mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 10:28 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because it's the oil companies who are making their profits on the backs of people who don't have a choice not to buy their product, MM. You can decide not to buy a new LG fridge, you can't stop going to work when gas gets expensive!

But the pharmaceuticals that people need to live,the chemicals that we all use to survive and live, they arent making their profits "on the backs of people who don't have a choice not to buy their product"?
You seem to think that only the oil companies are doing it.


They are basically engaging in war profiteering. It doesn't matter the percentages, the aggregate is staggeringly large and there's no reason why they wouldn't still be profitable and super-good investments with a few billion dollars less per year, which would really ease that pain at the pump that you bunch keep bitching about.

Show me one time where I have ever complained about the price of gas!
I figure if you dont like paying the price, move closer to work or get a different car.


I mean, Exxon-mobil alone will profit over 40 BILLION dollars this year. Think about that. Let's say that 10% of that went to reducing the cost of gasoline; they would still profit 36 billion dollars, a gigantic amount; yet Americans would be paying less for gas, which is according to your side, the most important thing at the moment. Right?

And now the govt is going to be allowed to say how much profit a company can make?
And once again,I'm not worried about the price of gas.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 10:33 am
mysteryman wrote:
But the pharmaceuticals that people need to live,the chemicals that we all use to survive and live, they arent making their profits "on the backs of people who don't have a choice not to buy their product"?
You seem to think that only the oil companies are doing it.


Oil is ubiquitous; it affects all products and transportation of goods at this time in America. Pharma and chemical companies at best help a small percentage of the population each; and even then you can choose not to use them. Oil is in a whole different category.

Quote:
Show me one time where I have ever complained about the price of gas!
I figure if you dont like paying the price, move closer to work or get a different car.


I said YOUR SIDE, Republicans. They are the ones sitting in an empty Congress building and bitching to the wind about the high gas prices people have to pay; there's an easy solution, but they aren't willing to take it, for they are bought and owned by big oil.


Quote:
And now the govt is going to be allowed to say how much profit a company can make?
And once again,I'm not worried about the price of gas.


Sure, why not? The government steps in to all sorts of financial situaitons; they have determined that large banks and Fannie/Freddie have a minimum profit that they are allowed to make, that is, we are not allowing them to fail; why is that any different then reining in the profits of oil companies during wartime? During WW2 there were strict limits on corporate profits and investigations into those who attempted to be War Profiteers on the backs of the American public. Under Bush and the Republicans, we have NOTHING of the sort going on and it's about damn time that we started! War should not be a for-profit enterprise, yet that's exactly how many companies - including the oil companies, who are making billions off of our activities in the ME - are operating today.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:15 am
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.

Along with the oil companies, I'm sure that the farms should be confiscated , right?

Dems are already publicly calling for nationalization of the energy industry.

Don't deny it.

The socialists in the Democratic party think they see their chance for a command economy.

First, health care and energy. After that , it's all easy to mop up.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:16 am
Some people want more than to have their cake and eat it too, they want you to have neither.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:18 am
real life wrote:
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.


False.

I can choose a diet which excludes any type of produce, be it produce or livestock.

Bad analogy.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:19 am
Further, How much food is bought just to give away to those in need RL? If we were in need of gasoline who any government in the world buy it and just give it to us?

T
K
O?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:28 am
Do not equate this POLICE ACTION to WW2. You are sensationalizing this Police Action to something it is not. (Both sides do this and they are using it as a scare tactic).

I find many democrats are upset when a Company earns 8% on revenue and shows they are spending millions on R&D.

Maybe you should suggest a excess profits tax on them and give the money back to the user (Oh, wait, Obama already suggested that).

This way, they can only earn 5% on revenue and spend NOTHING on R&D.

BRILLIANT!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 11:58 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Because it's the oil companies who are making their profits on the backs of people who don't have a choice not to buy their product, MM. You can decide not to buy a new LG fridge, you can't stop going to work when gas gets expensive!
Cycloptichorn

And I don't have a choice whether I want to pay taxes for your bureaucracies. You don't have to buy gas if you don't want to. You don't have to eat if you don't want to. You don't have to have a house if you don't want to. If you want to sit on your behind, go ahead.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 12:00 pm
real life wrote:
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.

