FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republican New Hampshire Primary - Competition





deanhills
If any one can guess who the winner of the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary will be AND the correct percentage of votes (within 2% of the actual percentage) he/she can win 75 coins. Would be nice if you could substantiate your choice.

Rules
1. Deadline for entries is 11:59 on 9 January (Abu Dhabi time - GMT+4))
2. Entries can be made as posts in this thread
3. Only one entry allowed per competition (if this one is successful, I will run more)

Here are some materials that could be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/polls/
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/whos-running-for-president-in-2012/

I will post more information when the date gets closer. Right now focus is on the Iowa Caucuses. Front runners are apparently Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (for now).
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/01/politics/iowa-scene-setter/index.html?iref=allsearch
standready
I'll use the WAG (Wild _ss Guess) method and say Mitt Romney with 38 percent of the votes. Question
deanhills
standready wrote:
I'll use the WAG (Wild _ss Guess) method and say Mitt Romney with 38 percent of the votes. Question
Sounds like a good guess. He seems to be on a very good wicket at the moment. I also notice Cain has withdrawn from the race, which probably means that your percentage must be close to the higher ball mark.
standready
deanhills wrote:
I also notice Cain has withdrawn from the race
Yes Cain has basically withdrawn after one to many affairs surfaced. Perry needs to quit since ha can't remember three things. Newt needs to go back lobbying fig($$$) tree.

BTW: If by accident, I am correct, I will pass on accepting the Coins.
deanhills
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I also notice Cain has withdrawn from the race
Yes Cain has basically withdrawn after one to many affairs surfaced. Perry needs to quit since ha can't remember three things. Newt needs to go back lobbying fig($$$) tree.

BTW: If by accident, I am correct, I will pass on accepting the Coins.
OK. If that happens you can nominate who the coins go to. Just PM me.
deanhills
Looks as thought the Iowa Caucus has been completed and the contestants are ready to compete in the New Hampshire Primaries.

The results of the Iowa Caucus are available below:
http://iowacaucus.com/results/

Romney and Santorum were neck on neck at 25% (Romney won by 8 votes), followed by Paul at 21%, Gingrich 13%, Perry 10%. Looks as though Bachman and Cain have both withdrawn.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16420861

Looks as though the candidates for the New Hampshire Primary are:
Romney (favorite to win)
Santorum
Paul
Gingrich
Perry
Huntsman

Here is a latest poll for the Republican New Hampshire Primary (with Bachman still in it):
http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/romney-stumbles-poll-paul-santorum-gains/
Quote:
Poll Results
Mitt Romney 38.0%
Ron Paul 23.6%
Rick Santorum 10.8%
Newt Gingrich 9.1%
Not sure 9.7%
Jon Huntsman 8.0%
Rick Perry 0.5%
Michelle Bachmann 0.3%

*Buddy Roemer not included in poll
Hexes
My guess: Romney with 29%.
I am not into US politics but a bit of gambling is always nice Wink
deanhills
Hexes wrote:
My guess: Romney with 29%.
I am not into US politics but a bit of gambling is always nice Wink
Thanks Hexes. You've made my day! Very Happy
deanhills
Poll results of yesterday:

Quote:
Mitt Romney 35%
Ron Paul 20%
Jon Huntsman 11%
Newt Gingrich 9%
Rick Santorum 8%
Buddy Roemer 1%
Rick Perry 1%

Source: http://2012newhampshireprimary.com/romney-santorum-suffolk-university7news-poll-paul-huntsman/
deanhills
Looks like standready won the contest. The winner was Romney with 36% of the votes!

Standready, can you let me know who you'd like to get the coins if not you, or I can send them to you and you could donate them directly? Very Happy

Here are the results of the New Hampshire Primary:

CANDIDATES
VOTES % OF VOTE

Mitt Romney (R)
18,973 36%

Ron Paul (R)
12,792 24%

Jon Huntsman (R)
8,750 17%

Newt Gingrich (R)
5,414 10%

Rick Santorum (R)
5,302 10%

Rick Perry (R)
400 1%
Navigator
deanhills wrote:
Looks like standready won the contest. The winner was Romney with 36% of the votes!

