Mitt Romney has been the only Republican candidate who seems like a logical choice. I was for Rick Perry and Herman Cain at one point, but I think their message might be somewhat extreme. Mitt seems to have a consistent message and good experience.

Mitt was the CEO of Bain and Company, a prestigious consulting firm, for 20 years and the Governor of Mass. Right now, our biggest problem is the economy. There are encampments of protesters in Manhattan and why are they there? The economy.

Mitt is a turnaround specialist and someone we need now. We certainly dont need another 4 years of Obama...

Funny how the answer to problems with "the economy" is more people enslaved to big business. BOHICA?

Well, to have an employee you have to have an employer. If you own a small business then you need customers willing to spend money and where will they get that money? From an employer...

So yeah, someone has to be "enslaved" to an employer. We can't all be sitting around drawing things and commit ourselves to the artworld. In any society, someone has to be the slave.

My thinking is that since Romney has been there and done that in the business world...made his mistakes...had his successes...then he would be the best pick. I kind of liked Herman Cain for a while, but the 999 plan Im just not sure about. If the 999 plan could be vetted by some economists more, then I might be for it.

I dont think we need radical or activist thinking right now. I think we need someone who is level headed with extensive experience in the business world.

Running a governmet is simply very much different than running a business. Sort of bothers me that he has been running for President now for about 5-6 years. Almost like he wants it TOO much.

Beyond that, and hate to offend, but i don't want a Mormon as president. I know a fair amount about their religious cult and remain amazed there hasn't been a frank discussion on, for example, how Mormons view females and how they get to heaven. If there were a frank discussion on that and other elements of Mormon doctrine, he wouldn't have a chance because the Mormon beliefs, secrecy, and practices are so outside the mainstream U.S. forms of christianity.

Obama lacked experience running anything. Up until the point of his Presidency, he never had any experience managing a large group of people or an organization with several different departments. According to the book, Obama went through a lot what most first time managers go through. Its a testament of why nothing has been done.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061429252/wnycorg-20/

At least with either Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Herman Cain you know you have someone who has experience managing a large organization and had to direct several different people at one time. For Rick Perry, he has been in charge of the 15th largest economic power in the world for 10 years...Herman Cain had once managed a 600-chain company which spanned 39 states...Mitt Romney was at the helm of a company for 20 years. So you know these people have experience in managing others and directing a large organization.

Management is a very hard game and if you dont have any experience at all in that game then it shows quickly as it did in Obama's case.

At least with Mitt Romney you know at one time he had to direct a staff, department heads/directors, etc. He was also the Governor of Mass. Mitt did make his fair share of mistakes as most people often do. Its better that he made those management mistakes at Bain or in Mass then while the President. Obama makes his management mistakes during his Presidency and a lot of people not too happy about it...

You can tell Herman Cain managed people before because when he speaks people feel a sense of empowerment. Everyone who hears Herman Cain respects him and they feel like he isnt talking down to them. Obama talks down to people all the time.

So do you want an experienced people manager who can talk to everyone or do you want more of the same Obama making the first time manager mistakes.

Mormon cult tacitly allows multiple woman as "wives". This makes the Mormon cult superior to the much more common Christian cult.

While no doubt Mormonism is a cult..... does that make it any worse that the Christianity cult.

Cults a cult. Christianity or Mormonism. It's all equally wacky when you boil it down.

I dont care so much what religious belief the US President is except maybe if its something very extreme like Satanic worship. The guy has been in public office and in an executive position for a well known consulting company...was Romney's religion a problem then? If it wasnt a problem in the past, why should it be a problem in the future?

I believe we should be more focused on how a President might transform the economy rather then what he might worship on Saturday or Sunday. It certainly looks like Obama was a win-win for China.

Chinese report a better time finding a job then the average American:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150224/Chinese-Rate-Job-Market-Better-Americans.aspx

There was also another survey out which suggested 1 in 5 Americans could not afford food in the last 12 months while 1 in 16 Chinese could not afford food in the last 12 months.

