A Raving Liberal's Complaints About Obama (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-06-22 4:16 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-22 12:25 PM ...I stopped reading right there... that's the left's equivalent of "I think Glenn Beck..." ![]() 1. Hardly. Bill Maher is funny. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist. 2. Stopping reading? Interesting choice. close your mind off to a different point of view much? I was joking around. I read it... I actually listen to him now and then. But he's such a holier-than-thou, left wing, cry baby it's hard to take him even a little seriously. Any time a conservative comes on his show and makes a valid point he brushes it off with a joke. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriRSquared - 2012-06-22 2:27 PM morey000 - 2012-06-22 4:16 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-22 12:25 PM ...I stopped reading right there... that's the left's equivalent of "I think Glenn Beck..." ![]() 1. Hardly. Bill Maher is funny. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist. 2. Stopping reading? Interesting choice. close your mind off to a different point of view much? I was joking around. I read it... I actually listen to him now and then. But he's such a holier-than-thou, left wing, cry baby it's hard to take him even a little seriously. Any time a conservative comes on his show and makes a valid point he brushes it off with a joke. Ya... I used to like his show, but he is pretty hard to stomach these days. He is funnier than Glenn Beck though. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-06-22 3:24 PM jgaither - 2012-06-22 11:25 AM Obama has nothing to do with that. Price of oil is set on the world market. It's a global commodity. Basic economics, unless you're a conspiracy theorist, the price of oil going up is a good thing. It means there is greater demand for it (or supply is diminishing, but we all know that is not the case here). That demand is only created by increased economic activity. It also means that the supply is slightly lower than the demand. Higher prices incentivize other sources of fuel. With the proliferation of those other sources, prices will even out as it has expanded the base supply to match demand. Do yourself a favor and go buy stock in one of the oil companies or better yet oil field equipment companies now while their stock is low (relatively speaking) and that way when these dang oil companies turn in their record profits, you can benefit from it instead of feeling "squeezed at the pump". If you don't like gas prices, buy a more fuel efficient car.
With exception of the oil speculators who never take delivery of the barrels. I feel they're creating false demand and falsely inflate the price of oil. It's not as bad today, but several years ago it was down right criminal. I agree with you about oil being a global commodity, but the presidents policies can effect the price of oil on the supply side. If President X were to say he's disbanning the EPA and approving every oil drilling permit request and refinery building permit the "global supply" will increase and therefore the price will drop assuming demand stays the same. Alternatively, if the president's policies are to deny permits and increase regulation on the oil industry in the US the global oil supply will be less therefore increasing the cost of oil assuming demand stays the same. Also we pay about $.50 per gallon in taxes on gas in the US so politicians control that amount as well.
I gave an oversimplified example above just for the sake of brevity as it is one of the more complicated industries out there. I don't think that even the examples you gave would effect the price of oil enough to change prices too much. We don't have a problem getting oil, gasoline, or diesel in the U.S. While I understand you are saying that the policies CAN effect prices, yes I think there is truth to that, but this president's policies didn't because he didn't change anything for the oil companies. The type of policies that would effect are the policies that would further shrink the supply on an extremely large basis, like what happened in the EU in 2003-08 where diesel consumption almost doubled due to policy and they started setting the price. If someone needs it bad enough, it can effect the rest of us. edit: and yes I know about him cutting permits in the gulf, that hurt jobs more than oil. At the time oil was below $80 I think and they weren't exactly chomping at the bit for wells and new exploration. It hurt the services though that service those rigs. Edited by jgaither 2012-06-22 4:10 PM |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() AcesFull - I think that the points Maher makes are similar to the ones I was making. Obama has not been the radical leftist liberal socialist that the right said he would be and still says he is. I wish he had been, because it's about time we did something right correct. So what would that be? What exactly do you want? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Morey! Thanks for the hilarious Maher post. For God's sake, if my left-leaning self can listen to, read, and enjoy Dennis Miller, I think Righties can get a kick out of Mr. Maher's work. That really was funny. ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2012-06-22 4:25 PM morey000 - 2012-06-22 3:16 PM TriRSquared - 2012-06-22 12:25 PM ...I stopped reading right there... that's the left's equivalent of "I think Glenn Beck..." ![]() 1. Hardly. Bill Maher is funny. Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist. 2. Stopping reading? Interesting choice. close your mind off to a different point of view much? I find Glenn Beck funny too. Same here, Maher is just to nasty, Refering to Palin by the C-word is not funny, niether are his attacks on the Catholic Church. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well now that we have thrown Maher and Beck into the mix... it got me thinking. I realize the title of the thread may be tongue in cheek... but why is it OK for a raving liberal agenda for the country over a raving conservative agenda? Maher does bring up valid point... Obama has been no where near the liberal extremist the Right makes him out to be... but the liberal extremists in the country are actually pissed about it. Why should any extremist agenda be pushed through in this country? |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Sorry for more digression but Maher is just a complete jerk. I can handle most anyone's opinions but I honestly would like to..... no, actually I would like to spar with him for about 5 minutes. Can someone arrange that ? Back on topic, sorta; the divide between liberals and conservatives is not shrinking.... oh, well, at least we all seemingly united for a short while after 9/11. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-06-22 9:47 PM Well now that we have thrown Maher and Beck into the mix... it got me thinking. I realize the title of the thread may be tongue in cheek... but why is it OK for a raving liberal agenda for the country over a raving conservative agenda? Maher does bring up valid point... Obama has been no where near the liberal extremist the Right makes him out to be... but the liberal extremists in the country are actually pissed about it. Why should any extremist agenda be pushed through in this country? For the same reason it's ok for proponents of the extreme conservative agenda to complain when they feel GOP politicians aren't being conservative enough: Freedom of Speech. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and has the right to voice it. The reality is that a more moderate agenda is the compromise that is going to prevail the majority of the time in a democracy. Positions at the far right or left are generally just too idealistic and not practical.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ![]() Obummer! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() TriMyBest - 2012-06-23 11:30 AM powerman - 2012-06-22 9:47 PM Well now that we have thrown Maher and Beck into the mix... it got me thinking. I realize the title of the thread may be tongue in cheek... but why is it OK for a raving liberal agenda for the country over a raving conservative agenda? Maher does bring up valid point... Obama has been no where near the liberal extremist the Right makes him out to be... but the liberal extremists in the country are actually pissed about it. Why should any extremist agenda be pushed through in this country? For the same reason it's ok for proponents of the extreme conservative agenda to complain when they feel GOP politicians aren't being conservative enough: Freedom of Speech. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and has the right to voice it. The reality is that a more moderate agenda is the compromise that is going to prevail the majority of the time in a democracy. Positions at the far right or left are generally just too idealistic and not practical.
I'm not talking about opinions and freedom of speech, I'm talking about extreme positions being advanced. This country would be no better under an extreme liberal agenda than it would be under an extreme conservative agenda. Edited by powerman 2012-06-23 2:15 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-06-23 3:13 PM TriMyBest - 2012-06-23 11:30 AM powerman - 2012-06-22 9:47 PM Well now that we have thrown Maher and Beck into the mix... it got me thinking. I realize the title of the thread may be tongue in cheek... but why is it OK for a raving liberal agenda for the country over a raving conservative agenda? Maher does bring up valid point... Obama has been no where near the liberal extremist the Right makes him out to be... but the liberal extremists in the country are actually pissed about it. Why should any extremist agenda be pushed through in this country? For the same reason it's ok for proponents of the extreme conservative agenda to complain when they feel GOP politicians aren't being conservative enough: Freedom of Speech. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and has the right to voice it. The reality is that a more moderate agenda is the compromise that is going to prevail the majority of the time in a democracy. Positions at the far right or left are generally just too idealistic and not practical.
I'm not talking about opinions and freedom of speech, I'm talking about extreme positions being advanced. This country would be no better under an extreme liberal agenda than it would be under an extreme conservative agenda. My point exactly, but there will always be people on the extremes who don't seem to realize that. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() True enough. |
![]() ![]() |
New user![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey000 - 2012-06-22 2:04 PM Aces- I think Bill Maher summed up what you're feelings are pretty well a few weeks ago.
" New Rule: Ted Nugent has to tell me what Obama has done that he's so mad about so I have something to be happy about. Now, I refer to the famous proclamation Mr. Nugent made last month, when he said that if Obama is re-elected, it would be such an unthinkable catastrophe that he, Ted, would "either be dead or in jail." Or, as I call it, a "win-win." Now, Ted went on to say that Obama leads a - quote - "vile, evil, America-hating administration wiping its with the Constitution." As opposed to Ted, who uses his hand. Now, it somehow became an article of faith on the right that Obama is the most extreme president in American history. Although, when they say that, I think what they really mean is...he's black. Oh how I long for the day when Mr. Obama is out of office so I can go back to being just a plain old stupid redneck, who clings to his bible and guns, when I don't agree with leftist progressive policies, instead of the racist they now think I am.