Standready, can you let me know who you'd like to get the coins if not you, or I can send them to you and you could donate them directly? Very Happy

Here are the results of the New Hampshire Primary:

CANDIDATES
VOTES % OF VOTE

Mitt Romney (R)
18,973 36%

Ron Paul (R)
12,792 24%

Jon Huntsman (R)
8,750 17%

Newt Gingrich (R)
5,414 10%

Rick Santorum (R)
5,302 10%

Rick Perry (R)
400 1%


Epic Perry fail!
deanhills
Navigator wrote:
Epic Perry fail!
Right. I guess it may get to the stage where his sponsors may ask him to rethink his campaign.
handfleisch
The whole thing is a joke. Most Republicans don't like ANY of the candidates. And comedian Stephen Colbert is outpolling Huntsmen in Ohio.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355532-503544/poll-58-of-republicans-want-more-presidential-choices/

Quote:
The nominating process may officially be underway, but Republicans have yet to enthusiastically embrace a potential nominee for president - and despite the late date, most would like to see other candidates enter the race, according to a new CBS News poll.

The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.


http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/10/public_policy_polling_stephen_colbert_s_c_poll_comedy_central_star_would_beat_jon_huntsman.html

Quote:
Poll: Stephen Colbert Would Beat Huntsman in S.C.
Democratic pollsters wonder what would have happened if Comedy Central star found his way onto the GOP ballot.
deanhills
I wouldn't use joke. More like the Republicans don't really have candidates that they can look up to as a President. Which I think is a good sign of the Republican voters. At this point the only candidate I really like is Ron Paul, except for his international policies. But then he is not really a Republican for me. More like an independent.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Most Republicans don't like ANY of the candidates.


Isn't this normal for all parties in all elections, primary or final?


Seems like people have just gotten (too) used to choosing the lesser evil, causing them to forget that they're still choosing an evil.
standready
deanhills wrote:
Looks like standready won the contest. The winner was Romney with 36% of the votes!

Standready, can you let me know who you'd like to get the coins if not you, or I can send them to you and you could donate them directly? Very Happy

Since Hexes was my only competition, Coins can go to that member for a good try.
deanhills
Thanks Standready. Will do.

@Hexes. Standready has asked that I transfer his winnings for your account. So have added 75 coins to your account.
Hexes
deanhills wrote:
Thanks Standready. Will do.

@Hexes. Standready has asked that I transfer his winnings for your account. So have added 75 coins to your account.

Well guys I don’t know what I should say in that case Smile Standready you are very generous - thank you. Special thanks to deanhills, keep up with good work! We are waiting for you next contest.
deanhills
Hexes wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Thanks Standready. Will do.

@Hexes. Standready has asked that I transfer his winnings for your account. So have added 75 coins to your account.

Well guys I don’t know what I should say in that case Smile Standready you are very generous - thank you. Special thanks to deanhills, keep up with good work! We are waiting for you next contest.
I'll get to it soon. But probably not the same one. We had a discussion about this one in the Suggestions Forum and the feedback was that it was not a good topic. I'm thinking up a different one. May take a couple of weeks or more. Very Happy
standready
Hexes wrote:
Standready you are very generous - thank you.

You are welcome, Hexes. Don't spend them all in one place! Laughing Actually DO! Wink
I just exchanged some of my Coins for my domain name renewal. Thank you, Bondings!
handfleisch
jmi256
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:


Here is where your graph is from:

Quote:
AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics with a diverse mix of users from all over the world.


Congratulations, you're outdone yourself. What's your user name at that site?
coolclay
Do you 2 have to ruin every thread!

By the way Standready, that was one heck of a guess!
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:



Um... my memory is a little fuzzy... but $1.85/gal seems a little cheap for 2008 gas.
Wasn't it more back then?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:


Um... my memory is a little fuzzy... but $1.85/gal seems a little cheap for 2008 gas.
Wasn't it more back then?


I guess you didn't get the memo. JMI's graph was from abovetopsecret.com, a website devoted to UFO conspiracies and things like that. So expect the figures and info to be confused, twisted and spun all out of recognition to reality. It explains a lot about JMI's world that he gets his info from a place like that.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:


Um... my memory is a little fuzzy... but $1.85/gal seems a little cheap for 2008 gas.
Wasn't it more back then?