Clearly, the economy is improving in China where the average Chinese person is feeling more comfortable. The average American seems to feel rather uncomfortable. Therefore, we should focus upon the economy. If the economy gets worse or stays the same, then religion will be the least of our worries.

Portage:

If Mitt Romney becomes president, you could have 4 or more wife's. You would not know what to do with yourself then.

M M

Well, to have an employee you have to have an employer. If you own a small business then you need customers willing to spend money and where will they get that money? From an employer... So yeah, someone has to be "enslaved" to an employer. We can't all be sitting around drawing things and commit ourselves to the artworld. In any society, someone has to be the slave.

The legacy of Republican "pro-business" (deregulation, mostly) policies and tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan and Bush sure did benefit "the 1%", but where are all these "jobs" that were supposed to have been created?

Overseas.

Stuff like paying billions of dollars in federal subsidies to the oil industry while oil prices and profits are at insanely high levels is an example of just how stupid federal handouts to big business continues to be.

This will make you sick:

http://www.nypress.com/article-22306-tax-the-rich_.html

So Portege, let me see if I have this right. After starting multiple threads a few months back professing your love for Romney (many of which were removed by Hombre presumably owing to redundancy, or what I would call political spamming), you then spurned Romney for Perry and then Cain, two hacks totally unqualified for the Presidency.

Now, you are back to licking Romney's ass.

What have I missed if anything? And why should anyone care what you think, particularly given your bizarre track record?

I dont get this 1%-99% argument. I am obviously not in top 1% of wealthy people worldwide, but I am comfortable in the way I live from day to day. I do not drive a Ferrari, but I am satisfied with the car I drive and the house I live in. I have no argument with the top 1%. Those people in the "Occupy Wall Street" posts do not represent me although they say "We are the 99%." I really could care less about the "millionaires and billionaires". In any event, I do not believe that line of thinking is constructive and it certainly won't put our economy back into good shape.

As for taxing the rich, I do not believe a blanket tax on the rich will solve any of our economic problems. It certainly wont solve unemployment, business growth or consumer confidence. "Taxing the rich" seems more like one of those campaign slogans which never seem to benefit anyone in the end. Essentially, it is pitting one American against another. One thing is for certain, if you have America and China...in one country they are welcoming you with open arms while in the other country there are large undirected mobs of people protesting against you with slogans such as "tax the rich" then which country would you like to set up your business? Honestly...

The policies during Reagan, Clinton and Bush made me comfortable. The policies during Carter (and now Obama) made me somewhat uncomfortable. The other Presidents before Carter made me both comfortable and uncomfortable. All of the recessions I have experienced made me uncomfortable, but I have come to know recessions as a fact of life. They have been happening for hundreds of years without fail and each one is an ass-kicker. I dont think they are caused by anyone's policies, but its just a fact of life. You have to get used to these things happening once every 5-10 years...it just happens and no one can stop it. The difference is in the recovery and how the President handles it when it happens. Reagan, Clinton and Bush seemed to handle it pretty well. Obama seems not to be handling this one so well. While the economists and politicians believe we are not in a recession, many people in America believe we are still in one.

Romney, Perry and Cain I believe to be all very well qualified. All of them have very impressive resumes. Perry is a 3 time governor of the 15th largest economic power in the world. He was elected 3 times to the governor's office and 1 time to the lt governor's office so he must be doing something right. Romney has 20 years experience as the CEO of Bain which is a prestigious consulting company and has experience as the governor of Mass. Cain was an executive by the age of 35 at Pillsbury. Then he switched positions and eventually ended up being the CEO of Godfather which has 600 stores spanning 39 states. Then he went on to be a Fed President and a talk show host.

I wouldnt mind any of them as President and think they will all do a fine job. However, I tend to think Perry's verbage is not what we need right now. We need a calmer and more sensible tone. We are in an economic crisis which seems to be on-going and I dont think we need Perry's verbage. Romney seems to be more calm and cool. I think Cain is a great speaker, but Im not completely sold on the 9-9-9 plan.

