Magox

I can tell you this, when it comes to oil, there isn't a politician in the U.S that knows about oil as much as I do. In regards to right wing rhetoric, I could give two ***** about that. The reality is that the presidens energy policies have had a relatively small effect on todays oil prices, I calculate somewhere between $3-5 a barrel, simply because of the moratoria of last year and the loss of rigs from that action. Having said that, his policies will have more of a long-term effect on prices because of the drilling restrictons and activist stance the EPA currently has. But, I do seem to remember a bunch of you leftists blaming Bush for the high prices of 08 and without even knowing you then , I'm pretty damn sure that you were one of those strawmen proponents back then that attempted to link the oil prices of 08 to his oil buddies in Texas But go ahead and tell me you weren't one of "those" guys. uh huh yeah So when I hear the ignorant attack on Obama and how he is to blame for the current price of oil, I just kinda sit back and think to myself, "the shoe is on the other foot now" and if I were a campaign strategist I would be just as disingenous in my attacks against Obama as they were the last election cycle.

What are we judging here? Is there something nefarious from the actions of Romney from the link you just provided, other than the characterization of the word "funneled" that the author of the link used?

Oil imports are down because consumption has gone down MAINLY because of the weak economy. The Presidents Energy policies have virtually nothing to do with the trends, Nothing! This is all happening in spite of the president, oil production projects and the new natural gas horizontal drilling explosion was all in place WELL before the president stepped into office. Now if you want to say that because of the presidents poor economic record, that consumption of oil has gone down, therefore lessening oil imports, then you may have a point. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/what-obamas-first-ad-doesnt-say-111451.html Repeat after me: I drink the Obama Kool-aid because it tastes good.

There is a distinction, you're colorblind.

It's like me looking at a red shirt and I say, "hey, thats a red shirt" and you tell me, "that's not red, it's blue", and I'm like "listen here ****, I know what I'm looking at, and its !@#$ing red."

What a little kitty, waaaaaaaa

Oh, memories

Geez, shouldnt of the Bidens of at least SAID and embellished their charitable donations by just a little bit more?

Ok cool, so you are sticking with the "I'm deciding to discredit the charitable contributions because they are a racist religion" argument . Just checkin.

Not my fault that you are thick-headed. psss pssss It's called context.

So what you are saying is that Mormons are still discriminating against blacks? And that Mitt Romney and other Mormons are only willing to donate money if and only if money is directed towards causes that help white people? We are talking about current topics right? If you want to use history as some sort of justification as your point, than i can say the democratic party was the one who supported slavery. So I guess that means that your party is still the party of racists? Of course not. That would be as ridiculous as the argument that you were just trying to attempt.

AGAIN! In which I've said at least a couple times "The Point..." The point of the whole thread which is going right over not just your head but others, is that the lefts attempt to stake the claim of champions of fighting for the causes of social injustices are hypocritical at best, when it comes right down to it, Conservatives are equal if not more willing to actually tangibly further this cause. When ABC had a story on Mitt's charitable contributions, they characterized some of his donations as "sending" money to his church rather than "giving". An obvious veiled attempt at minimizing his contributions, almost as if it were law. Sort of like what you did with the initial post you had in this thread, or Birdogs pathetic attempt do demean and cast Mormonism as a racially charged and discriminatory religion.

Of course I do, I've provided it on this board a few times.. Try this, google up who contributes more to charities, Conservatives or Liberals The reason why I thought it was relevant to bring up a small sample scale was because ummmmmm because they are the two at the top of the ticket crying social injustice? Yeah, I'd say it's relevant.

Look up the word "tithing" What % are Catholics suggested to give? In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case. Wow! not only are you a hypcocrite but you are a bigot. (Man, I just pulled that line of attack straight out of the liberal handbook, felt good )

What's hilarious about this is, is that this will actually make sense to some people.

So Mitt released his Taxes today.... Basically over the past 2 years, hes earned approximately $42 Million dollars, in which he has paid right around $6.2M in taxes and has given about $7M in charity, out of that $7M around half of that was given to his church. So, when you total up the figures, a little over 16% was given to charitable causes and a little over 14.5% to the U.S government. In contrast, President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle paid nearly $1.8 million in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of over $5.5 million in 2009, and gave $329,100 to charity. So if you figure out the percentages, the Obamas gave about 6% to charitable causes. So whats the point of the thread? What is the current battlecry of the left? Isn't it about "Social Justice", the inequalities of the incomes? Isn't that the crux of it all? So, the attack on Mitt will be that he favors the rich, that he is callous and that he doesn't care about "social justice". However, he pays more than 270% more of his annual income to charitable causes than the Obamas, which of course MUCH MUCH more of this money goes towards addressing the issue of "Social Injustice" than federal taxes could ever achieve. Let me repeat that again, he pays more than 270% of his annual income to charitable causes than the one who cries about social injustice. Which means that his actions are voluntary. Let me repeat again, VOLUNTARY! And this isn't just Mitt, but conservatives by in large follow this mantra, which is to voluntarily give charitable contributions more so than those who preach it. These are facts, you lemmings can try to argue it all day long and attempt to justify your position, but at the end of the day, these are the facts and there is no getting around them, at least not rationally.

umm, the point of the... oh nevermind

"There you go again"

You are one delusional dude.

You can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself, but that doesnt change the fact that you are further to the right than your average Joe. Nothing wrong with that, thats just what it is. In regards to how average Americans feel about Obama, yep, they believe he hasn't delivered on his promises, that he has done a piss poor job on handling the economy and believes he is your typical tax and spend liberal, but they don't hate the guy. And nope, if you honestly believe that anyone can beat Obama you are dead wrong! Out of the 4, Mitt is he ONLY one who has a shot, the rest you can forget about. In regards to what has transpired over the past 2 weeks, easy, Conservatives never liked Romney, but the other candidates are so terrible that he had been the frontrunner. GOP primary voters have been desperate to put anyone but Romney at the top of the ticket, but his perception of electabiliy, groundgame, qualifications, consistency and money have kept him up at or near the top week in and weak out. So when the debate came, Newt caught lightning in a bottle, he executed with near perfection, tapped into the rights anger, couple that with Mitt's waffling answers which fits right in with the perception of many southern rightwingers, which is that he is a squishy N.E flip floppy Moderate. This was one part Anti Romney, one part Newt having a phenomenal week. Thats what happened.

Dude, you are pretty far out to the right and you certainly don't share what the average independent wants. The only anger that Newt is tapped into is the rights anger. Independents want competence, not flare AND they don't hate Obama, actually the kinda like him, they just see him as ineffectual in regards to solving our countries economic woes. However, they DON'T like Newt, from a personal perspective. So again, the one's that hate Obama are the right wingers, so lets not confuse your idealogical perspective with those in the middle. The reality is that the Obama administration and all the other liberals that are up for reelection are praying that Newt wins. If Newt wins, the GOP can forget about their prosects of winning the Senate, will lose the house and certainly won't win at the top of the ticket. Shades of 84 will come to mind.

Right now there are many conservatives that will be running reelection campaigns for November of this year, and inside their heads, they are thinking to themselves...... "Newt may win the GOP ticket, and my name will have to appear by his..... Newt may win the ticket.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "

I say live life and do what makes you happy as long as you don't hurt others while doing so. Also, don't concern yourself with the abilities and possessions of others simply because it shouldnt bare any role in your quest to happiness. Those who do, allow outside forces to dictate that outcome. I guess its just me, but I don't begrudge anyone elses success, and never would I ever feel entitled of another mans fruits of his labor. Thats an area where you and I differ.

Brought to you by Big fat ass Ed Schultz.