Along with the oil companies, I'm sure that the farms should be confiscated , right?

Dems are already publicly calling for nationalization of the energy industry.

Don't deny it.

The socialists in the Democratic party think they see their chance for a command economy.

First, health care and energy. After that , it's all easy to mop up.


Libs need whipping boys, and the oil companies make good ones right now. If they think producing oil is so lucrative, why don't they get into the business, that is my question?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 12:25 pm
okie wrote:
And I don't have a choice whether I want to pay taxes for your bureaucracies.


Of course you do. You can leave the country, and pick one that has higher or lower tax rates.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 03:39 pm
okie wrote:
real life wrote:
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.

Along with the oil companies, I'm sure that the farms should be confiscated , right?

Dems are already publicly calling for nationalization of the energy industry.

Don't deny it.

The socialists in the Democratic party think they see their chance for a command economy.

First, health care and energy. After that , it's all easy to mop up.


Libs need whipping boys, and the oil companies make good ones right now. If they think producing oil is so lucrative, why don't they get into the business, that is my question?

Maybe some of them liberals wouldn't feel good making money off exploiting people and the environment.

Maybe the success of our nation should be measured in money, ever think about that?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 04:15 pm
mysteryman wrote:
First he wants to cut their budget, now he wants to give them more money.

That sure sounds like a "flip-flop" to me...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/08/barack-obamas-s.html

Quote:
But he also went out of his way to say a little something about NASA, an agency he'd said previously should see its budget cut so an Obama administration can better fund education. Not anymore. Though he said nothing specific about supporting sending men to the moon -- a key part of NASA's plan to, among other things, keep most of the workforce at Kennedy Space Center still employed -- he was more supportive of the agency than he'd ever been publicly.



And now Obama has changed his thinking again...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aNDP0C2N5fKc&refer=us

Quote:
Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called on the government to release light crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down gasoline prices, which have created a drag on the economy.

In what an adviser called a ``refinement'' of his stance on using the reserve, the Illinois senator proposed releasing light crude, which is easier to refine, and replacing it later with heavy crude oil in a swap intended to retain reserve levels.

``We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks,'' Obama said in a speech on energy policy today in Lansing, Michigan.

Obama previously has said he opposes tapping the 727 million-barrel-capacity reserve -- established to buffer a sudden disruption in supply -- purely as a brake on prices.


So now he wants to use the SPR to reduce prices, AFTER he said he was opposed to that.

Quote:
One goal is to put at least 1 million so-called plug-in hybrid vehicles that would get as much as 150 miles to a gallon of gasoline on the road by 2015. That effort would be spurred by a $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy them. Automakers would get $4 billion in loans and tax credits to help them retool factories to build such cars and trucks, Obama said in Michigan, a battleground state that has been especially hard-hit by the slowdown in the U.S. auto industry.


So it saves gas, but in return it allows more electricity to be produced.
And since most electricity is from coal fired plants, what would the net saving to the environment be?

And heres an interesting article about Obama and his "windfall profits tax" on the oil industry...

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121780636275808495.html

Quote:
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.


Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.

Take Exxon Mobil, which on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.


Quote:
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).

If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.


Quote:
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn't investing enough in "renewable" energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.

If Senator Obama is as exercised about "outrageous" profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett's outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin -- if that's the relevant figure -- was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.


So WHY is he only mentioning oil companies?
Why isnt he interested in the "windfall profits" of these other companies?

You should know! McCain is grasping for straws, running a downright dirty campaign! Like I said as far as flipping and flopping, McCain is an expert!
He's Bush's Boy! Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 08:21 pm
Obama leads McCain nationally in AP-Ipsos poll

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Solid margins among women, minorities and young voters have powered Barack Obama to a 6 percentage point lead over John McCain in the presidential race, according to a poll released Tuesday.