I guess you didn't get the memo. JMI's graph was from abovetopsecret.com, a website devoted to UFO conspiracies and things like that. So expect the figures and info to be confused, twisted and spun all out of recognition to reality. It explains a lot about JMI's world that he gets his info from a place like that.

Well, yes, but you see... you and I have different approaches.

You say: "The source is crap, therefore the data is crap"
While I prefer to say: "The data is crap, therefore the data is crap"
...If you take my meaning.
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Funny. However, he can't run from his own record:



Um... my memory is a little fuzzy... but $1.85/gal seems a little cheap for 2008 gas.
Wasn't it more back then?


Not according to the data. It may have been slightly different where you live since this was the national average. You can find the data here:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us
catscratches
If we look at a 6 year period, the graph gives quite a different perspective: http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

I'm confused, though. Are low gas prices really considered such an important (or even good) thing, considering the reasons behind the prices?
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
If we look at a 6 year period, the graph gives quite a different perspective: http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA%20Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

I'm confused, though. Are low gas prices really considered such an important (or even good) thing, considering the reasons behind the prices?


I didn’t think I would need to point this out, but apparently I do; Obama has been president since 2009 (three years, not six). There was a question about the validity of the data, which I think has at least been cleared up now. Gas prices have a direct impact on both the economy and on taxpayers. First, high fuel prices drive prices for everything up, since just about everything either needs fuel/power to create and transport. Second, when fuel prices go up, people feel the pinch in their wallets as it costs them more and more to get around. The data speaks for itself; the unemployment rate, gas prices, the federal debt, the number of food stamp recipients, etc. have all gone up under Obama and the Democrats.
catscratches
For some reason, it appears my URL is wrong as well. What you have to do is select to view the last 6 years, rather than just the last 3 years.

Here it is:
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
For some reason, it appears my URL is wrong as well. What you have to do is select to view the last 6 years, rather than just the last 3 years.


Again, it proves my point. Obama has been president for three years, not six. And the validity of the data has been cleared up now. The unemployment rate, gas prices, the federal debt, the number of food stamp recipients, etc. have all gone up under Obama and the Democrats. And fuel prices directly impact the economy and the people. High fuel prices mean higher prices for everything else, and when fuel prices go up, people feel the pinch in their wallets.

Edit:
inserted missing word.
Ankhanu
What the 6-year graph shows is that gas prices are NOT significantly higher under Obama's presidency than during the last three years of Bush's. On average, they're on par, and at their peaks, the price was lower during Obama's presidency. They are higher than the absolute lowest they were in Nov/Dec 2008, Jan 2009, but they were also higher through most of Bush's term.

Long and the short of it: Gas prices and the current president aren't particularly correlated.
Gas is a commodity of diminishing supply; prices can be expected to rise no matter who's in charge.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
What the 6-year graph shows is that gas prices are NOT significantly higher under Obama's presidency than during the last three years of Bush's.

They ARE significantly higher than when Obama took office, just as the data I offered shows. When Obama took office the price of gas, the unemployment rate, the federal debt, etc. were all a lot lower, and despite trillions of dollars of wasteful spending and diverting taxpayer money into the pockets of campaign contributors, Obama and the Democrats’ policies have failed over and over. You can continue to “blame Bush” but that excuse is played out. Eventually Obama and the Democrats are going to have to admit to their record.
Ankhanu
Short term trends are trumped by long term trends, unless you're looking to cherry pick numbers to attempt to prove a point, but that's cheating and dishonest manipulation of statistics, isn't it?? Ignoring historic data is dishonest. Fact is, the short term trend is not significantly different from the overall trend. Fact of the matter is, the short term price drop is the anomaly in the trend, not the price increases.

US gas price trends aren't significantly different than gas price trends in other nations, either... other than being generally cheaper... But the trend to increase over time is mirrored around the planet. What does Obama have to do with my gas prices? What about in Holland?

Repeat after me: Petroleum is a limited, diminishing commodity; prices increase as the supply reduces and demand remains high. The current or future president of the United States is not to blame.