I wouldnt say any of the candidates are "totally unqualified" even Bachman, Paul or the rest. Each person seems to have a very impressive resume and seems to know the issues well. Any one of them is at least more qualified then Obama. Obama's experience does not include any executive or managerial experience. In the book I mentioned previously its quite obvious that Obama has never managed a large group of people in his life. Thats not what we need right now.

See, you can tell me all day long your policies and opinion, but you need to be able to manage a large group of people to effect any kind of change. Leading a large team is challenging and Obama doesnt have what it takes to lead a large team. He should have been the Governor of a state first or at least the Mayor of a large city.

For now, Perry is off my list although I do think he is well qualified. I wouldnt mind either Romney or Cain being President. Im still deciding which one I like more.

In answer to LA Guy's assertion that Cain is totally unqualified, lets take a closer look at Cain's biography:

Here’s his bio:
• Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
• Master’s degree in Computer Science.
• Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
• Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
• VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).
All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers!
• Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
• Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
• In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
• He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again!
• Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
• Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time!
• Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
• Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).

As for Hombre editing or moving my posts, I received no messages from him in regards to them. I believe he did consolidate them into one thread. That is his option as the administrator of the site. I had no say or notification in that process.

LAGuy once talked about my posts on Clubhombre somehow would sway the next Presidential election which, to me, is laughable. Next year's elections will not be swayed by political posts on Clubhombre. If people feel that Obama has done a good job, then they will probably vote for him. In any event, Obama's record will stand for itself. You can say what you want on a message board, but how people are doing in real life is another thing all together...

(Message edited by Portege on October 23, 2011)

According to Merriam Webster's dictionary those calling Romney a member of a cult are the pot calling the kettle black. EVERY Republican candidate is a bonafide member of a cult, particularly those pandering to members of particular religions - which they all do.

Definition of CULT
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health>
5: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

It doesn't matter which invisible, imaginary guy they believe in, none of the current bunch of Republicans are worth electing. Personally, I am VERY disappointed in Obama's continuing to play politics as usual and would entertain looking at a solid Republican candidate. However, no one in the Republican field has a snowball's chance in hell of beating him. Chris Christie had the best chance, but he - wisely - decided to wait until the next go around. There is no way Christie could compete with Obama's fund-raising machine at this late date. For him to run now would mean defeat. Better to stay in NJ to improve his bonafides.

I'm still willing to give Obama a pass on the economy - given the shit sandwich he was handed when entering the office - but my patience is running out there. I can't forgive him for playing politics as usual when the entire focus of his campaign was change.

Frankly, it's time to vote all of them out of office and start all over from scratch. There are too many Republicans and too many Democrats and not enough Americans.

Hell, I'd vote for the Survivor guy running in Indiana if I lived there. He couldn't possibly screw things up any worse that the clowns we have now!

EA

I feel if Romney's religion got in the way of his work then it would have been obvious when he governed Mass or when he was the CEO at Bain. A lot of successful people came out of Bain who later went on to become CEOs of companies you often hear about on CNBC. His religion is different then mine and there are many aspects of Romney's religion I disagree with, but he is still able to do his work. Hell, the guy is worth over a 100 mill so obviously something he is doing is working.

>>LAGuy once talked about my posts on Clubhombre somehow would sway the next Presidential election which, to me, is laughable.<<

No Portege, what is laughable is that you think you can get away with so grossly mis-characterizing what I said. But considering how many times you have lied about Obama on this board, I suppose I should consider the fact you are now lying about me a compliment.

Lets get back on track and ask a question. (BTW, everytime I ask a question, someone turns around and asks me a question then demands an answer before they answer my question. Lets not use these message board tactics.)

The question I have is this. If you could build a theorhetical candidate, then what experience would they have to be "qualified" to be President? Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas and then you have his law career, Reagan was the Governor of California and an actor, Carter some guy they found at the post office smoking peanuts, FDR Governor of New York, Kennedy the Senator from Mass...

