68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 04:28 pm
@parados,
Well, if one doesn't accept that increased C02 in the atomosphere will lead to the sort of ecological cataclysm that Al Gore profitably and shrilly warns about and which you, apparently buy into, what is the harm of Co2 in the atmosphere?

We would be in a lot worse shape if it disappeared from our atmosphere than we are by it's content increasing, no matter who you believe.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 05:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but your point seems to be that Santorum is an "idiot" because he doesn't accept the notion that increased Co2 in the atmosphere is a huge threat to the planet.


Yes you are wrong. Parados got it without even trying.

He (anyone) is an idiot if he thinks that saying carbon dioxide can't contribute to climate change BECAUSE it isn't harmful to plants is a valid argument. It's a logical fallacy. You don't have to know science, or even believe in it, to see that.

It's that simple. You get blinded to the point by your partisanship.

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 05:24 pm
@hingehead,
"Partisanship blindness" seems to be the new disease of the conservatives.

They believe in most or all the lies the GOP candidates are spewing, and don't even bother checking for facts on their own.

The biggest lie is that Obama is responsible for the high gas prices. Any credible research will show that oil is a global commodity, and no one producer can impact the price. It's also easy to see that it's impossible for one person on this planet (President Obama) to affect oil prices. It's impossible for any one person to affect oil production, supply, demand, or prices.

What governments can do is require auto companies to produce more efficient cars or provide more public transportation.

The fact of the matter is, the US consumers can use less gasoline - by choice if "we want to." Quit buying gas guzzlers, heavier luxury vehicles, and 8-cylinder cars. We are the ones creating the greater demand; that drives up prices. Quit blaming Obama.

parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 05:28 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Santorum is basically an idiot when it comes to the science.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/santorums-science/
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 05:29 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
We would be in a lot worse shape if it disappeared from our atmosphere than we are by it's content increasing, no matter who you believe.

That's funny Finn..
You just lambasted Hinge for arguing an extreme and now you do the same thing.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2012 09:45 pm
@parados,
Just love those FactChecks, especially since they poo-poo most of what the GOP candidates claim about different issues.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 12:07 am
@hingehead,
If you're going to quote me out of context, you should wait a few pages so what I wrote in full isn't so fresh:

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will try and do so even if you think I am right), but your point seems to be that Santorum is an "idiot" because he doesn't accept the notion that increased Co2 in the atmosphere is a huge threat to the planet.

His comment about plants and C02 was merely a throw away line to the crowd before which he was speaking...much like yours.


I'm no fan of Santorum (in fact he's begun to really piss me off) but your taking his comment as a serious expression of what he believes is self-serving.

But, you get applause when you do so I expect you'll continue.

Do you think the liberals who fashioned that commercial depicting Paul Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff really believe he would do such a thing?

Even I don't think they are that idiotic.

There are plenty of substantive things about Santorum with which to disagree. Insisting he is an idiot because he use a crowd pleasing line about plants liking C02 is cheap, but apparently effective in this forum.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 12:30 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"Partisanship blindness" seems to be the new disease of the conservatives.


Hey kettle, quit calling me black.

I don't seem to recall you chastising Democrats when they faulted Bush for rising gas prices, and alleging he and his family were actually profiting by the increase.

Obama is a liar of convenience.

He consistently spouts crap about the US producing 2% of the world's oil and consuming 20% as if it is an immutable ratio.

He also tries to take credit, where none is deserved, for the increase in gas and oil production in this country.

If the US only produces 2% of the world's oil, and that statistic has been challenged, it is not because our oil resources amount to only 2%, it is because the American left does all in its power to prevent companies from accessing the vastly greater resources we have.

Obama has shut down existing wells and the development of wells in the Gulf, and he has nixed the Keystone pipeline which doesn't even involve drilling in our country.

The increase in oil and gas production is a result of efforts on state and private land, not federal, and given another term, watch him try and extend his reach into those areas too.

The high price of gas is a political liability for him, whether or not one can accurately blame him for it, and so now he's trying to suggest, at the same time, that a) the president can't do anything about gas prices, and b) He has done all sorts of things to keep gas prices down.

it's clear to anyone with eyes and ears that he has all along wanted the price of gas to go through the sky...just not before the election in November.

You can agree with him and Chu that this would the best thing for the country but you can't have it both ways.

Obviously it is impossible for one average Joe to affect gas prices, but he aint one average Joe. He has the weight of the US federal government behind him. If the Saudi king decides tomorrow to cut off all oil production in his country, you can bet your life it will have a very large impact on gas prices, but then maybe you'll be telling us he can't be blamed because he's only "one person."

You may think its a bad idea to do so, but if Obama announced tomorrow an all out program to tap all of this country's oil and gas resources, the price of gas would drop.