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2012-06-23 1:13 PM I think extremists on both sides can serve a purpose - to ensure that there is someone who is concerned only with principle and ideology when putting together policies. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist, but having watched Obama over the past few years has made me realize that there can be a downside, and that is valuing an outcome, any outcome above all else. Sometimes no solution is better than a bad solution, and the 'extremists' can help hold accountable those in the middle to ensure they don't totally abandon their ideals or principles for the sake of a deal. But this assumes that they don't have so much influence that they can block any sort of compromise.I'm not talking about opinions and freedom of speech, I'm talking about extreme positions being advanced. This country would be no better under an extreme liberal agenda than it would be under an extreme conservative agenda. The catch to this is that the extremists and ideologues have to be a small minority, enough to make a ruckus, but not powerful enough to create policy rather than influence it. If they are able to scuttle any sort of a compromise or any policy that doesn't conform 100% to their extreme view you get a situation similar to the one we have now where nothing can get done. Edited by drewb8 2012-06-25 9:20 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() My prediction: 2012 - Romney elected 2013-2015 - Similar discourse with the two party system after mixed results. 2016 - 3rd Party representative makes strong run for Presidency and frustration from both sides makes it a genuine posibility. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cardenas1 - 2012-06-25 9:48 AM My prediction: 2012 - Romney elected 2013-2015 - Similar discourse with the two party system after mixed results. 2016 - 3rd Party representative makes strong run for Presidency and frustration from both sides makes it a genuine posibility.
I think you give too much credit to think outside the box to the average voter. I would love that though. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cardenas1 - 2012-06-25 11:48 AM My prediction: 2012 - Romney elected 2013-2015 - Similar discourse with the two party system after mixed results. 2016 - 3rd Party representative makes strong run for Presidency and frustration from both sides makes it a genuine posibility. Sorry. I don't give the average voter that much credit... This is more likely... |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cardenas1 - 2012-06-25 11:48 AM My prediction: 2012 - Romney or Obama elected 2013-2015 - The losing party spends years stalling any progress, offering no new ideas or solutions to the huge problems. The winning party spends years blaming the losing party while offering no new ideas or solutions to the huge problems . 2016 - A weak Republican runs against a weak Democrat. Someone wins. The average citizen loses. Nothing changes except the complaining. My prediction |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ADollar79 - 2012-06-25 11:57 AM cardenas1 - 2012-06-25 11:48 AM My prediction: 2012 - Romney or Obama elected 2013-2015 - The losing party spends years stalling any progress, offering no new ideas or solutions to the huge problems. The winning party spends years blaming the losing party while offering no new ideas or solutions to the huge problems . 2016 - A weak Republican runs against a weak Democrat. Someone wins. The average citizen loses. Nothing changes except the complaining. My prediction Are you a prophet by chance? |
![]() ![]() |
New user![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tri42 - 2012-06-22 11:47 PM Sorry for more digression but Maher is just a complete jerk. I can handle most anyone's opinions but I honestly would like to..... no, actually I would like to spar with him for about 5 minutes. Can someone arrange that ? Back on topic, sorta; the divide between liberals and conservatives is not shrinking.... oh, well, at least we all seemingly united for a short while after 9/11. I was going to post the same thing, but I couldn't think of a nice way to say it. Well said! I'd gladly pay an entry fee for that as well! |
![]() ![]() |
New user![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Bill Maher at his best: Shortly after Steve Irwin died tragically of a string ray sting, our friend Bill goes to a Halloween Party.
Ughh!! The voice of a movement. Any normal society would shun a fool like this. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() jp4ncsu - 2012-06-25 11:55 AM tri42 - 2012-06-22 11:47 PM Sorry for more digression but Maher is just a complete jerk. I can handle most anyone's opinions but I honestly would like to..... no, actually I would like to spar with him for about 5 minutes. Can someone arrange that ? Back on topic, sorta; the divide between liberals and conservatives is not shrinking.... oh, well, at least we all seemingly united for a short while after 9/11. I was going to post the same thing, but I couldn't think of a nice way to say it. Well said! I'd gladly pay an entry fee for that as well! Well, first- you need to be somebody worth his time. He did a great spar with Ann Coulter- I think it was at Radio City Music hall. He wiped the floor with her. He's not someone who shies away from debating issues... he does it every week. Frankly- I find that his show is most worth watching when he has 2 of his panel that represent the right. When there is only one, I see him time and time again make sure that the conservative opinion gets heard -and then he makes fun of it... But- that's debate. |
|