining.

 

[squistion]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner.

I wonder what the take out menu would be if the subject of the debate was on women's reproductive rights. Fish and Chips?

 

[DoubleG]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Do you know P.F. Chang?

 

[bigbottom]

Obviously someone is not going to drive around town looking for the lowest price. You buy gas where you are, when you need it..

Best and worst gas prices in charlotte area

Cheapest price inside of Charlotte Meck is $3.57 highest is $3.87 Typical rate is around $3.75 as I drive..

Also, I'm usually buying Exxon gas. My company gas account is with Exxon.. Which is a little higher..

Company gas account? If your company pays for or reimburses your gas, why are you counting that as a personal expense?And if the gas expense is your personal expense, why would you buy gas at a more expensive station? Moreover, if gas was such a significant expense for my household, and my job required me to drive around all day anyway, I'd know where all the cheapest stations were and make an effort to fill up at those locations. You complain that Obama isn't doing enough with gas prices, but you aren't even making an effort to reduce fuel expenses for your own household, instead choosing to fill up whenever and wherever.

My company gas account and my personal gas account are one in the same since I own the company and it's an S-corp. And the differnce between gas stations as I've driven around today was in the neighborhood of 6 cent, I'm not going out of my way for a 6 cent per gallon difference. I live and work in the south charlotte area, prices on this side of town on the average are higher it seems, I'm not driving to eastway to get gas.. If I happen to be in an area where gas is cheaper and it looks like I'll need to fill up soon, I'll get gas.

Out of curiosity, why did you get a company gas account with Exxon if it's usually higher in terms of gas prices?

But that really doesn't address the issue. Gas prices are high and make up a large portion of expenses for a guy in my line of buisness.

No argument there. I was merely commenting on an apparent disconnect when someone who complains about gas prices doesn't seem to be interested in doing anything to reduce his household's fuel costs.

 

[RBM]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Easily the best poster right now.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a virtually identical action filed by some nonprofits. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DoubleG]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Easily the best poster right now.

Thank you for quoting that. I was in transit and missed it. Good stuff.

 

[dfwboiler]

Oh, and in regards to the "gas prices" argument that is going on between Carolina Hustler and...well...everyone else, can we just cut to the chase?

This time I'll be more careful in my interpreation of the following chart:

My careful link.

Last time I was railed for accidentally suggesting that Obama started in 2008 - clearly he took office in 2009.

Summary of article as pertaining to gas price argument:

Gasoline prices

2009 - $1.74

2010 - $2.72

2011 - $3.12

Jan. 2012 - $3.36

April/May 2012 - $3.73

...or more than doubled. Yes, they have gone up...considerably. Regardless as to how much Hustler drives, everyone is paying twice as much for gas (or more) than they were four years ago. As you can see by the above chart, many other things are more expensive as well - and have gone up at higher rates than most median incomes.

If you take gas prices from June instead of January...June 2008 4.027

June 2009 2.46

June 2010 2.712

June 2011 3.513

June 2012 3.378

 

[Willie Neslon]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Do you know P.F. Chang?

yes we do! but we will probably be getting it from happy house. that is our favorite

 

[dfwboiler]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

I don't understand how we become energy independent without gov't regulation...People talk about it like it's just going to happen if we drill more. We already ship natural gas and oil we drill in the US overseas. Unless that stops and we only sell it to the int'l market when we have a surplus, energy independence won't happen.

 

[squistion]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Yes, in the form of an amicus brief. Note it didn't say they joined in the suit filed by the ACLU, they supported it (which is what one does with an amicus brief). Again you keep proving the point Tobias is making.

 

[Eephus]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Easily the best poster right now.

Thank you for quoting that. I was in transit and missed it. Good stuff.

Pay for it with a credit card and the schtick will work for the debate on economic issues too

 

[RBM]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Do you know P.F. Chang?

yes we do! but we will probably be getting it from happy house. that is our favorite

Whatcha gettin? Little lo mein? Little moo shu?

 

[DoubleG]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a similar action. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Okay, so let me get this straight. I post several articles that have titles that include "Obama's lawsuit" - "the administration's lawsuit" and even the text of the article that states that the administration, acting through the DOJ filed the lawsuit - and you still refuse to believe that Obama had anything to do with it? Clearly you don't actually believe that as you yourself actually were quoted (first one in this post actually) at least once as saying Obama sued Arizona.No apology necessary. You are correct, neither I, nor the LA Times, nor Reuters, nor Huff have any clue what we are talking about. Clearly, the President had no idea what was going. We all bow to your brilliance and insight.