If he doesn't want to do that for environmental reasons, fine...but he should be honest about it and not sling the bullshit about how nothing can be done while simultaneously claiming he's done a lot.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 12:31 am
@parados,
No my pointy headed friend, I criticized Hinge for calling someone an idiot based on an extreme.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 12:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Sometimes Finn you are so dumb. My whole point was that argument itself is ******* stupid. By extension a presidential candidate who uses it is either stupid (if he believes it) or pandering to the stupid.

Quote:
I'm no fan of Santorum (in fact he's begun to really piss me off) but your taking his comment as a serious expression of what he believes is self-serving.

But, you get applause when you do so I expect you'll continue.

Do you think the liberals who fashioned that commercial depicting Paul Ryan pushing an old lady in a wheel chair off a cliff really believe he would do such a thing?

Even I don't think they are that idiotic.

There are plenty of substantive things about Santorum with which to disagree. Insisting he is an idiot because he use a crowd pleasing line about plants liking C02 is cheap, but apparently effective in this forum.


This is just pointless waffle because you can never, ever, accept that you got the wrong end of the stick because of your preconceptions. You waded in and find yourself defending someone for using a stupid argument.

How does the old lady pram ad equate with something a presidential candidate said? You don't even make sense any more.

Using your logic I should never question anything one says because, if you say so, it's just a 'throw away line'. There are no throw away lines in politics in the age of ubiquitous media.

Just get over it. Or for god sake put me on ignore. And get that torch light off your dick.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 02:40 am
I think you misunderstand the oil business. The president of the United States cannot control the price of oil or gas, at this moment and time. However, the Keystone project was put in to fast forward from Oklahoma south as of a few days ago. The northern part is being rerouted to miss the valuable water reserves in one of the worlds largest aquifers, as well it should. This will take time and then the new route will need to be approved. The keystone pipeline will most definitely have American drilled bitumen and other oil products in it's pipes, just like the many other pipes that criss cross N. America. As does the first portion of the Keystone pipeline already in use, that travels through Illinois. It will transport crude oil from U.S. producers in Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota. And it will stay in the United states once it has been refined, by Americans to cover American needs first. If there is a glut, it will then be sold to foreign markets. Only then will the President be able to affect the price of oil/gas in the United States and hopefully Canada as well. Because after all, we still pay for more for gas than you do.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 10:15 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Hey, Finn, why would democrats chastise GW Bush's raising gas prices? He ran an oil company - and failed. One producer cannot impact world oil prices.

The difference today is that all the GOP candidates are blaming Obama for the high gas prices. CLUE: No one person can reduce oil prices; that's a fact.

Something you seem unawares. Oil is a global commodity, and it's supply and demand that influences prices.

OTHER FACTS: Oil production under Obama has increased. Oil consumption in the US has been dropping during the past couple of years.

If I were you, I'd put me on ignore, because I'll only upset your conservative mind. Have you purchased a contraceptive lately?






RABEL222
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 10:36 am
@cicerone imposter,
I sure hope so. Can you picture a bunch of little Finns running around spouting their conservative BS.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2012 01:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If I were you, I'd put me on ignore, because I'll only upset your conservative mind.


Good advice, CI, and of course, we needn't dwell on the fact that you have this hypocritical side.

And what's worse, you share that with, dare I say it ---- FINN!

Eeewwwwwwwwwww!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2012 05:20 pm
Has it not been announced in the US yet that Mr Santorum has thrown the towel in and thus confirmed my prediction that Mr Romney was a shoo in.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 05:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But Obama is ok with the higher gas prices, at least according to Steven Chu.
According to him, the admin is NOT interested in lowering prices.

http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

And lets not forget that when Obama was campaigning, he said high gas prices were the result of Washingtons "failure to lead" and that they were a result of "failed energy policies".

Quote:
"Progress" isn't exactly how Obama described the country's energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."

"For the well-off in this country," Obama said in May 2008, "high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis."

In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be "one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced" and that gas prices "are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses."


http://news.investors.com/article/601827/201202211837/obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm

So, are high gas prices a burden, or does the admin want high gas prices and have no interest in seeing them come down?


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 05:26 pm
@mysteryman,
Gas prices are the Achilles Heel of US economic activity due to the distances the planners have arranged it takes place in and the customs associated with cheap gas. One A2ker admitted to a 40 mile round trip to get a pizza for supper.

That can't go on for ever.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 05:43 pm
@spendius,
I agree. However, that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2012 10:07 pm
@spendius,
Maybe he lives 20 miles from the nearest restaurant. Not everyone lives in a town of 100,000 people.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2012 05:40 am
Both the last two posts seem to be missing the point. My example was microcosmic and intended merely as an illustration of an attitude which is macrocosmic.

The millions of years of sun energy locked in gas has enabled the ego to inflate without any corresponding justification and such inflation of the ego is potentially limitless. Gas is almost a perpetual motion device until it ceases to be.

It's psychological.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 09/18/2014 at 05:43:09