Bush wasn't really to blame for high prices during his reign either. Gas is only going to get more expensive in time.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
Repeat after me: Petroleum is a limited, diminishing commodity; prices increase as the supply reduces and demand remains high. The current or future president of the United States is not to blame.

Bush wasn't really to blame for high prices during his reign either. Gas is only going to get more expensive in time.

How dare I use facts and data in a discussion. /unnecessary sarcasm

I see your point, but the facts that were question have been validated. Fuel prices were significantly lower when Obama took office than it is now. You simply cannot disagree with that fact without looking silly. Now we can talk causes for the price increase, but I find it funny when Obama’s supporters (not saying you are doing this necessarily) fight tooth and nail to deflect criticism of Obama and his failed policies, yet they were all too happy to deride Bush when prices went above $2 under his administration. When prices rose under Bush it was claimed it was all his fault and that he caused the increases, but when they increase even higher under Obama it is all tossed aside and we here not even a peep from the same people who were willing to smear Bush.
Ankhanu
Correlation =/= Causation

Solar activity was particularly high during Bush Sr.'s term... with another peak during Bush Jr.'s... They were poor presidents because solar output was too high while they were in office. At least Obama and Clinton were around to reduce solar output.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
Correlation =/= Causation

Solar activity was particularly high during Bush Sr.'s term... with another peak during Bush Jr.'s... They were poor presidents because solar output was too high while they were in office. At least Obama and Clinton were around to reduce solar output.



First of all, the discussion is not about solar activity and to try to brush the facts aside is simply dishonest. Second, bad policies by Obama and the Democrats do result in bad outcomes. He and the Democrats have consistently taken an anti-business and anti-energy approach to their policies. From denying oil production from continuing to blocking legislation that would get more oil to the US, he has gone from one failure to another. His latest excuse for blocking a bill that would have sent more oil to the US that did not rely on the Middle East and would mean thousands of new, real jobs for workers, was that he needed more time to think about it. This despite the fact that there was a three-year environmental study conducted, and Republicans gave him over two months to consider the bill, while Obama and the Democrats shoved bill after bill down taxpayers’ throats claiming we had to pass them without even reading them.

Perhaps Correlation =/= Causation, but Obama == Failure.
ujjwalshrestha
I have seen many people repeatedly making claim that gasoline price has skyrocketed during Obama presidency. The claim is correct: Prices were much lower when Obama took office, and so was when Bush took office in 2002.

Just for fun — and before we examine the claim in more detail — I decided to check and see what gas prices were when Bush took office. When he first took office on January 20, 2001, gasoline prices averaged $1.51 a gallon. At the beginning of his second term in 2005, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. However, as we know gasoline prices were hardly stable in between. During Bush’s second term — in the summer of 2008 — gasoline ran up to over $4.00 a gallon. The price remained at that level for almost two months before a recession brought the economy crashing down — and gasoline prices along with it.

But most families don’t fill up for the entire year on a specific day, so a snapshot of prices on inauguration day isn’t really that meaningful. Let’s consider average annual gas prices over the past few years. Beginning in 2002, each subsequent year of Bush’s administration saw higher average annual gas prices than the previous year. For six years in a row — from 2003 through 2008 — gas prices rose. Prices crossed the $2.00/gallon mark in 2004 and ultimately rose to an annual average of $3.30 a gallon in 2008, Bush’s last full year in office. And the only reason gasoline prices weren’t higher than $3.30 a gallon was due to the recession-induced price collapse in the price of oil in the second half of 2008.
jmi256
ujjwalshrestha wrote:
I have seen many people repeatedly making claim that gasoline price has skyrocketed during Obama presidency. The claim is correct: Prices were much lower when Obama took office, and so was when Bush took office in 2002.

Just for fun — and before we examine the claim in more detail — I decided to check and see what gas prices were when Bush took office. When he first took office on January 20, 2001, gasoline prices averaged $1.51 a gallon. At the beginning of his second term in 2005, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. When Bush left office, gasoline prices averaged $1.90. However, as we know gasoline prices were hardly stable in between. During Bush’s second term — in the summer of 2008 — gasoline ran up to over $4.00 a gallon. The price remained at that level for almost two months before a recession brought the economy crashing down — and gasoline prices along with it.

