Let me clear something up for the whole world since everyone seems to be blind these days but Obama is not black ok? he is mixed 50% white 50% black. I am sick of everyone calling him black when he is not. Me having mixed children is a slap in the face to my family and it's going to stop and my voice will be heard on this subject. Most of all my cousins kids, my kids, my bothers kids, and sisters kids are mixed. I don't care what shade the skin is, if they are mixed then that is it. People want to bring up racist? well your being racist for saying he is black when he is not. If you had two 50 dollar bills in your pocket would you say you had 50 dollars or would you say you have a hundred? Open your minds and stop walking around like robots with you minds programed by society. If you walk around long enough with your eyes closed your gonna fall off the ledge, GET THE KNOWLEDGE!
What are you on about? Racism is prejudice against a person because of his colour and not because you believe he is black. I am not a racist by thinking he is black when he is in fact mixed. I would just be misinformed.
Get off your soapbox and stop preaching to me or anyone else in this thread about being "programed by society". We are all deeper than we reveal in our online musings. There are bigger issues than innocently misjudging someones origin. How about educating without blowing a fuse.
Let me clear something up for the whole world since everyone seems to be blind these days but Obama is not black ok? he is mixed 50% white 50% black. I am sick of everyone calling him black when he is not. Me having mixed children is a slap in the face to my family and it's going to stop and my voice will be heard on this subject. Most of all my cousins kids, my kids, my bothers kids, and sisters kids are mixed. I don't care what shade the skin is, if they are mixed then that is it. People want to bring up racist? well your being racist for saying he is black when he is not. If you had two 50 dollar bills in your pocket would you say you had 50 dollars or would you say you have a hundred? Open your minds and stop walking around like robots with you minds programed by society. If you walk around long enough with your eyes closed your gonna fall off the ledge, GET THE KNOWLEDGE!
P.S. I would never vote for a man who is ashamed of his white side of his family. Who says he is black and smacks his own mother and her family in the face and who does not like white people. I feel so sorry for all of you brainwashed people. Stop using 2% of your mind! and yes I am a black man!
hahaha. Ashamed? No dude... that's seriously a myopic view.
Let me put it to you this way. My father was mixed race, 1/2. Therefore, I'm 1/4. And guess what? Whenever White people saw my father, they said he was Black.
When people see me, they only see me as a Black man.
It has nothing to do with shame. It's the generic perception of how people see, greet, and typically clump you into whatever societal container that they can.
Besides on many occasions, Obama has brought up his mother and grandmother. Who were White. It's the media that keep labeling him as Black.
The majority of americans don't like the party or what it currently stands for.
However McCain somehow is not seen as a regular member of the republican party which has helped his candidacy.
For the life of me I can't find a single issue that he disagrees with Bush on, or the republican base (of course that flips and back in an instant)
I think some of the smear tatics used by surrogates are doing more harm to the causes they are trying to support then good.
If the party is on a "suicide mission", it's working for McCain as he continues to make ground against Obama in the polls.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. When "leaners" are included, Obama holds a three-point advantage, 48% to 45%. Both results reflect a single point gain for McCain and a continued fade for Obama’s bounce. Today’s results are the closest the race has been in polling conducted since Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential Nomination.
I think that shows a better overall view of the field.
Rasmussen is consistantly off from a majority of other polls... same goes with FOX polls for some reason.
Maybe it's because they poll likely voters (LV) instead of registered voters (RV), or maybe it has to do with their choice of who to poll.
I don't know, but either way it's nice to see an average of all the polls and trends brought together like this to help eliminate the abberations.
And yes, the average poll shows McCain getting a small bump from 42.10% on 6/16 to 42.8% today after a vicious slide from 45.3% just two weeks ago on 6/2.
Personally I suspect it has to do with all the false hype and uncontested lies about offshore drilling that's been playing in the MSM this week and his flip-flop now in favor of it.
Pundits on FOX are still repeating Cheney's lie about China drilling 50 miles off of Florida even after he admitted himself that it wasn't true.
Funny how no one in the MSM is mentioning that the oil industry is currently sitting on 10,000 already approved drilling permits that they're not using, or that they already hold leases on 33 million acres of offshore oilfields that they haven't started drilling, or the 34 million acres of inland oilfield leases that they're letting sit untouched.
I haven't heard on one major network yet that the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resourses this month determined that if the oil companies used the current permits and leases that they now hold to drill that it would double the US oil output without touching any of the evironmentally sensitive areas that they currently aren't allowed to drill.
