Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,434
- 270
If I'm not mistaken, McStain was behind in polls last time as well before he "magically" pulled it out.
McCain Losing to Primary Challenger in Latest Poll
- Thread starter Dont Taz Me Bro
- Start date
He wasn't associated with Bush. He hated Bush.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
McCain isn't interested in representing us Arizonans. He's simply enjoying playing war in serving as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
imawhosure
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 10,726
- 4,658
- 400
Mcain has to go, Flake has to go, the dummy in Illinois has to go, along with a bunch more. If we concentrate on these races when they come due, we will have a fighting chance. If, on the other hand; we falsely believe that electing a conservative President will fix everything, we are only fooling ourselves. The rinos and democrats will stand together to stop anything a conservative wants to do. They are both feeding at the trough of Washington, and the lobbyists like it that way.
I mean all of you from BOTH sides of the aisle, you really need to wake up! Where do you think both Hillary and Jebster got their warchest from? Do you think these Wallstreet people gave them money because they like them? Because they think they are the best candidates? Or rather, because they will keep most of everything status quo!
The two candidates raking in the most from small (meaning citizen) donations, is Cruz and Sanders. This means that people like all of US, regardless of right or left; are funding candidates who are fighting corporate lobbyists. Now, who do YOU PEOPLE think Jebster and Hillary are going to be beholden to if elected? The people who funded their opposition, (meaning us) or the people who fed them enough money to destroy our candidates?
I mean cmon Americans, HOW, DUMB, are WE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I mean all of you from BOTH sides of the aisle, you really need to wake up! Where do you think both Hillary and Jebster got their warchest from? Do you think these Wallstreet people gave them money because they like them? Because they think they are the best candidates? Or rather, because they will keep most of everything status quo!
The two candidates raking in the most from small (meaning citizen) donations, is Cruz and Sanders. This means that people like all of US, regardless of right or left; are funding candidates who are fighting corporate lobbyists. Now, who do YOU PEOPLE think Jebster and Hillary are going to be beholden to if elected? The people who funded their opposition, (meaning us) or the people who fed them enough money to destroy our candidates?
I mean cmon Americans, HOW, DUMB, are WE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Your perception, not everyone else's.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Your perception, not everyone else's.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Unfortunate as it may be, my single vote does not decide elections or establish what public opinion is. I personally know neither the economy nor the price of gas is in the hands of the POTUS, but we're talking about the general disinterested public here. And when they see their investments vaporize just before an election, and the one guy's associated with the status quo ---- they're gonna vote for the other guy. Not rocket surgery.
Stop mixing truth with fiction. I'll agree with the notion that a lot of people with vote for the opposite party it they're not happy with the current state of affairs but you're wrong about gas prices and the economy, and you're wrong about when their investments vaporized. Just ask the people whose 401K was invested in Chrysler and GM when Obama gave their money to the unions. And a president's policies can and do directly affect the economy, including the price of gas. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.Your perception, not everyone else's.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Unfortunate as it may be, my single vote does not decide elections or establish what public opinion is. I personally know neither the economy nor the price of gas is in the hands of the POTUS, but we're talking about the general disinterested public here. And when they see their investments vaporize just before an election, and the one guy's associated with the status quo ---- they're gonna vote for the other guy. Not rocket surgery.
P.S. What the hell is "rocket surgery"?
Stop mixing truth with fiction. I'll agree with the notion that a lot of people with vote for the opposite party it they're not happy with the current state of affairs but you're wrong about gas prices and the economy, and you're wrong about when their investments vaporized. Just ask the people whose 401K was invested in Chrysler and GM when Obama gave their money to the unions. And a president's policies can and do directly affect the economy, including the price of gas. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.Your perception, not everyone else's.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Unfortunate as it may be, my single vote does not decide elections or establish what public opinion is. I personally know neither the economy nor the price of gas is in the hands of the POTUS, but we're talking about the general disinterested public here. And when they see their investments vaporize just before an election, and the one guy's associated with the status quo ---- they're gonna vote for the other guy. Not rocket surgery.
The price of gas is determined on the international marketplace. A POTUS ain't got jack shit to do with that. And that's not new. As for the investment thing, my Dad lost $125,000 in that swoon, and that was part of my inheritance, so yeah I do have an idea, thank you very much.
I stole it from Frank Caliendo (4:53)...