Just let it go already. Obama was clearly involved in bringing legal action against Arizona along with the legislation filed by Mexico - which is really the entire point of

the discussion. Oh and please, don't accuse me of posting links to "right wing blogs" when you do the same by quoting a blog called "Feathered *******" with brilliant quotes like this about a state Governor - "Brewer -- with her severely limited education and intellect, her accidental governorship, and her cheap political opportunism". K thx.

 

[Slapdash]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a similar action. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Okay, so let me get this straight. I post several articles that have titles that include "Obama's lawsuit" - "the administration's lawsuit" and even the text of the article that states that the administration, acting through the DOJ filed the lawsuit - and you still refuse to believe that Obama had anything to do with it? Clearly you don't actually believe that as you yourself actually were quoted (first one in this post actually) at least once as saying Obama sued Arizona.No apology necessary. You are correct, neither I, nor the LA Times, nor Reuters, nor Huff have any clue what we are talking about. Clearly, the President had no idea what was going. We all bow to your brilliance and insight.

Just let it go already. Obama was clearly involved in bringing legal action against Arizona along with the legislation filed by Mexico - which is really the entire point of

the discussion. Oh and please, don't accuse me of posting links to "right wing blogs" when you do the same by quoting a blog called "Feathered *******" with brilliant quotes like this about a state Governor - "Brewer -- with her severely limited education and intellect, her accidental governorship, and her cheap political opportunism". K thx.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a similar action. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Okay, so let me get this straight. I post several articles that have titles that include "Obama's lawsuit" - "the administration's lawsuit" and even the text of the article that states that the administration, acting through the DOJ filed the lawsuit - and you still refuse to believe that Obama had anything to do with it? Clearly you don't actually believe that as you yourself actually were quoted (first one in this post actually) at least once as saying Obama sued Arizona.No apology necessary. You are correct, neither I, nor the LA Times, nor Reuters, nor Huff have any clue what we are talking about. Clearly, the President had no idea what was going. We all bow to your brilliance and insight.

Just let it go already. Obama was clearly involved in bringing legal action against Arizona along with the legislation filed by Mexico - which is really the entire point of

the discussion. Oh and please, don't accuse me of posting links to "right wing blogs" when you do the same by quoting a blog called "Feathered *******" with brilliant quotes like this about a state Governor - "Brewer -- with her severely limited education and intellect, her accidental governorship, and her cheap political opportunism". K thx.

Of course Obama, or at least his administration, had something to do with it. DOJ filed the lawsuit, and he's the president and chief executive. It's under his jurisdiction. I never once said he had nothing to do with it. Why would I say that? Why are you trying to argue something I've never disputed? Seriously, show me where I said Obama didn't have anything to do with the lawsuits challenging the Arizona law.You won't find anything, because I never said that. What I said was he/they didn't bring it on behalf of Mexico. You said that. And you are wrong.

Sorry, my previous link was apparently from a left-leaning blog that's affiliated with a Phoenix paper. So here's a right wing one saying the exact same thing- Mexico filed an amicus brief. Mexico was not a party to the lawsuit, and there is no evidence or reason to think that the DOJ suit was filed on Mexico's behalf, as you claim.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a similar action. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Okay, so let me get this straight. I post several articles that have titles that include "Obama's lawsuit" - "the administration's lawsuit" and even the text of the article that states that the administration, acting through the DOJ filed the lawsuit - and you still refuse to believe that Obama had anything to do with it? Clearly you don't actually believe that as you yourself actually were quoted (first one in this post actually) at least once as saying Obama sued Arizona.No apology necessary. You are correct, neither I, nor the LA Times, nor Reuters, nor Huff have any clue what we are talking about. Clearly, the President had no idea what was going. We all bow to your brilliance and insight.

Just let it go already. Obama was clearly involved in bringing legal action against Arizona along with the legislation filed by Mexico - which is really the entire point of

the discussion. Oh and please, don't accuse me of posting links to "right wing blogs" when you do the same by quoting a blog called "Feathered *******" with brilliant quotes like this about a state Governor - "Brewer -- with her severely limited education and intellect, her accidental governorship, and her cheap political opportunism". K thx.

You and Carolina Hustler are either related or went to school together.

 

[Willie Neslon]

in honor of the debate being on foreign policies my wife has decided to pick up chinese food for dinner. I told her i wouldnt debate that decision and she got the joke.

Do you know P.F. Chang?

yes we do! but we will probably be getting it from happy house. that is our favorite

Whatcha gettin? Little lo mein? Little moo shu?

probably some egg rolls and a few main courses. usually sechwan shrimp and general tsaos chicken

 

[The Commish]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

You think OPEC will sit by idly.