Obama is ahead of his Republican rival 47 percent to 41 percent, The Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed. The survey was taken after the Democratic senator from Illinois had returned from a trip to Middle Eastern and European capitals, and during a week that saw the two camps clash over which had brought race into a campaign in which Obama is striving to become the first African-American president.

McCain, the senator from Arizona, is leading by 10 points among whites and is even with Obama among men, groups with whom Republicans traditionally do well in national elections.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 09:07 pm
Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford , California 94305
~~~~~~~~~ Professor Sowell's Article ~~~~~~~~~~

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain.

,

After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President.
I have always voted for the person and have not voted for anyone because some political party was telling me who I should vote for.

We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words 'money' and 'special interests' come to mind, among many others.

Here's the way I see it:

Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois , which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system.

You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth!

But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job!

Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend 'God Damn America' Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there.

The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people.

We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your 'spiritual mentor. BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a 'discouraging word' in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades. Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out on your campaign. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing.

Now YOU look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallies and never once heard the 'N' word. Yep. And Bill Clinton 'did not inhale'.

Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you.

I am deeply sorry, that in a country teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office.

Now, did I mention Bill Clinton?

AH YES! This brings us to MRS. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, who this candidate really is, in spite of all the other names she may care to call herself. This 'feminist' piece of work of course would like to be referred to as MS. And we all know who wears the pantsuit in that family.

MS. Clinton, it is just as depressing to realize that there are dozens of women who would also make great Presidents. But, unfortunately, the horrible state of the selection process has selected YOU. Ms. Clinton, I'm sorry, but you could not tell the truth if we water boarded your worthless 'rear end'!

Still you play the role of the 'embarrassed but dignified noble wife'. What utter malarkey! I am not voting for you for a world of reasons, but the main one is the same as my not voting for Senator Obama.

You persistently insult my intelligence. It COULD be conceivably possible that you did not know about Monica Lewinsky, extremely remote, but possible if we stretch our imaginations a bit. But you turn around and then ask me to believe that you also did not know about Paula Jones and the legion of other women who were chewed up and spit out by your lecherous excuse for a husband. Puleese turn off this broken record!!!

But let's set aside your hubby's flagrant peccadilloes. The real reason I will never vote for you is that I don't think the country can survive EIGHT MORE YEARS of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Sandy Berger stuffing his socks with classified intelligence, Janet Reno's goon squad, and the myriad other corruptions that seem to stick to you like your ugly face. So our former President can't keep his thingy in his pants. The REAL issue is that he committed perjury under oath when he lied about it and the pathetically attempted cover-up that followed.

Like you, he is totally incapable of telling the truth. He could not do it if you tortured him, and in voting for you, we would get the BOTH of you, all over again. The same folks who could have taken out Osama Bin Laden over 4,000 dead Americans ago!

And please stop telling me that you have '8 years of experience' to lead us. You were the freakin' first lady already, not the Commander-in-Chief. Jeez! The sum of your 'experience' is that of the most worrisome and incompetent meddling in the history of the White House. You even cursed your pitiful staff and the Secret Service agents who were and still are unfortunately charged with risking their lives to protect your worthless, thieving hide, and all at the expense of other people who have to work for a living.

Your single pathetic platform is to finance the illegal drugs, alcoholism and bad habits of the very lowest and most irresponsible freeloaders in America and to then 'garnish the wages' (your own words) of every law-abiding and hard-working American to pay for it. This disaster you refer to as 'Universal Health Care.' Where have you been the last 30 years? Did you not see that socialism is a failure wherever it has been tried? Did you not notice that the Soviet Union has collapsed since it gave no reward to those who worked the hardest for the fruits of their own labors to pay for those who will not?

It is interesting to see all the dead bodies that you and your hubby have left in your wake. Suicides, mysterious deaths, cover-ups that make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur. The utter contempt and unbelievable arrogance of some of your strongest supporters, most notably the recently resigned and disgraced Governor Eliot Spitzer, the epitome of hypocritical and malevolent arrogance gone wild, one of your most ardent, wealthy and powerful political supporters. A man the news media refuses to admit IS a 'super delegate' in your own political machine, a fine example of your own 'adopted' state of New York . No wonder you moved there to run for Senator! The environment there is perfect for the likes of you!