But most families don’t fill up for the entire year on a specific day, so a snapshot of prices on inauguration day isn’t really that meaningful. Let’s consider average annual gas prices over the past few years. Beginning in 2002, each subsequent year of Bush’s administration saw higher average annual gas prices than the previous year. For six years in a row — from 2003 through 2008 — gas prices rose. Prices crossed the $2.00/gallon mark in 2004 and ultimately rose to an annual average of $3.30 a gallon in 2008, Bush’s last full year in office. And the only reason gasoline prices weren’t higher than $3.30 a gallon was due to the recession-induced price collapse in the price of oil in the second half of 2008.



You should really cite your sources or at least acknowledge them as such. A quick Google search found the above is directly pulled from the Left-wing “Crooks and Liars” site that stands true to its name:

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/professor-michele-bachmanns-all-above
Ankhanu
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Correlation =/= Causation

Solar activity was particularly high during Bush Sr.'s term... with another peak during Bush Jr.'s... They were poor presidents because solar output was too high while they were in office. At least Obama and Clinton were around to reduce solar output.



First of all, the discussion is not about solar activity and to try to brush the facts aside is simply dishonest.

Seriously? You're taking clearly hyperbolic metaphor as an actual discussion point?

jmi256 wrote:
Second, bad policies by Obama and the Democrats do result in bad outcomes. He and the Democrats have consistently taken an anti-business and anti-energy approach to their policies. From denying oil production from continuing to blocking legislation that would get more oil to the US, he has gone from one failure to another. His latest excuse for blocking a bill that would have sent more oil to the US that did not rely on the Middle East and would mean thousands of new, real jobs for workers, was that he needed more time to think about it. This despite the fact that there was a three-year environmental study conducted, and Republicans gave him over two months to consider the bill, while Obama and the Democrats shoved bill after bill down taxpayers’ throats claiming we had to pass them without even reading them.

Perhaps Correlation =/= Causation, but Obama == Failure.

This one is entirely dependent upon your point of view.
I think that choices leading towards less oil availability and reliance are good choices. They're clearly better choices than the pro-oil, pro-tar sands, pro-corporation, anti-environment stances (or the ****** 'em all in the future, as long as we get some cash right now stance) my government has been making. I'm glad that the pressures my government has exerted on yours to buy our dirty oil have been at least partially brushed aside. That, my friend, is a win; yes, it costs some jobs in both nations, but the future will look back on it with approval.

Obama's done some utter crap in his term, but that, in my opinion, is not one of them.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Second, bad policies by Obama and the Democrats do result in bad outcomes. He and the Democrats have consistently taken an anti-business and anti-energy approach to their policies. From denying oil production from continuing to blocking legislation that would get more oil to the US, he has gone from one failure to another. His latest excuse for blocking a bill that would have sent more oil to the US that did not rely on the Middle East and would mean thousands of new, real jobs for workers, was that he needed more time to think about it. This despite the fact that there was a three-year environmental study conducted, and Republicans gave him over two months to consider the bill, while Obama and the Democrats shoved bill after bill down taxpayers’ throats claiming we had to pass them without even reading them.

Perhaps Correlation =/= Causation, but Obama == Failure.

This one is entirely dependent upon your point of view.
I think that choices leading towards less oil availability and reliance are good choices. They're clearly better choices than the pro-oil, pro-tar sands, pro-corporation, anti-environment stances (or the ****** 'em all in the future, as long as we get some cash right now stance) my government has been making. I'm glad that the pressures my government has exerted on yours to buy our dirty oil have been at least partially brushed aside. That, my friend, is a win; yes, it costs some jobs in both nations, but the future will look back on it with approval.

Obama's done some utter crap in his term, but that, in my opinion, is not one of them.

So now Obama destroying jobs, reducing access to oil and driving up fuel prices is a good thing because it *might* lead to less reliance? I agree that the best solution should be a country that is less dependent on foreign oil, but to simply cut off the supply is stupid. That is like telling a cancer patient you are cutting off his chemo treatments to lessen his reliance on them.
And you are all over the place on this. May I remind you of your own words:

Ankhanu wrote:
Repeat after me: Petroleum is a limited, diminishing commodity; prices increase as the supply reduces and demand remains high. The current or future president of the United States is not to blame.

