Reply With Quote
Wait, but you said you're not a democrat. Are you actually a dem disguised as a Libertarian to give the appearance of neutrality? It's not working.
What facts are those, Joe?
Wait, but you said you're not a democrat. Are you actually a dem disguised as a Libertarian to give the appearance of neutrality? It's not working.
So then if Romney wins it was because of non-average voters? Now I know CC considers himself above average like Romney and not part of the 47% but I guess I am your average Joe.
The fact that Obama did not say "terror" after the Libya attack.
Don't get so upset about it. Your man did fine it was just that a different Obama showed up this time. You know, like how a different Mitt will show up depending on who is listening.
The in bent will get more time because his last 4 years are being questioned. Romney has what he did in Massachusetts as a guide, and then he speaks about being a businessman but it's obvious he's a salesman. He never once addressed the question about wages being unequal for equal jobs between men and women. Instead he talked bout hiring women. Romney knew he wasn't answering the question. Obama did the same thing with that question. Neither wanted to tell the truth, that most women in those comparative positions are not as good at what they do, they are not in demand thus their wages are lower. It's not because they are female. Romney even went back 40 years talking about how women need to be home to cook for the kids. Why can't the dad get the same consideration? Why can't a man say "I need the flexible schedule so I can cook for my kids"? Is that only a woman's job? According to Mitt Osmond Romney it is. Obama didn't have an issue with it, but the lesbian who asked the question probably broke an incisor grinding it's teeth after that response.
The moderator needs to know the facts with 100% certainty before speaking up. Her correction was out of line and easily debatable, according to her own network post-debate forum. She has essentially re-walked her steps here but too little too late.
Parsing words. I believe his intent in his Rose Garden speech is 100% clear to both sides. If you like Obama, he was specific. If you don'the was not. 100% clarity.
It looks bad when they both do it. Watching CNN with the viewer study going on, both candidates were in the negative whenever they interrupted or spoke over the moderator. My bigger issue with the moderator was the questions she picked. Not so much that they were unfair, they just were not great questions.When Mitt was talking all over Jim Lehrer moderation was fine... now that barry got the last word on the last debate,moderation was rigged
lol red team
If he was specific, then why did all White House statements for the next 10 days specifically contradict him? you would think that someone as allegedly bright as he is would have noticed and corrected them.
There was misdirection on that mostly by the host who had no reason to respond to that at all as she wasn't part of the debate itself. Mitt claimed that Obama did not call the attack a terrorist attack, and even after he said "act of terror" the next day, he went on later to say it was a riot over the anti-Muslim film. So, Mitt just didn't latch on to the right term and Obama escaped on a technicality. Also, the facade of being offended for not protecting American lives was laughable. Had he taken their security as seriously as he took that accusation, they might still be alive today. At the same time however, Mitt is fishing for anything and it was apparent that he was out of material about half way through the debate when he began to improvise halfway through his answers as he meandered off into other topics that he felt he was bested on.
Eventually though, you have to take their records into account. Sure Obama's admin has a deficit, but they had to spend money to recover. I don't think Mitt Romney would have done any better and in fact, if he catered to big business which a big business man likely would, then we would probably be in a depression for sure in 4 more years as he relaxed rules on Wall Street and the banking industry. Neither will make it so we can build more coal power plants. If we could, our energy bills would be lower and that could offset gas prices. The only reason gas prices are so high is so the oil industry can post trillion dollar profits. Who else could post billions of dollars as a profit one year from the time they blew up their own rig, kill their workers and poured millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf?
lol blue team
Obama got three minutes and fourteen more seconds of talking time than Romney did in the first debate and you say Romney bulldozed Lehrer...he pretty much fired him on the spot...
But you keep making my point for me... "
AlterNet, a project of the non-profit Independent Media Ins ute, is a progressive/liberal[2] activist news service. Yep, that seems like a reliable source to quote for a fair and unbias opinion..............
I only watched the end and I have to agree with that.
???? Oil companies post big dollar profits because they invest HUGE dollars. Average oil company return on investment is about 7-8%.
Yeah it has nothing to do with all the various subsidies and ED claims that have built up the infrastructure that they have proprietorship over over the last--oh I don't know-- 100 years.
I start up a oil surveying firm i don't get . TransCanada gets to take people's land without a court order when they start a new project.
Its a moonbat RSS feed. Except for bou....I think it's more of a mainline than a feed.
I'd be too embarrassed to claim ED. I'd probably say I just was too drunk.
I'd have to look at the ED claims vs Royalty payments before I'd be comfortable with that viewpoint.
In eminent domain, royalties are not legally required, at least not across the country, and certainly not when the Rockefeller's of the world were consolidating their hold. Even if they have to pay a reasonable percentage of profits that is besides the point because the control they are granted is a huge compe ive advantage.
If you are talking about royalties for use of mineral rights then do you expect for them to get that for free too?
That begs the question. You have huge dollars because you invested huge dollars. Where did you get the huge dollars? Oh that's right, by price gouging the out of Americans. Then they pay 2 percent in taxes.
No. I was mainly referring to your statement that seemed to imply that infrastructure was built by dint of various subsidies and ED claims. I rather suspect, but have no real data on hand, that the split between ED acquisitions and outright purchases/leasing leans heavily towards the later.
bipartisanship wins imho
Fair enough. I do know that in the early 20th century there was a huge backlash against the oil and RR monopolies for these types of practices. Following WW2 the pendulum swung back in their favor.
Swing pendulum swing:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domaindebate.htmlKelo v. New London
In a close ruling announced on June 23, 2005 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that state and local governments could use eminent domain to take private property against the owners' will for use in private development. The decision is expected to have major ramifications for redevelopment and property rights cases around the country.
Swing pendulum swing.
government owned oligarchs or those who own the asses of the politicians in DC will always get the first/biggest bite at the birthday cake imho. they're the ones who can always make profits despite the health of economy cuz the government will always ensure they're making profits, government is the puppet of those billionaire assholes which's a plain fact that a well-educated mid aged immigrant is supposed to know imho
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions