Magox

Even this becomes a partisan issue JESUS!!! It was a !@#$ing tragedy! Worst thing an American has done since the war began, and you idiots want to somehow justify it with 9/11 IDIOTS!

What this was, was just typical highschool behavior. On One side you have the latin kids taunting the white kids, and then on the otherside you have the other side taunting the latin kids with U-S-A chants.

Cliff Avril

If Gasoline prices are above $4.50 a gasoline sometime in the midsummer, those words from Chu will come to haunt him. I mean it's not as if Chu made this comment when he was some young bafoon student activist, he said it in Dec of 2008, right before he was chosen to lead the US Energy policy. What he says is a direct extension of what Obama thinks, thats the way it should be viewed. There is no way around it, if I was a campaign or Super Pac strategist, I would wait to unload these words on the campaign trail, over and over and over and over and over. There are a bunch of ways to attack Obama's energy policy. Solyndra, Chevy Volt (at $10,000 a pop cost to taxpayer), other failed green companies, Keystone, drilling permits plummetting and then using his own words of how oil drilling doesn't lead to lower prices. All these things can easiy fit into a narrative of how Obama trumps his green ideology over pragmatism.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. On one hand you say that oil is a globally traded commodity and therefore drilling doesn't lower prices. On the otherhand you state "unless you either produced enough to lower the prices" What the !@#$ does that even mean? To characterize that statement as convoluted doesn't begin to describe my sentiment regarding the gibberish you just laid out. It's an utterly useless comment to make. More drilling doesn't lower prices unless you drill enough to lower prices? That's your argument? Then you say Unless you meant to replace the word "or" with "and" then I could at least begin to see your point, not a logical one, but a point none-the-less. Even so, you would still be incorrect. But for the sake of argument, lets go with "or" as you stated, meaning a completely different direction. I'm not even quite sure where to begin. We use more oil than we domestically produce, that's a fact. So knowing that fact you are suggesting that we would charge the portion that we produce here at a discounted rate? Oh yeah? Who picks up the rest of the tab? Afterall, in order for that to happen it would have to be subsidized by someone. What about the rest of the oil that we have to import? Would that be charged at a different price? If so, I suppose that would mean that we have some gas stations charging $4 a gallon gasoline and others (the subsidized ones) charging $2? Well we know that wouldn't work, so basically the only option at this point would be to subsidize all oil imports as well? How would that work exactly? I suppose the government would cap what the refineries and oil companies in what they could charge, and would have to pay the oil companies the difference between the subsidized and market price. Right? Yeah, that wouldn't be expensive at all. Unless of course you are suggesting that we nationalize the oil companies, therefore doing pretty much what we please with their products. Even this solution would still leave all the unresolved imported barrels of oil that the government would still have to subsidize. It is quite possible that this is what you were talking about considering you mentioned (Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia) But just for ***** and giggles, lets pretend in a Utopia youtube Lybob world, that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless of course you drill enough to lower prices and that all domestic oil could be sold at below market prices, subsidized by the American government. ummm ok, I'm having a hard time moving forward based on this premise, but because I said I would, we'll move forward. The crux of the discussion is whether or not more drilling can lead to lower prices. So what was the point of this statement Well, since context matters, to rehash we've already established that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless you drill enough to lower price and/or that we strictly sell domestic oil below market prices. I think it's kind of obvious, you don't believe that extra drilling doesn't lower prices, I mean you did afterall say as much, and you said implying that what extra drilling achieves are benefits such as employment, royalties and taxes. But no where did you mention lowering prices. Then you go on to say Nowhere did you mention that we should focus on more domestic oil drilling. You mention Saudi and Kuwait production, but nothing about ours. That doesn't make any sense, why leave ourselves in a position to where we have to grovel to the Saudis when we can produce more ourselves for the futur so we aren't quite in this predicament. Same goes for the "Iran rhetoric" argument, (not withstanding your incredibly naive isolationist view that allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon that would very well begin a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would lead to even higher long-term prices) if we produced more oil domestically, that would lessen our reliance of oil from the Middle East. You see, for every extra barrel we produce here at home, that means we can import one less barrel. Yeah, it's true, thats how it works. So if we are producing 13 M barrels a day and importing 10M, meanwhile global oil demand is 85M and production is 88M, if we can increase our production by another 25%, while keeping the demand flat because of conservation policies, that would increase global excess capacity by another 3-5%. What alot of people don't understand is that excess capacity is a huge determinant of prices, the less the excess, the higher the prices and more susceptible we are to large price spikes due to supply disruptions or fear of those disruptions, such as hurricanes, Nigerian militant chaos, middle eastern instability etc. In short, Oil drilling otherwise known as supply isn't the only factor in dictating prices, but it is a pivotal one, and the more we drill, the more supplies we will increase, and the more we increase in our domestic supplies, the better position we will be in attempting to contain higher oil prices. It's true, despite you and the presidents willingness approach to ignoring the basic laws of supply and demand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/buffett-s-netjets-is-countersued-by-u-s-over-unpaid-taxes.html Hmmmm, so he argues that the rich don't pay enough in taxes, so then he sues the government because he thought he was being taxed too high, to only be countersued that he he wasn't taxed enough. Well there you go Warren, you got what you wanted. Pay up B word!

Actually, whats closer to the truth is that you aren't able to effectively express your thoughts without posting a youtube video. But if you wish, I will be more than happy to annoyingly break down your post sentence by sentence.

It's not just the fact that Bill Burton is accepting the $1 Million from Maher, but David AxleRod, the same Axlerod that called Romney a coward for not making a stronger stand against Rush, is himself and arguably Obama's right hand man will soon be appearing on Maher's show. I mean, I think this just goes to show you that not only are they a bunch of hypocrites, but they are so blinded by their own bull **** that they are just incapable of seeing it. I mean really, this is about as hypocritical as it gets. Is this being reported on Politico? Nope, the double standard s clear. Here's a good piece by liberal Kirsten Powers, who not surprisingly was insulted by Olbermann for not towing the party line. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/08/critics-of-rush-limbaugh-ignore-bill-maher-matt-taibbi-misogyny.html

You couldn't be further from the truth. Of course more oil drilling would reduce the price of oil over the mid to long-term. This isn't rocket science, If there are 85 Million barrels of Demand a day for oil and 88 Million barrels of Supply, then there will be a price determined by the market. If you have 85 Million barrels of demand a day and 89 Million barrels of supply a day , based on the same conditions the price will be lower. It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****?

You know, you could make a more compelling argument if you weren't so rigid against the idea of "green energy". Sure there is a place for alternative energies, and yes it will need to continue to get developed moving forward, having said that, Obama doesn't understand the laws of supply and demand. He says that for those that are proponents of "drill, drill, drill" and that make claims that it would be the silver bullet solution, are basically lying to you. That's complete and utter nonsense. Of course a massive oil drilling program would have an impact on prices, obviously not over the short-term, but you have to start sometime.

Actually Bill O-Reilly couldn't be farther from the truth, and as an amazing lack of understanding of how the oil markets work. He believes that the oil companies basically fix the prices, he also happens to believe that we should mandate oil companies to not export any of their products. He basically went Hugo Chavez on us.

Come on fellas, that is some pretty funny **** And that too

It's quite impressive how the left is able to effectively mobilize in such a uniformed matter as quick as they do. You should see in the comments section, they are parrot the same damn thing, over and over and over. Arguing that women care more about access to contraceptive care more so than the economy. No, really. I'm serious.

To my understanding they are gonna drip the videos out. I will reserve objective judgement until I see it.

One can't help but internally hear bow-chika-wow-wow when you see a couple of those blondes together.

Holy Crap! I actually agree with you

What????? Sorry math doesn't agree with you. Now you're just being unreasonable.

Yeah, well those goofs votes counts as much as yours. Having said that, the vast majority of them are from California, so... yeah, he'll win that in a landslide. Back in 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/111115/democrats-election-enthusiasm-far-outweighs-republicans.aspx Democrats had a 71% enthusiasm excitement polling presently they have at 44% and even in a DailyKos poll that was conducted just a couple weeks ago its at 56% which we know wasn't conducted right. Don't take this wrong way JA, but I truly believe that you are one of those folks that believes that the public mood is accurately portrayed through the mainstream outlets. That's not the case. There is no exact way to find these things out, but polling is one of the better ways from my view to attempt to guage these things. And if you look at the polling data from the best polling companies, it's not the way you happen to believe it is. I strongly believe that things aren't quite how you perceive them to be.

Lets put it this way, for every little thing they look at Romney through the most high powered of microscopic lenses to point out his weaknesses, in the spirit of responsible, non-biased journalism you're damn straight they should of at LEAST mentioned it!! And I can tell you this JA, you said 100% is locked in?? Dude, I've got lots of hippy friends that I use to hang out with back in my days, and when I say lots I mean lots, that I'm still in contact with, specially now through FaceBook, and I can tell you that there have been lots of defections to Ron Paul and the kooks of the Green Party. They have move towards matters of causes such as Occupy, etc than political matters and there isn't this fawning over Obama like we saw in 2008, Obama does not have 100% of the base locked in, that I'm sure of.