You seem to claim it is out of the hands of Obama, yet you at least admit that his policies have meant less access to fuel, and responsible for the resulting increase in prices. You seem to want to give him credit for this particular action, however, just because you happen to agree with this one. So which is it? Are a president’s energy policies responsible or not?
Ankhanu
jmi256 wrote:
This one is entirely dependent upon your point of view.
I think that choices leading towards less oil availability and reliance are good choices. They're clearly better choices than the pro-oil, pro-tar sands, pro-corporation, anti-environment stances (or the ****** 'em all in the future, as long as we get some cash right now stance) my government has been making. I'm glad that the pressures my government has exerted on yours to buy our dirty oil have been at least partially brushed aside. That, my friend, is a win; yes, it costs some jobs in both nations, but the future will look back on it with approval.

Obama's done some utter crap in his term, but that, in my opinion, is not one of them.

So now Obama destroying jobs, reducing access to oil and driving up fuel prices is a good thing because it *might* lead to less reliance? I agree that the best solution should be a country that is less dependent on foreign oil, but to simply cut off the supply is stupid. That is like telling a cancer patient you are cutting off his chemo treatments to lessen his reliance on them.
And you are all over the place on this. May I remind you of your own words:

Ankhanu wrote:
Repeat after me: Petroleum is a limited, diminishing commodity; prices increase as the supply reduces and demand remains high. The current or future president of the United States is not to blame.

You seem to claim it is out of the hands of Obama, yet you at least admit that his policies have meant less access to fuel, and responsible for the resulting increase in prices. You seem to want to give him credit for this particular action, however, just because you happen to agree with this one. So which is it? Are a president’s energy policies responsible or not?[/quote]
What I said wasn't inconsistent. I actually wasn't commenting on the potential for higher prices of oil when making my last post... I was commenting on environmental and social aspects, completely ignoring prices. Not everything is about money... which might be hard for you to swallow. I really don't think oil is expensive enough, really; it's market price does not reflect its costs of usage. When prices go up, people use less, which is a good thing, both in terms of conserving the supply and in terms of reduced emissions. Reduced extraction and processing has benefits as well, especially when the source is as dirty and inefficient as oil/tar sands.

My comments that Obama is not to blame for gas prices being largely the same as they were under Bush did NOT mean that I was looking for lower prices. Yeah, I like paying less, but, if I have to pay a bit more to get others to use less fuel, I don't mind too heavily. Higher prices means more responsible use. Slight lose for a greater win.

I don't think that "a country that is less dependent on foreign oil" is really a good goal... you have an unnecessary qualifier in that quote. It should read like this a country that is less dependent on oil. The way the world works, however, is that innovation does not happen until it absolutely HAS to, which we're seeing in the energy sector quite handily. Not investing in shitty oil isn't cutting off the oil supply completely, it's just not adding to the existing problem... there's still plenty of oil coming in for the time being. Maybe if people start feeling the diminishing supply they'll do something about their reliance upon it... but they'll probably do whatever they can to prevent doing anything by trying to exploit every possible existing source first.

Again, gas prices are higher elsewhere in the world, and the prices are also on an upward trend. This is largely independent of your president, no matter who they happen to be.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

You should really cite your sources or at least acknowledge them as such. A quick Google search found the above is directly pulled from the Left-wing “Crooks and Liars” site that stands true to its name:

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/professor-michele-bachmanns-all-above


You didn't cite or ever acknowledge the source of all your info in the graph, which was a UFO conspiracy site! You are too funny sometimes. How often do you go to www.abovetopsecret.com, anyway?
Related topics
Slump in Posts - January - Competition?
Downtown Keene, New Hampshire
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
LittleBlackKitten wins the New Year's competition
Census: Internet use up, users' trust down
New Airline in the USA: Skybus
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
Should Obama and Dems Limit Charitable Giving?
Warning on Tea Parties: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists
Obamacare Fiasco
Tea Party = Occupy??
Why is Iowa so important in the Presidential Race?
fav country (and why?)
best booke in your mind
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.