Romney was the Governor of Mass and the CEO of a corporation. Cain was an executive at Pillsbury, then the CEO of Godfather, President at the Fed and then a radio show host. Perry is the Governor of Texas...

So what is the background you would like to see in a candidate?

Interestingly, when George Romney (former governor of Michigan and Mitt's father) ran for President, his Mormon religion was not an issue. Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue, but voters overcame it. How far have we come?

When Perry and Cain came out, I was really into what they were saying. However, then they started saying too much and I began to think "Is this what we really need right now?" This news article is why I lean towards Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-never-republicans-dream-date-hopes-to-be-the-one-they-marry/2011/09/28/gIQAKDIo5K_story.html

I think right now we dont need any radical thinking or radical talk. Romney seems like he is a cool head and more organized in his thinking. I really like what Cain has to say, but there are some things that turn me off like his article about Social Security being a racist thing. I dont think we need a radical speaker right now.

And your point is?

We are not debating the Bush Presidency and I did not agree with everything that Bush did. I did not agree on the Iraq mission and thought it never should have happened. I am very happy that we will be out of Iraq soon.

My point is that it was a bad idea for Obama to shake that man's hand. Gadaffi was linked back to supporting terrorists like the Pan Am bombing. This is a man who was guilty of killing Americans and torturing his own people. No matter what was being discussed at that conference in 2009, Obama should not have exchanged words or shook the man's hand in public. It seems to send the wrong message and many people were offended by that sight.

If I were Obama I would not have attended that meeting at all if Gadaffi were in attendance.

Also, wanted to mention is that many people think that if you are for a Republican candidate then you must support Bush which isnt true. Believe it or not, I supported Obama on some things, but I dont believe he is the best choice going forward. I believe he lacks basic leadership skills. Some women who quit the White House stated that if it was a private corporation then it would be sued because its a hostile work environment. Thats not the leadership style we need when we are in an economic crisis. When you have leaderless crowds of people camping out in ever major city without any purpose, then thats a crisis.

Obama had the choice of working on the economy first and foremost. Business leaders like Steve Jobs even had a chance to talk to him and tell him straight. If he needed more input then he should have tuned into Steve Wynn's tirade. However, Obama worked on other issues such as healthcare and even that issue might be settled this summer in the Supreme Court once and for all.

Obama would have my support in in 2009 he decided he was going to focus on creating a more business friendly environment. Instead he went the other way and created a hostile business environment that discourages job growth. The Chinese are now reporting a greater access to food and housing then Americans for the first time in history:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150068/Chinese-Struggling-Less-Americans-Afford-Basics.aspx

Chinese also rate their job market better:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150224/Chinese-Rate-Job-Market-Better-Americans.aspx

It appears to me everyone has been screaming at the top of their lungs that its the economy and jobs. Obama simply has not listened so its time to give someone else a shot. The Republican candidates have as much experience or more then some past Presidents. I dont buy that they are "unqualified" for the job. I think they would bring a new energy to the office.

Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination as there are no other candidates who can win the nomination.

Cain will not win as he will not attract enough of the racist republicans in the south and, despite major financial backing from the Koch brothers, whom Cain has close ties to through the AFP, does not have a big enough fund raising machine. In fact the more Cain opens his mouth, the more his poll numbers go down. The more the media exposes this "uncle Tom" the more most republicans will not support him. Yes. he has good business credentials but and is an intelligent person. Remember he got his Masters and had his bachelors paid for by the US government, which his roundly eschews, as is fashionable among the republicans.

Rick Perry: being dumb, greedy and mean, although admirable attributes to most of the conservative republicans, will not get much traction outside of the south.

Santorun, Bauchman,Paul, Huntsman, et al.One of them may win a primary, but that's it .

Romney will win most of the primaries, but not all as he will never be considered a true conservative and will have a hard time attracting the social conservative christian, but he will bring in Christie as VP running mate tho bring in some conservative creds.

But for all the same reasons, Romney will NOT beat Obama in 2012. The conservatives and Christians will not rally around him and will stay home in numbers. Snippets of Romney supporting Romneycare will infuriate the anti-healthcare crowd as will the snippets of him supporting various liberal and progressive causes in his Senate run against Teddy Kennedy and his pro-choice snippets will be played 24/7. Despite the republicans best efforts to disenfranchise many poor and minorities it will backfire.

The rising tide of the OWS will embolden many Obama/Democratic/Progressive supporters in bigger number

Obama in a walkover in 2012

I live in Des Moines, Iowa where we can meet everyone face to face. (it is really is bizzaro world here)

Seen Mitt speak twice in the last few months and shook his hand once. Without getting into policy.. He comes off to me as an empty suit and a shape shifter. Dead eyes and forced expressions.

For the record, none turn me on really and I have seen all but Cain. Will go out of my way to do so.

DO NOT RULE OUT NEWT!

Word on the street here in Iowa is that Newt will finally get his surge and win in the end. I know this seems at odds with his polling right now. But... The religious idealistic conservatives too confused to come out in numbers for anyone. They know Bachman is batshit crazy, Perry is a dolt, Cain not paying them attention, Mitt not sincere, Huntsman has no support, Santorum has no support, and Paul too independent for party loyalists. Newt will take it on simply being a known quantity by the rank and file. I think he then roll through New Hampshire and if he takes South Carolina the battle is downhill and easy...

In the end, a Newt win over Obama. A bit slim, but not much drama leading up to it. Rust Belt states to trend GOP and seal it. Economy will not have gotten much better, Obama hovers at 40% approval the rest of his term, social liberals hanging on to him finally get fully fatigued, and unable to sell his accomplishments or really have anything to impress swing voters. No Hope and Change campaign this time, only option is try to attack and undermine opposition.

Bad idea for Bush to pose in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. Everyone makes mistakes. If you're thread is about Romney, why include a picture of Obama shaking Gaddafi's hands? Doesn't make any sense.

Agree totally with Orgngrndr's post. Romney can't win and largely because he's a Mormon. They may not say it, but people will not vote for him because of that. If that's the best the Republicans can do it will be 4 more years of Obama.

EA

Obama is like pepper spray. Once its sprayed into your eyes, you dont care what you grab to wash it off be it some muddy old green water in a bucket or some toilet water or a half dranken can of Coke sitting out for a few days.

When it comes time to pull that lever, push that button or poke that chad, people are going to make their choice out of desperation. If the economy is not better in one year then they will choose whoever the other person is running.

Do you think a guy who is two years out of work would enjoy four more years of that?

Keeper,

Newt has no chance whatsoever of getting the Republican nod, and if he did, he has even less of a chance of beating Obama.

Everyone harps on Obama's approval ratings in the 40s. Have you looked at the approval ratings of Congress? Strange as it may seem, most people know little about most of the Republican nominees. In 3-4 months, they will. That in and of itself will seal the election for Obama.

The Republicans are not running a single winner. Romney? Not conservative enough for Republicans and the evangelicals won't vote for a cultist. Huntsman is in the same shape, only with a much smaller base of support and money.

Cain? A fucking idiot. Perry? Just like Bush, only worse. Bachman? Her staff in New Hampshire has already quit and she's a nutbar. Santorum? Paul? Newt? Not serious contenders at all.

If the Republican establishment thought they had a real chance of winning, they would have gotten a top tier candidate a year ago. Running Romney is fine since he finished second last time, and the Republicans always bring back the runner-up from the last primary campaign. The rest are all retreads (Newt and Santorum), true believers (Bachman and Perry) or weirdos (Paul, Cain). The only ones who would actually have a chance of appealing to a lot of independents are guys like Pawlenty and Huntsman, or the guys who won't run, like Christie or Daniels.

There's a reason every new candidate who's announced over the last six months or so has gone to the top of the polls immediately. The Republican hierarchy is not happy with any of the existing candidates.

Cat.. you are right

Read my late night drivel again. We over think shit here in Iowa and easily get off on the most recent wild tangent in conversation until a new one pops up. They do all suck and desperately want a contender so bad I keep trying to talk myself into someone but can not.

(maybe I have lingering Newt fetish as during his Contract with America heyday I was 22 and thought I had the world by the balls..)

Your problem is you think that the Contract with America bullshit is what made the 90s great. You're wrong, as evidenced by the fact that Newt was forced out, along with Livingston, and the only effect the idiotic impeachment trial accomplished was making Clinton even more popular than he was before.

Most of the current problems with the Republican Party - the "no" to everything, refusing to negotiate, even refusing simple courtesy to Democrats - came out of Newt's idiocy. His hard-line, "our way or the highway" methods led to the neo-cons of the Bush II regime, and has led to 17 years of hostage holding on budget negotiations, international treaties, debt limit increases and the likes.

It's ok to dream of the 90s, it was a great time and like you, I was in my 20s. But it happened in spite of blowhards like Newt Gingrich, not because of it.

The part about "the party of NO" that you guys miss, is that half the country (like me and most of the people I know) think the government is far, far more likely to do something TO me, than it is to do something "FOR" me. So when someone says NO!!! to the gobernment the are most likely telling them NO!!! to doing something TO me. So I LOVE the party of no and will rally to support that position. So will half the country. For that specific reason.

Oh, the Republicans are definitely doing something TO YOU nationwide slashing state education budgets.

(Message edited by Porker on October 24, 2011)

"So when someone says NO!!! to the gobernment the are most likely telling them NO!!! to doing something TO me."

Nice rhetoric, no substance to back it up.

To sort of paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what your defintion of "no" is. For me Republicans being the party of "no" means saying "no" to working with Obama to slash the deficit long-term, "no" to returning to reasonable Clinton era tax rates that played a significant role in establishing fiscal responsibility and creating a stock market surge and economic prosperity (isn't it cute to see Gingrich try to take credit for the 90's prosperity while at the same time pledging presently not to return to the economic policies of the Clinton era (including higher taxes on millionaires); saying "no" to paying past debts of the government (until the very last minute but only after spooking the stock markets and the credit rating agencies). The Republicans have said "no" to any possibility of a strong stock market and economic recovery. Of course, this is because they have said "yes" to keeping our economy sick enough through November of 2012 to give them a shot at the presidency.

Saying "no" also means saying "no" to prostitution abroad, although I suppose they could turn that around and claim they are the party of "yes," as in saying "yes" to conditioning economic cooperation with other governments on adopting anti-prostitution policies; saying "yes" to restricting abortions both in the U.S. and abroad. And in a bit of a mind teaser, they say "no" to gay rights, but "yes" to wide stances, gay massages with happy endings, and so forth.

I could go on. But IAS, how about putting some substance behind your claim that "no" in the sense of the Republican's "no" somehow benefits you, or prevents your life from further descending into a Democrat-inspired hellish existence.

(Message edited by LAguy on October 24, 2011)

(Message edited by laguy on October 24, 2011)

"Oh, the Republicans are definitely doing something TO YOU nationwide slashing state education budgets."

Porker, I must respectfully suggest this may not be the right argument to make with IAS. Less education means more prostitutes, and in the extreme prostitutes who would allow IAS to do, as he is prone to, all sorts of perverted things with them. I'm afraid you have inadvertently stumbled on one of the few arguments that supports IAS.

They don't always vote no:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ-70rQD19M&feature=player_embedded#!

In the meantime, until we all retire in the lands that education forgot, have the police budgets increased to the same degree education budgets have declined? I hear one stat influences the need for the other?

Ahh, but who's playing the "class warfare" card then?

nice, Mitchc.

The "kook" retorts with an end run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWHnDTDtqQ&feature=related

The constant theme around the Democratic party is basically more government, more legislation, and more regulation. I do not believe more government is the answer to all our economic problems. I certainly dont think the socialist themes being floated around those "Occupy" camps are the answers either.

Its funny. An American can get a job easier in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong then they can in America. If I were a young guy then I would move right to Singapore. Actually, I am considering moving to Singapore right now. The opportunity seems great there.

I listened to the Caterpillar earnings conference call. Caterpillar has their own economic department and their own economists so their earnings call was important to me. Basically, China is growing at 9% while America grows at 2%. They dont see it picking up in America.

I respect all opinions. If you believe turning America into a place more like Europe with hints of socialism and heavy government regulation will be a solution, then I have to disagree. I was just in Portland and Seattle last year which are heavily Democratic. Homelessness there was very high. Then I got on a plane and went to Austin and I didnt see that there at all. People seemed to be living fairly well in Austin where as in Portland and Seattle...not so well.

(Message edited by Portege on October 25, 2011)

>>If you believe turning America into a place more like Europe with hints of socialism and heavy government regulation will be a solution, then I have to disagree. I was just in Portland and Seattle last year which are heavily Democratic. Homelessness there was very high. Then I got on a plane and went to Austin and I didnt see that there at all. People seemed to be living fairly well in Austin where as in Portland and Seattle...not so well.<<

Austin (sometimes mocked as "the People's Republic of Austin") is a heavily Democratic city, Dimwit.

"Caterpillar has their own economic department and their own economists"

hahaha, awesome stuff.

Laguy, If you need help finding work, I can give you some great leads, but all of the work I know of involves a little sweat and grind. Im sorry to hear about your situation and your lack of a job. If Obama were not in office, then we may not have all this unemployment and things might be better for you. I hope you do find something soon along with the rest of the Hombres.

Maybe we can get more trip reports going if you guys can land a job. I havent seen too many new reports lately...certainly not like it was a few years ago. Just a bunch of guys calling each other names rather then traveling and authoring reports.

Portege, I'm sorry if my pointing out what a dimwit you are hurt your feelings. However, your most recent post demonstrates again your unbelievable stupidity.

This month I am in Asia on business, taking advantage of all that is available here, both business and social. I don't need a job, I have one. Unlike you, I know how to be successful here.

Incidentally, your posts about moving to Singapore are hilarious as are most of your posts. I even found some of your rare on-topic posts, such as your trip report on the Dominican Republic, with pictures of tranny-looking "beings" and all, worth a smile. Thank you for posting them. We all can use a laugh now and then.

I have decided to vote for Obama since I realized his own immediate family has WAY more real world polygamy experience than Romney can ever claim. Obama wins playing the polygamy card, hands down. Even though I am opposed to any kind of marriage... I simply cannot overlook the upside of multiple women.

>>I have decided to vote for Obama since I realized his own immediate family has WAY more real world polygamy experience than Romney can ever claim.<<

Hey IAS, we will take it anyway we can get it. Can I draw up the contract and forward it you?

Laguy, You have posted a total of 4 pictures in all your time on this site which is disgraceful....you have been on this board for several years and posted a grand total of 4 pictures!!! 2 of the pictures you posted do not just look like Trannies...they are trannies. Nataly is a known tranny. The last trip report you did was 3 years ago. So if you are going on all these trips then how about throwing up a report or, at the very least, uploading a few pictures to the multimedia section.

You along with Catocony no longer contribute anything to this board in the way of pictures or trip reports...just useless banter and chat. You troll the board with your cheap talk. Please stop disrespecting this board with worthless crap and bs. How about some reports and pictures? If I might make a personal request, please dont post the ones with guts, chins and weird marks. I don't know how others feel, but I don't like em.

(Message edited by Portege on October 26, 2011)

Portege, not only are you continuing to post really dumb stuff, but your last post (above) is transparently stupid.

First off, if you read the posts that accompanied the pictures I submitted of Nataly and one other Argentinean sex worker, the posts were comparisons of the pictures on the agency's website to those in real life, with my purpose being to show the lack of correspondence between the two, particularly in Argentina. I posted these to alert fellow hombres to the level of photoshopping the agencies and apartments in Buenos Aires did to their pictures.