*edit*
Oh, I forgot to share this site: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
If you are into election polls, stats, and projections, this guy's site is a wet dream.
You could spend weeks on there going thru all the info he's compiled.
Btw, here's the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resourses report I referenced above:
Last edited by Loyal Rogue; 06-19-2008 at 12:41 AM.
:: "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
I agree that it is best to average the available, reliable polls. I only used Rasmussen because it was the only one cited on wikipedia that had results for today. However you want to slice it, average it, etc. McCain has gained on Obama. Not exactly what you expect from a party on a "suicide mission." Either that, or Obama is defeating McCain in a race to have a faster suicide mission in recent days.
The report you attached is from Democrat (the drunk driving, bad gambler one) Nick Rahall and his majority staff. It also left out major details, without which, the entire report is misleading.
The report suspiciously dances past the reason why that land is not in production, "oil and gas companies have shown that they cannot keep pace." You would think that someone interested in a clear, truthful explaination of the situation, without an agenda, would address the question of why oil companies aren't producing oil from these lands in great detail.
“A lease is not a license to produce oil or natural gas – it’s merely the start of a very long and complex process before they can receive permission to begin producing oil and gas.
“The sponsors make it appear as if the oil companies are sitting on oil leases. The truth is there are a number of reasons leases are not in production.
“Once a company is granted a lease by the government, they must complete a geological assessment, which may include seismic and other types of studies. Then there is the application process for drilling permits which can take several months or longer.
“Then the well could be dry so the lease cannot produce oil or gas. For new areas, this happens quite often. In fact, during the past five years 52 percent of the wells drilled in new areas were dry holes.
“The required environmental impact statements and studies may be ongoing so production cannot be initiated. This is a lengthy and complex process that is currently underway on many of the outstanding leases targeted by this new bill.
“Or, the extreme environmental groups may have the lease tied up in the court system with lawsuits or frivolous appeals. This also is a lengthy process that further delays production.
I find Nick Rahall's report to be full of unremarkable facts, intended to mislead the public into thinking that oil companies aren't producing our own oil because they aren't able to do it quickly enough due to their own ability or choice. This is a lie. It also flies in the face of the theories that Obama promotes, that increasing taxes for oil companies should be part of a solution to improve our energy situation. If, as Rahall suggests, oil companies just can't drill fast enough, surely, anyone with any sense understands that taxing them further would make their ability to get to drilling more happen at a slower rate.
I appreciate the link to fivethirtyeight. But, I'll pass. I feel more comfortable with the traditional pollsters than another site run by an Obama supporter.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
I appreciate the link to fivethirtyeight. But, I'll pass. I feel more comfortable with the traditional pollsters than another site run by an Obama supporter.
Apaprently it's good enough for Rasmussen...
Rasmussen Reports to Partner with FiveThirtyEight.com
Friday, June 13, 2008
Rasmussen Reports is pleased to announce that it will be including poll averages from FiveThirtyEight.com in its Balance of Power Calculator.
FiveThirtyEight.com has developed a model for averaging state-by-state polls based upon the timing of the poll, the reliability of the polling firm, and other factors. The site’s name comes from the total number of Electoral College votes available to the Presidential candidates. Rasmussen Reports will aggregate the FiveThirtyEight.com averages and other data to provide a comprehensive assessment of the state-by-state race for the White House.
Scott Rasmussen, President of Rasmussen Reports, noted that “Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight.com are a great example of how the online community is improving election coverage. His quantitative approach is a welcome addition to the debate and a valuable resource for any serious electoral analyst or armchair campaign manager.”
Silver said, “I’m thrilled to be working with Rasmussen Reports in this endeavor. In addition to being one of the most active and reliable pollsters, Scott and his team have made every effort to consider other sources of information in order to provide their readers with the most comprehensive electoral picture possible”.
The FiveThirtyEight.com averages will be featured along with new polling data released this week by Rasmussen Reports (methodology).
In addition to the FiveThirtyEight.com average, data inputs for the Balance of Power Calculator include the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in a state, an average of the latest polling from other firms, Rasmussen Markets data, Intrade market data, the aggregated rankings of selected analysts, the state’s voting history, and national trends. The weight given to each variable varies over time (i.e.—polls will be counted more heavily in October than today, a state’s history will be counted more heavily today than in October).
Currently, the Balance of Power Calculator shows Barack Obama ahead in states with 200 Electoral College votes and John McCain leads in states with 189. When “leaners” are added, Obama leads 260-240.
The report you attached is from Democrat (the drunk driving, bad gambler one) Nick Rahall and his majority staff.
For someone who complains incessantly about ad hominem attacks you sure do love to engage in them... but whatever...
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I find Nick Rahall's report to be full of unremarkable facts, intended to mislead the public...
Yet those are the facts whether you like them or not, and I find it very predictable that you would choose not to believe the facts that don't agree with your entrenched preconceptions, and instead choose to believe your link to an overtly partisan republican rebuttal meant to mislead the public in favor of their oil industry donors, and which contains no real substance or facts whatsoever.
So be it... it's your choice.
:: "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
That wasn't an ad hominem. I believe that being arrested for drinking and driving and being sued by casinos for $60k in gambling debt legitimately demonstrates a lack of good judgement and adds doubt to the merit of Rahall's motivations.
I find it very predictable that you didn't read very closely. I did not say that I disagreed that those were facts. I think that Rahall's judgement in the past suggests that he is someone who may take liberties with the details. But, I don't know for certain. My observation was that the presumed facts in Rahall's report are misleading without study regarding why those lands aren't productive.
So, you believe that nothing stated in my quote is fact? Interesting. You don't believe that oil companies can't drill with a lease alone? You don't believe that a geological assessment is required in order to apply for a drilling permit? You don't believe that the application process for drilling takes months? You don't believe that 52 percent of drilling in new areas turned out to be dry wells in the last 5 years? You don't believe that environmental impact statements are required to begin production? You don't believe that environmentalists have stalled production in courts?
You let me know which of those you don't believe are facts and we can go from there.
[I also find it amusing that you tried to sneak by with putting the label of the entire committee onto this report when it is only representative of the side you agree with. Then, you turn around, dismiss my source which comes from a member of the same committee and accuse me of being selective for partisan reasons. Classic LR reasoning! ]
Last edited by FlashLackey; 06-19-2008 at 03:11 AM.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
Good. I trust that Rasmussen knows what analysis is useful from the site and what is not.
Again, that's why I will just go to Rasmussen, etc. rather than individual.
Also, I thought you were questioning the accuracy of Rasmussen. Sounds like your boy at the web site thinks they tend to be more accurate than the others. So, maybe McCain is closer to Obama than you think.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
Actually that was the very definition of ad hominem... attacking character instead of dealing with the subject.
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I believe that being arrested for drinking and driving and being sued by casinos for $60k in gambling debt legitimately demonstrates a lack of good judgement and adds doubt to the merit of Rahall's motivations.
Yes, because the merits of a report on oil drilling permits can be tied directly to alcohol and gambling.
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I think that Rahall's judgement in the past suggests that he is someone who may take liberties with the details. But, I don't know for certain.
Well, after looking up the language of federal land leases I found that your rebuttal link by Rep. Don Young did not only take liberties with the details but outright lied about the facts.
Rep. Young stated,
“First, the concept of their new ‘energy’ bill is already existing law. Oil companies with federal leases already have very defined time limits to produce oil or natural gas on existing leases. If the companies do not produce on their leases within the time limit they will lose their lease."
Actually, the language of the federal land leases do not state that the land must "produce" during the primary term or be forfeit.
What they state is,
It is agreed that this lease shall remain in force for a term of ___
YEARS from the date of this lease and as long thereafter as oil or gas of
whatsoever nature or kind is produced from said leased premises or on acreage pooled therewith, or drilling operations are continued as hereinafter provided. If, at the expiration of the primary term of this lease, oil or gas is not being produced on the leased premises or on acreage pooled therewith but Lessee is then engaged in drilling or re-working operations thereon, then this lease shall continue in force so long as operations are being continuously prosecuted on the leased premises or on acreage pooled therewith
What my emphasis means in layman's terms is that so long as there is any operation going on the leased land of any kind that the lease can continue indefinitely without actually producing anything.
Example: Oil company A leases 20,000 acres of land that has been determined to hold oil or gas reserves.
Oil company A does not have to pursue any drilling operation on the lease for the primary term which is usually 3-10 years.
So long as Oil company A begins drilling a single exploratory well at the end of the primary term anywhere within that 20,000 acres whether it produces or not, and keeps any kind of operation going no matter how small, Oil company A can hold the exclusive lease indefinitely and can effectively prevent any other company from tapping and developing those reserves.
Basically it's a loophole that should be closed.
The Energy Bill that was discussed by Rep. Young (HR 6251) on your link was attempting to add a new law that would be similar to the law we currently have on coal leases and would close that loophole.
Those leases are for 20 years, and development must be "diligently pursued" within that timeframe or the leases would be made available to another company to develop.
The Rahall bill would force oil and gas companies to either produce or give up federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling by barring the companies from obtaining any more leases unless they can demonstrate that they are producing oil and gas, or are diligently developing the leases they already hold, during the initial term of the leases.
Coal companies, which are issued leases for 20-year terms, are required, as a result of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 to show that they are diligently developing their leases during the initial lease term. The law was enacted in an effort to end rampant speculation on federal coal as a result of the energy crises of the 1970's.
Oil and gas companies, however, are not required to demonstrate diligent development. Because of this, oil and gas companies have been allowed to stockpile leases in a non-producing status, while leaving millions of acres of leased land untouched. The Rahall legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to define what constitutes diligent development for oil and gas leases.
Companies could avoid this new lease prohibition by relinquishing their non-producing leases, thus creating an opportunity for another company to explore for and perhaps produce oil and gas.
What part of that are you against and why?
Do you feel that oil companies should be required to make an effort to develop the federal land leases we have already given them, or do you think that they should be allowed to sit on them in speculation?
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
So, you believe that nothing stated in my quote is fact? Interesting. You don't believe that oil companies can't drill with a lease alone? You don't believe that a geological assessment is required in order to apply for a drilling permit? You don't believe that the application process for drilling takes months?
And what does that have to do with the 10,000 already approved drilling permits that aren't currently being used?
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
[I also find it amusing that you tried to sneak by with putting the label of the entire committee onto this report when it is only representative of the side with the facts and figures. Then, you turn around, dismiss my source which comes from a member of the same committee who blatantly lied and accuse me of being selective for partisan reasons. Classic LR reasoning! ]
If the shoe fits...
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Also, I thought you were questioning the accuracy of Rasmussen. Sounds like your boy at the web site thinks they tend to be more accurate than the others.
I don't see anywhere that he said that?
Actually if you look at the statistics and sample sizes, Rassmussen tends to get weighted less than the other major pollsters in the results.
:: "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
Nice, impartial source of information you have there. Very objective and informative as long as it's partisan, it's BS - anyone who hasn't been in hibernation knows this.
And who suggested having a muslim upbringing is a smear?
that site has a lot to answer for.. might as well deny he's black whilst they're at it.
He's half white-christian and half black-muslim - You can mix and match those any way you want to make him look as homely or as contentious as you please.
Personally I think his being a democrat makes me dislike him, they're almost as corrupt and dishonest as the republicans.
Ok, Lesli_felix, I am getting the distinct impression that you are a muslim and the whole "smear" language has offended you... which I can fully appreciate and understand if I were in your shoes, and I will be the first to admit that there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a muslim or with practicing any faith (Christianity, Hindi, Buddism, etc.) so long as it doesn't harm or is forced on others.
Of course, if I happen to be wrong about the above then allow me to say, What the **** are you going on about?!?
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
Nice, impartial source of information you have there. Very objective and informative as long as it's partisan, it's BS - anyone who hasn't been in hibernation knows this.
The key word there, my friend, is source.
What better source for the subject of Barack Obama's faith than Barack Obama himself???
Perhaps you feel there is an "impartial source" that knows what he believes in better than he does?
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
And who suggested having a muslim upbringing is a smear?
First off, any lie told about a candidate by the opposition is automatically and technically a "smear" whether it is something that is offensive to you personally or not it's still a lie and therefore a "smear".
Secondly, it IS a lie.
Obama wasn't brought up a muslim.
Obama wasn't brought up a christian either.
Obama was brought up by his single mother who was an athiest and she exposed and educated him to a wide range of all the world's religions to be studied from an anthropological point of view.
Obama decided for himself as a young adult to follow the christian religion when he was "touched by God" while attending a christian church.
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
that site has a lot to answer for.. might as well deny he's black whilst they're at it.
Um, "that site" is his official site for debunking the lies that are being spread across the internet about him.
That's not some partisan hack trying to sway the public, that's Barack Obama himself setting the record straight.
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
He's half white-christian and half black-muslim - You can mix and match those any way you want to make him look as homely or as contentious as you please.
You are half right in a confused sort of way....
He could certainly be labeled a mixture of half "white" mother and half "black" father racially without much arguement, but I don't think anyone would agree with you that you can inherit religious beliefs via DNA... of course, I've been wrong before and I've learned the hard way to never underestimate the stupidity of the human species so we could probably find a few specimens that disagree with me.... all we probably have to do is take a trip over to a FOX news blog or the Free Republic site to prove me wrong...