If they throttle production, they'll be cutting their own throats.

And ours...that's how global markets work and that's my point. I don't really know many educated people that buy into the term "energy independent"

 

[DoubleG]

Oh Jebus. Forget it. Nevermind. Move on. My point - originally, ...like 4 pages ago... was that the Obama administration took legal action against a soveriegn state. You decided to take issue with the flippant "on behalf of Mexico" part - which was really just a comment on the legal actions all coming at the same time and hinting that Obama was doing it to curry favor with Mexico - instead of the primary point which was the legal action against a soveriegn state.

It's like I had said "The suspect murdered the victim by stabbing him 7 times with a kitchen knife" - and you are arguing whether it was 6 or 7 times and whether it was techinically a kitchen knife or a utility knife. The fact remains that the victim is still dead and the suspect is still guilty of murder.

 

[Gr00vus]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.

Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

You think OPEC will sit by idly.

If they throttle production, they'll be cutting their own throats.

And ours...that's how global markets work and that's my point. I don't really know many educated people that buy into the term "energy independent"

If you had government owned/run energy production that covered the nation's energy requirements you'd be there. I'm not necessarily advocating it, I'm just saying it's not a complete impossibility conceptually.

 

[The Commish]

You said Obama "sued Arizona on behalf of Mexico." That is 100% wrong. He sued Arizona.

You said Obama made an "effort to improve relations with Mexico by suing Arizona on its behalf." That is 100% false. As I've explained several times now, DOJ sued Arizona.

Emphasis added. I'm sorry, what?

Please stop trying to pretend to be some rational moderate than come into a thread and start throwing around accusations about lying - when you are clearly all over the map with your "facts".

Let's try this:

LA Times

Now, carefully and slowly read the title of the piece and tell me who's immigration lawsuit we are talking about...

Tell you what, I'll help:

Acting through the Justice Department, the Democrat administration seeks an injunction to stop the state law, S.B. 1070, from taking effect on July 29 and allowing Arizona officials to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, nearly a half-million of whom are estimated to be in Arizona. The federal suit actually duplicates an earlier one filed by the ACLU and supported by the Mexican government.

Again, emphasis added, to make sure you clearly are seeing the facts here.

Or is the LA Times also too extemist? Oh and I found the article by googling - oddly my google, seems to be much effective than yours at finding things that disagree with your admitted "left-leaning" points.

OK, now I'm just baffled. What you pasted and linked supports what I said. DOJ (DOJ is the Department of Justice, or "the Justice Department") sued Arizona. Mexico supported a virtually identical action filed by some nonprofits. Although the article doesn't say how exactly they did so, we've established that they did so through the filing of an amicus brief. That's exactly what I've said over and over again. I don't see anything in there that's remotely close to anything that could be interpreted as saying the feds sued Arizona "on behalf of Mexico."

Honestly, maybe I do owe you an apology. I assumed you were saying the wrong thing knowingly and thus were lying, but this post of yours- which supports me but you seem to think supports you- kind of makes it seem like you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Simple....in some minds ALL GOVERNMENT = One dude

 

[The Commish]

The key question, regarding gas prices, is whether or not a Romney presidency will result in lower gas prices. I have heard no evidence to suggest that it will, besides some sort of vague "if we drill more, that will lower the price!" which, given the nature of the international marketplace, is not convincing.

Thus, just as with foreign affairs, I don't regard gas prices as a reason to vote either for or against Romney or for or against Obama. The differences between the two men on these issues are not substantial.

How do you feel about energy independence by 2020?

How is one in a global market "independent" from a global market commodity? There's no such thing. Even if we were to become the world leader in energy, the global economy would still impact us when it comes to pricing.

You think OPEC will sit by idly.

If they throttle production, they'll be cutting their own throats.

And ours...that's how global markets work and that's my point. I don't really know many educated people that buy into the term "energy independent"

If you had government owned/run energy production that covered the nation's energy requirements you'd be there. I'm not necessarily advocating it, I'm just saying it's not a complete impossibility conceptually.

Not really. You'd have the potential to close yourself off from the rest of the world, but are we to really believe our government would do that? No, they wouldn't. We will always be part of the global market.

 

[DoubleG]

Simple....in some minds ALL GOVERNMENT = One dude

Oh stop - you didn't even read any of the links did you? Even Tobias acknowledges that Obama was involved in the decision to file suit against Arizona.Be careful Commish - your presumptions are showing.