There is no doubt that Obama is one hell of a campaigner, and significantly more gifted politically than Romney could ever be, so that will help him deflect away from his record and attempt to frame the campaign through the lens that they choose. In regards to the health care law, without a doubt, Romney isn't the best suited to attack Obama on this issue, but this is where his VP selection could help, plus it will be made abundantly clear that Romney does support repealing the health care law. Poll after poll supports this position, but Gallup had a poll recently that should give Conservatives something to think about. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx They polled what do you believe is important? 1) Economy 92% 2) Unemployment 82% 3) Federal Budget Deficit 79% 4) 2010 Health Care law 75% 5) Terrorism 72% 6) Taxes 71% you know what was way down on the list? The Obama "fairness" issue. Gap between rich and poor at 56% Now, I would be willing to bet you that for any news junkies, that follow the mainstream outlets, you wouldn't of believed that. You would of thought that the "fairness" issue is slightly behind the Federal budget Deficit. This tells you that alot of independents don't see this as an important issue. You could easily argue, substantively that what Americans find to be important to them gives Romney an advantage. I've always said that framing the issues will matter greatly, but Romney begins with the advantage, the advantage that in what Americans care about, Romney is on the better side of the argument. So it's a matter of execution.

In the cleveland area? Fat chance

This should be news.

I agree, and I'm beginning to wonder if he'll get all the white evangelical voters that normally go to conservatives. He'll get the vast majority of them, but he'll need every last one of them, and I hate to say it, but there is definitely religious bigotry that is out there, not just from the left but on the right as well. Having said that, I've been looking at polling data, specially the internals, looking at sampling data etc. and the polls that have the correct data show a neck and neck race between Obama and Romney. I'll give you an example, last week there was a NBC poll that showed that Obama has a 50% to 38% advantage in the state of Ohio. Sounds like a landslide right? Well, if you decided to delve into the internals as I like to do, it showed that out of the polling 50% out of those polled either identified themselves as Democrats or independents who leaned for Democrats, and 37% for Repubs or Independents who lean Repub. Ohio doesn't provide Voter registration details, so its up to the poll to determine what they believe is the correct sampling, now considering that Conservatives in Ohio won the only Senator seat race in 2010, won a net plus of 5 house seats, won the governors seat, the Lt Gov seat and won control of the state legislature, and two straight elections in 2000, 2004 for G.W Bush, you'd have to be either willfully dishonest in setting the demographical sampling for this poll, or just completely oblivious to reality. If the sampling were to have been even, you'd see it's a dead heat race. And if you look at polling data from the best three, Quinnipiac, Gallup and Rasmussen, the race is deadlocked. What I'm getting at is we have to remember who is reporting all the data that we read every day, any objective person understans that most of the media has a bias for Obama, for crying out loud, have you been reading Politico lately? What use to be semi barely to the left back in 2008,2009 and most of 2010 has gone unabashedly to the left and may as well be part of Obamas election campaign. There is a narrative that the media and left want to portray and that is that the president is beginning to open up a sizable lead and that Romney has gone to far to the right to win the middle and that there is no energy on the right. You would actually believe that if you only subscribed to normal media outlets, such as WAPO, Politico, NBC etc. But that doesn't paint an accurate picture, MIchigan turnout was way above normal and so was Ohio, yet that wasn't reported. Gallup just had a poll that came out and showed that Conservatives have a 9% advantage in Enthusiasm over Dems, and wait until they get focused when it becomes a 1 on 1 matchup. Also they showed that Mitt has a 10% advantage with non affiliated registered voters. I've always believed that Romney will be a better election candidate than a primary one, simply because his core is closer to the middle than that of an average right winger, and I personally find that appealing. I believe his economic message will be a big net plus, and if independent voters decide that the economy and the debt are the most important issues, and Romney continues to highlight Obamas abysmal record in these areas along with Romney's success, then he stands a good shot at winning. Four things though I see that could be potential roadblocks. The latino vote, if it stands as is, 70-14% Romney loses, no way to overcome that. Two mormon bigotry, if it is there in larger numbers than I had believed there would be, then that will depress Conservative and independent votes, which could cost him the election. Three, this election doesn't become a referendum on Obama's failures and focuses on how Romney is out of touch with the American voter, he's anti woman and only wants to protect his 1% buddies, then Romney loses. And lastly, as you pointed too, that this continues to be such a bloody primary for another couple months, and Romney continues to move akwardly to the right, alienating moderates and racking up negatives with independents, that it will be difficult to shed those unfavorables by election time. That's why the VP selection is critical, someone who can allay the fears of the first two causes of concerns that I listed. Well, thats my summary