No thread for Obama winning?

Wow.
You obviously don't pay any attention to the price of oil or the price of gasoline at the pump or else you wouldn't even be attempting such a lame arguement.
You ask to be shown proof yet you are surrounded by nothing but proof to the contrary of what you believe.
There isn't one shred of evidence or logic or history to back up your position yet you cling to it like a drowning dog to a concrete bone.

The entire Enron scam is based on the exact same model as the current oil scam of speculation and sitting on supplies to drive the profit margin up until it becomes profitable enough to release the supplies onto the market.
There is no greater motive than greed and there is no need to prove any other reason to you besides greater profit margins.

I'm sorry but at this point the burden of proof is not with my claims but with yours.
Everything I've argued has happened and all the facts, motive, and circumstantial evidence supports it.
Everything that you have argued contradicts the history and reality of the situation.
Until you can prove otherwise, all of the evidence points to price gouging and manipulation of the oil and gas supplies by the industry that stands to gain the most by it.
Please show me proof of why the oil industry is not using the 10,000 drilling permits they are currently sitting on, or the 70 million acres of leases containing 80% of the countries oil reserves that are not being developed, other that the obvious fact that they are driving the prices up thru manipulated shortages (backed up by their own internal memos) and I will listen.
Otherwise, if you can't provide proof, then I will have to assume that all of the overwhelming facts and evidence to the contrary are correct.
Please,... prove me wrong.


Btw, what Rep. Young did is called a "lie by omission".
What he omitted completely invalidated his arguement and position.
Your attempt to weasel that and the fact that I actually have to call you on it when you already know it to be a lie is just embarrassing for both of us.

lol. "proof of why" "no need to prove" High oil prices is proof of wrong doing? :D

Why should I offer proof of why I'm asking for proof? I'm not the one claiming that I know. You are.

You don't have evidence to support your assertions and anyone who doubts your baseless assumptions is just lame. In other words, you can make a claim with no burden of proof. But, anyone who asks you to prove your points has to prove why they are asking you to prove them. Genius! :D

I merely pointed out that, in order for you to support your argument, you have to show evidence that oil companies are indeed sitting on the leases and abusing the operation exception. Otherwise, that is merely a baseless accusation.

You have assumed that the reason for not using the 10,000 drilling permits is some dubious one. I have not claimed to know why. Only that there are many reasons and parts to the process that cause delays other than your fantastic theories. You claimed that Young proposed no facts. I listed out the various facts he offered and asked you which ones you didn't believe were facts and you were silent. Because you know that there were facts there. It just didn't sound good to admit it. Another 2% equals "most" situation for LR!

The question is, what claims that you've made here can you actually support with evidence? Are there any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Please,... prove me wrong.

---

Didn't I just do that with your pollsters quote regarding how reliable Rasmussen is?

It's called the enron loophole.

Here help yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=enron+loophole

The "Enron Loophole" is part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that Bill Clinton signed into law.

It is regarding the trade of "single-stock futures" and is not what we are discussing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

That's not some partisan hack trying to sway the public, that's Barack Obama himself setting the record straight.

---

Try both.

The rest of your post is moot if you can't see how that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

The "Enron Loophole" is part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that Bill Clinton signed into law.

It is regarding the trade of "single-stock futures" and is not what we are discussing here.

---

Good you figured out how to use google.
Clinton isn't running for president McCain and Obama are.

When McCain was actually a maverick he tried to close the loophole.
Now that he needs the oil money to finance his campaign.
He's defending the loophole.

Most analysts have stated that oil should not cost more than $50 - 70 per barrell and that most of the run up is speculation.
It only costs $15 per bbl to extract it from the ground and get it to the US.

McCain's chief Economic advisor is Senator Phil Gramm who sponsered the Bill
His Wife Wendy Gramm CFTC Chairwoman was the one who let Enron fill thier pockets and created hysteria by planned black outs.

What makes this relevant today is the fact that the CFTC regulates all forms of energy futures trading including gasoline. The enron loophole that created the enron disaster is directly applicable to the current gas price hike.

Ergo:
Your wrong it is completely applicable to this thread about Presidential candidates and thier positions.

Hah. Frets, why is it so difficult for you to admit you were mistaken about something?

This subject may be relevant to this thread in general. But, you wrote:

Quote:

---

It's called the enron loophole.

Here help yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=enron+loophole

---

Or, maybe you were just having a mental moment and thought people were talking about something related to this that you needed to refer to as "it's called..."

Or, maybe this was another nebulous Fret's joke. Har har! I get it! :D

Where is Vanna White when FL needs her?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ViRGo_RK

Oh man its threads like these that make me love this place. Just wanted to stop in and see how this was going

---

So do I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ViRGo_RK

I'm glad it's not too out of hand yet.

---

Everybody has been learning from previous threads.
This thread is a good source for what we can expect on arguments in debates in the future.

I think Flashlackey should become McCaine's campaign manager. He definitely knows how to put white into black spots and activate the republican spirit ;). McCaine appears to me like a lame duck already who just puts up standard phrases to satisfy everybody who may want to vote for republicans however without any substance and focus. I must admit Bush had a much better campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lesli_felix

Try both.

The rest of your post is moot if you can't see how that works.

---

Sorry Lesli, yes when it comes to political issues, policies, and liberal/conservative ideology Obama's site is considered a partisan source.

Now would you care to explain what that has to do with his religious faith or the debunking of those smears against him?
Are you suggesting that there is an independent/non-partisan source that is more reliable a testament to his personal religious beliefs than himself?
His entire history has been made very public so why do you repeat a lie about him instead of looking it up for yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancerinform

I think Flashlackey should become McCaine's campaign manager. He definitely knows how to put white into black spots and activate the republican spirit ;). McCaine appears to me like a lame duck already who just puts up standard phrases to satisfy everybody who may want to vote for republicans however without any substance and focus. I must admit Bush had a much better campaign.

---

Hah. Not unless he changed half his platform would I stump for McCain as a good candidate. I'm just trying to be loyal to rationality here.

I don't know if I would characterize him in exactly the same way you have. But, I agree that he doesn't seem to be running an impressive campaign. Yet, checking the numbers, it seems to be working for someone somewhere. Considering that the states you and I live in are pretty much shoe-ins for any Democrat, we may just not be getting the bulk of his efforts?

The question is two-fold
If he has the bucks?
Would he go to a national campaign?

The public financing thing is a double edged sword for both candidates.
First McCain opted in
Then he wanted out
Now he wants back in.

First Obama agreed that public financing aid was a way to go.
He got support from... the public at large. Now he doesn't want to go to a government funded campaign.

He in short wants to maintain his financial leveraging. Which is allowing him to run a national campaign rather then a focuse battle ground states campaign.


I'm somewhat dissapointed in Obama in regards to FISA (see wimps)
He says he wants to change the bill in the senate but if he can't he'll vote for it anyway. If McCain wants to show himself as a maverick now's the time.

I am not disappointed at all, actually the opposite because it shows that Obama is a cool smart calculator and not naive. The important point is to win. I am more convinced now that he will not do any naive politics of a dreamer.