Stop mixing truth with fiction. I'll agree with the notion that a lot of people with vote for the opposite party it they're not happy with the current state of affairs but you're wrong about gas prices and the economy, and you're wrong about when their investments vaporized. Just ask the people whose 401K was invested in Chrysler and GM when Obama gave their money to the unions. And a president's policies can and do directly affect the economy, including the price of gas. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.Your perception, not everyone else's.
Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Unfortunate as it may be, my single vote does not decide elections or establish what public opinion is. I personally know neither the economy nor the price of gas is in the hands of the POTUS, but we're talking about the general disinterested public here. And when they see their investments vaporize just before an election, and the one guy's associated with the status quo ---- they're gonna vote for the other guy. Not rocket surgery.
The price of gas is determined on the international marketplace. A POTUS ain't got jack shit to do with that. And that's not new. As for the investment thing, my Dad lost $125,000 in that swoon, and that was part of my inheritance, so yeah I do have an idea, thank you very much.
I stole it from Frank Caliendo (4:53)...
The POTUS does indeed have jack shit to do with gas prices. Ever heard of supply and demand? If we drill, supply increases. When supply increases, prices comes down. It ain't "rocket surgery". As for your dad losing your inheritance through his bad investments?
Thanks. You just made my day.....punk.Stop mixing truth with fiction. I'll agree with the notion that a lot of people with vote for the opposite party it they're not happy with the current state of affairs but you're wrong about gas prices and the economy, and you're wrong about when their investments vaporized. Just ask the people whose 401K was invested in Chrysler and GM when Obama gave their money to the unions. And a president's policies can and do directly affect the economy, including the price of gas. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.Your perception, not everyone else's.Don't we all. That's personal and irrelevant. The association is public perception.
Feel the hate.
As long as the unwashed think there's a real difference between a single party that dresses up half red half blue, when the economy collapses they're gonna change colors. Not that complex.
Unfortunate as it may be, my single vote does not decide elections or establish what public opinion is. I personally know neither the economy nor the price of gas is in the hands of the POTUS, but we're talking about the general disinterested public here. And when they see their investments vaporize just before an election, and the one guy's associated with the status quo ---- they're gonna vote for the other guy. Not rocket surgery.
The price of gas is determined on the international marketplace. A POTUS ain't got jack shit to do with that. And that's not new. As for the investment thing, my Dad lost $125,000 in that swoon, and that was part of my inheritance, so yeah I do have an idea, thank you very much.
I stole it from Frank Caliendo (4:53)...
The POTUS does indeed have jack shit to do with gas prices. Ever heard of supply and demand? If we drill, supply increases. When supply increases, prices comes down. It ain't "rocket surgery". As for your dad losing your inheritance through his bad investments?
No Dumbass, it doesn't work that way. First, "we" don't drill --- OIL COMPANIES drill. And they are multinational corporations which, as such, carry no allegiance to a country including the one they're based in. Their entire motivation is to their stockholders. Period.
Second, once they (they, not "we") do that, that product goes on the international market where its value is set BY that market. No POTUS has jack shit to do with that unless you want to make him POTFW -- President of the Fucking World. With complete dictatorial powers over commerce.
Third, that whole international market is rigged by a cartel. So if source A starts flooding product, the cartel shrugs and cuts in response. It's a massage. "Supply and demand" don't apply, certainly not within this country which cannot be separated from that international market. And the POTUS ain't got jack shit to do with that cartel.
You cannot dictate where oil pumped in Louisiana ends up -- unless you want to nationalize the oil companies and go solo. It goes where the buyers and sellers determine they'll get the best price. Again, period, full stop.
I don't get why you continue to post on shit you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
Last edited:
The POTUS does indeed have jack shit to do with gas prices. Ever heard of supply and demand? If we drill, supply increases. When supply increases, prices comes down. It ain't "rocket surgery". As for your dad losing your inheritance through his bad investments?
No Dumbass, it doesn't work that way. First, "we" don't drill --- OIL COMPANIES drill. And they are multinational corporations which, as such, carry no allegiance to a country including the one they're based in. Their entire motivation is to their stockholders. Period.
Second, once they (they, not "we") do that, that product goes on the international market where its value is set BY that market. No POTUS has jack shit to do with that.
Third, that whole international market is rigged by a cartel. So if source A starts flooding product, the cartel shrugs and cuts in response. It's a massage. "Supply and demand" don't apply. And the POTUS ain't got jack shit to do with that cartel.
I don't get why you continue to post on shit you obviously no absolutely nothing about.
You're so fucking stupid. The POTUS gives out the drilling leases. And it doesn't matter who the oil companies are, when there is a glut, prices come down, you fucking moron. We saw that happen in the 80's when Reagan deregulated oil and allowed OUR companies to drill. Once the supply came up, the price went down, WAY DOWN. BTW, it's "know", not "no". Enjoy your inheritance. No wait.....
Obviously this is all completely over your head...
>> The actual price of a barrel of oil is constantly changing, since oil is a commodity that is traded on the futures market. Buying and selling oil futures is called speculating, because you're making trades based on expectations of future supply and demand. When Israel threatens to bomb Iran, for example, speculators drive up the price of oil to hedge against a possible shortage in the future. President Obama called on Congress to impose tighter regulations on oil speculators, but even if Congress acted (which it hasn't), the rest of the world would have to follow suit to really affect global gas prices [source: Yetiv].
What about increasing the oil supply? Can't the president boost U.S. production? It's true that aggressive increases in U.S. oil production would bring the global supply closer to the demand for oil. Unfortunately, the U.S. is such a small player on the international oil scene -- we control only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves -- that even if we doubled our current production capacity, we still wouldn't make much of a dent [source: Thaler]. It would also take a number of years to assemble the drilling rigs, pipelines and manpower to make that type of production increase, meaning oil prices would be unaffected in the short-term. << -- How Stuff Works
I tried to find simple links from simple sites but it's probably a lost cause. Clearly you're too immature to handle this. Come back when you reach the intellectual age of, say, ten.
>> Oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer but a small supplier. We consume about 20 percent of the world’s oil but hold only 2 percent of the oil reserves. That means we are, in economics jargon, “price takers.” Domestic production has increased during the Obama administration, but it has had minimal effects on global prices because, as producers, we are just too small to matter much. And even if domestic oil companies further increased production, they would sell to the highest global bidder. << -- Gas Prices are Out of Any President's Control
Btw the POTUS doesn't "give out drilling leases". Whoever owns the land "gives out" leases, and they ain't "given"; they're leased -- which means royalties. And once that lease is tendered, it doesn't necessarily mean that oil company drills on it. It all depends on the profit margin.
>> The actual price of a barrel of oil is constantly changing, since oil is a commodity that is traded on the futures market. Buying and selling oil futures is called speculating, because you're making trades based on expectations of future supply and demand. When Israel threatens to bomb Iran, for example, speculators drive up the price of oil to hedge against a possible shortage in the future. President Obama called on Congress to impose tighter regulations on oil speculators, but even if Congress acted (which it hasn't), the rest of the world would have to follow suit to really affect global gas prices [source: Yetiv].
What about increasing the oil supply? Can't the president boost U.S. production? It's true that aggressive increases in U.S. oil production would bring the global supply closer to the demand for oil. Unfortunately, the U.S. is such a small player on the international oil scene -- we control only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves -- that even if we doubled our current production capacity, we still wouldn't make much of a dent [source: Thaler]. It would also take a number of years to assemble the drilling rigs, pipelines and manpower to make that type of production increase, meaning oil prices would be unaffected in the short-term. << -- How Stuff Works
I tried to find simple links from simple sites but it's probably a lost cause. Clearly you're too immature to handle this. Come back when you reach the intellectual age of, say, ten.
Last edited:
Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between "no" and "know". Funny how you wanted to give Obama credit for gas prices coming down a while back but when they went back up, suddenly it's "beyond his control". You're a hack, plain and simple. Go play with yourself.
That was I believe Rightwinger's thread, not mine, and it was a satire of colossally ignorant fucks like yourself that don't know the difference. To this day you're too stupid to get it even after having it explained.
Again, come back when you grow up.
So, your buddy Rightwinger is full of shit? Funny how you defend your fellow nut jobs on the left until their stupidity comes back on you, then you throw them under the bus. Some friend you are.
Once again --- when if ever you grow the fuck up you might come to understand what "satire" is.
Until then, piss off Junior. You're way outta your league.
Oh look, he's mad. If you can't handle the heat.....
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Kind of a sad commentary that someone who was the GOP nominee 7 years ago, someone who has served his country for decades, someone who was a war hero...
Is now being rejected by a Republican Party that has become so extreme it is literally eating its own.
It reminds me of the old adage from LBJ that the difference between liberals and cannibals is that cannibals don't eat their friends. I guess we can substituted "conservatives" for liberals now.
Is now being rejected by a Republican Party that has become so extreme it is literally eating its own.
It reminds me of the old adage from LBJ that the difference between liberals and cannibals is that cannibals don't eat their friends. I guess we can substituted "conservatives" for liberals now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democrats propaganda explained in simple sentences.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