Yes, I would vote for a woman, but I will NOT vote for YOU!

Which leaves us with Senator John McCain.

John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit loony, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button.

Think about it.

We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabers at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really ticked off at all these other nut jobs around the planet.

John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America .

I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your nightstand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran , Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba , Libya , Syria , Pakistan , and those other dopes in the sheets, the Saudis.

On the domestic front, poor John did try and reach across the aisle to the opposition in a desperate effort to compromise and to get the Congress to do something. You may not agree with his efforts, but at least he TRIED. For all his efforts, all he got handed to him was his head in a basket. The liberals are ticked at him and the conservatives are ticked at him. Just my kinda guy.

I predict that John will select Senator Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Good choice. I want a Jew whose memory of the Holocaust is still fresh in his mind and who is royally ticked off at all of these towel-headed morons in the Middle East to be the next in line if something should happen to John. Shalom, Vice President Joe. One heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Finally. John McCain knows on a most personal level what it is to suffer horrible torture for years and to see others die, right in front of you, for their love of America . When you ask him about it, he will tell you that what he did was 'nothing special.' Even more incredibly, he states that ANY American who truly loves his country would do exactly the same as he did in that situation. You and I will have a hard time believing that, but the real point is that John McCain believes that about the 'average American,' and that, dear friends and neighbors, is why I will cast my one poor ballot on election day for John McCain -- warts and all.'
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 09:14 pm
Thomas Sowell has finally gone bonkers.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 09:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Thomas Sowell has finally gone bonkers.


That motherf*cker has been crazy for decades...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 09:19 pm
But he hid his insanity very well - until now.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 09:47 pm
http://boortz.com/images/new_obama_for_america_seal.jpg
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 10:04 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.


False.

I can choose a diet which excludes any type of produce, be it produce or livestock.

Bad analogy.

T
K
O


OK, lets put this to the test.

Do you eat, use, or consume any type of dairy product?
That could be milk, cheese, or anything made from or containing dairy products?

Do you eat bread, cereal, rice, corn, wheat, soybeans, soybean oil, corn oil, or anything containing those products or their byproducts?

What about eggs, or anything containing egg products?

What about meat?
Do you eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, fish, or any other type of meat or meat product?

And if you try to tell me you grow your own food, where did the original seeds come from?
Somebody had to grow them.

So this statement...
Quote:
I can choose a diet which excludes any type of produce, be it produce or livestock.


is not completely true.
Try and show otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Tue 5 Aug, 2008 10:46 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Farmers make profits on the backs of those who have no choice except to use their product.


False.

I can choose a diet which excludes any type of produce, be it produce or livestock.

Bad analogy.

T
K
O


OK, lets put this to the test.

Do you eat, use, or consume any type of dairy product?
That could be milk, cheese, or anything made from or containing dairy products?

Do you eat bread, cereal, rice, corn, wheat, soybeans, soybean oil, corn oil, or anything containing those products or their byproducts?

What about eggs, or anything containing egg products?

What about meat?
Do you eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, fish, or any other type of meat or meat product?

And if you try to tell me you grow your own food, where did the original seeds come from?
Somebody had to grow them.

So this statement...
Quote:
I can choose a diet which excludes any type of produce, be it produce or livestock.


is not completely true.
Try and show otherwise.


Your analogy only works if the Oil companies were the sole source for all forms of energy.

Farmers (especially commercial farms) usually specialize in specific crops or livestock. I my diet can be exclude products from any particular farm or even multiple farms.

Vegans don't eat meat or animal byproducts.
People on the Atkins diet will not eat most carbohydrates.

With an oil company we do not have a choice but to participate in their market. Even if we don't drive a gas car, our goods are still shipped with them etc.

Returning to the original point. I can choose the farmers I want to send my money to. I am forced to give my dollar to the oil companies. We don't have a choice with them.

Don't play dumb.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1044
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 05:59:03