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
Personally I think his being a democrat makes me dislike him, they're almost as corrupt and dishonest as the republicans.
OK, I can respect that.... and it's the "almost" part that tends to swing my vote.
:: "Just go make web and stfu already." - jAQUAN
"Twitter is a public display of verbal diarrhea that comes out in small squirts." - Gerbick
Actually that was the very definition of ad hominem... attacking character instead of dealing with the subject.
Yes, because the merits of a report on oil drilling permits can be tied directly to alcohol and gambling.
You are correct that ad hominem is attacking character instead of the subject. However, the merit of the report you posted is the subject. Had I not questioned the motivation of the report and just said something like "well, you know that Rahall is just an idiot and shouldn't be listened to" that would have been an ad hominem fallacy. However, I am calling the motivation of the report into question and, according to my reasoning, a person who, as a public official, sworn to serve society, chooses to risk other peoples lives by driving drunk is exercizing poor judgement. A person in such a position that chooses not to pay back their gambling debts is exercizing poor judgement. As I already qualified, this does not prove that Rahall took liberties in this instance. However, it does cast doubt regarding whether or not we should take Rahall's judgements seriously if he can't even be trusted with public safety or obeying simple laws of debt. It's not a smoking gun or anything. But, it is relevant and not an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem refresher:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.
I did not suggest that the report should be judged purely on Rahall's indiscretions. I did address the soundness of the report, questioning the omission of any analysis regarding why oil companies had not produced on the land. Therefore, it was not ad hominem. Rahall's poor judgement is simply a small piece of the puzzle. But, a piece worth mentioning.
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Rep. Don Young did not only take liberties with the details but outright lied about the facts.
Wrong. What you are describing is an exception in the lease that allows companies to hold onto the land if they are continuing operations. That does not render Young's statement a lie. In fact, there is a term limit for production as he stated. It just means that there was an exception that he didn't include in this statement. He's operating on the assumption that oil companies do not purposely abuse the operation exception while Rahall is. The burden of proof is on Rahall to demonstrate that oil companies are engaged in this abuse. To my knowledge, this has not been demonstrated at all.
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Example: Oil company A leases 20,000 acres of land that has been determined to hold oil or gas reserves.
Oil company A does not have to pursue any drilling operation on the lease for the primary term which is usually 3-10 years.
So long as Oil company A begins drilling a single exploratory well at the end of the primary term anywhere within that 20,000 acres whether it produces or not, and keeps any kind of operation going no matter how small, Oil company A can hold the exclusive lease indefinitely and can effectively prevent any other company from tapping and developing those reserves.
It's a cute theory. But, faces a lot of challenges. Primarily, evidence. Secondly, motivation.
Can you provide any evidence that oil companies have abused the leases in the way that you describe? Or, is it just based on a reflexive assumption that all oil companies are always trying to abuse the system just for the sake of it?
Also, what purpose do you imagine oil companies would have in not producing oil? Oil that an oil company does not sell means oil that is sold by someone else instead, not increased profits. Why would oil companies not want to take a share of the profits made by OPEC nations as much as possible? These companies are run by boards whose shareholders are little old ladies and average working americans with retirement funds, etc. There is no up side for shareholders to hold onto lands to profit from them in the future if they could possibly do so now.
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Those leases are for 20 years, and development must be "diligently pursued" within that timeframe or the leases would be made available to another company to develop.
All it would do is to provide those who wish to block oil development a way to effectively stall the companies until they lose the lease. Rather than forcing "diligence" which Rahall and his staff are not qualified to estimate and, to my knowledge, haven't demonstrated a lack of amongst oil companies, it would mean nobody could develop certain lands if forces were in place to object.
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
What part of that are you against and why?
Do you feel that oil companies should be required to make an effort to develop the federal land leases we have already given them, or do you think that they should be allowed to sit on them in speculation?
I need to see evidence that they do sit on them in speculation. A valid reason why they would want to do that would be nice too.
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I don't see anywhere that he said that?
Actually if you look at the statistics and sample sizes, Rassmussen tends to get weighted less than the other major pollsters in the results.
I don't know what you're looking at. It looks to me like Rassmussen gets weighted more on average than the other polls.
Did you not read the quote that you posted?
Silver said, “I’m thrilled to be working with Rasmussen Reports in this endeavor. In addition to being one of the most active and reliable pollsters, Scott and his team have made every effort to consider other sources of information in order to provide their readers with the most comprehensive electoral picture possible”.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
Originally Posted by superanimatrix
Reply With Quote
]