Now, as to Nataly specifically, one of the differences between the pictures posted on the agency's website, and those of Nataly in person, was that in person Nataly had significant pregnancy induced stretch marks (although I will admit they don't show up so clearly in the reduced-size photos that are now available on this site). Now, perhaps you believe trannies can get pregnant, have a baby, and get pregnancy-induced stretch marks, but that is about as likely as the picture you posted from your DR experiences not being that of a tranny.

So nice try dimwit.

(Message edited by LAguy on October 26, 2011)

Portege, I know you fashion yourself an internet detective and all, but your detective skills really failed you regarding the pictures I posted previously, which you commented about above. I am sorely disappointed in you.

To help you avoid further embarrassment and humiliation from additional posts on this subject you might otherwise be inclined to blow out of your ass, I am now going to do you the favor of providing the link to the thread where I posted those pictures, i.e., the ones you said were ugly. Note my comments in the thread referenced below about how ugly the girls in the pictures were and how different (and uglier) the girls in real life looked from the photoshopped pictures posted by the agency. Given this context, even you should be able to understand that if you are trying to insult me, calling pictures I already called ugly ugly, ain't gonna cut it.

See https://www.clubhombre.com/discus/messages/1718/100658.html.

My apologies for making you feel like a complete idiot, dimwit. But you really ought to do your homework before posting; this would at least give you some shot at posting shit that wasn't completely stupid.

(Message edited by laguy on October 26, 2011)

There is only one way to show respect to the board and that is by posting trip reports with lots revealing pictures. Some helpful information on the destination with some tips and tricks would be another way of showing respect. However, sitting there in your chair and ranting how I am a "dimwit" shows nothing but disrespect for the board. Throwing threads off-topic isnt cool as well and its trollish to say the least.

Last word...

This is so much fun, it's almost like Turk5555 was back. Now if only we can get Portege to threaten to kill Bluestraveler, old home week will have gone full circle.

EA

Turk actually said he hoped that Bwana Dik would die of AIDS or something to that effect. That said, Portege is somewhere in the area between Beachman and Roblaw.

I think it was RioRules or TheRightWay who threatened to either kill someone, or have them killed. It's been a while, so I've forgotten all of the details.



(Message edited by catocony on October 26, 2011)

Catocony is correct about Turk wishing AIDS on Bwana, and this being the deciding factor in Turk getting the boot.

In all fairness though, Turk was provoked. Bwana accused Turk's girlfriend, Cristiane, of wearing combat boots. In contrast, Portege doesn't have a legitimate excuse for his behavior.

(Message edited by laguy on October 26, 2011)

My own serious call is this. A year from now the economic indicators will either indicate a strong recovery..... or else malaise will continue to reign. I cannot predict which. Just that it will be one, or the other. Nothing else maters. If it is palpable recovery? Obama wins. Hands down. If it is still malaise? Romney wins. No doubt about it.

All other arguments are academic.

If you guys want to win, get your Hollywood crew and Mainstream Media crews out there pimping "America" as "#1". Even I understand the importance of having the sales team on my side.

maybe there will be a decent choice for prez in 2016. no good choices for 2012. the hatred btwn the two parties is ridiculous. it is like two little kids that need to be sent to their rooms for a time out. no matter which party wins in 2012, the hatred will still be there and nothing will change. hopefully it can simmer down for 2016 and something will finally be done to fix the various problems with the us.

IAS: I don't disagree with you except I see a gray area between the Obama clearly wins and Romney clearly wins scenarios. That would be where some people's situations suggest to them a recovery is starting to happen or is happening, and other people's situations lead them to a different conclusion. Under this gray area scenario, other factors than the economy may come into play in determining who wins the election.

As to Romney being the nominee, owing to the lack of seemingly viable alternatives that would seem to be the best prediction. However, for a presumptive front runner he is not exactly showing a lot of strength in the polls, and as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Howard Dean will tell you, there are problems in annointing someone the victor before a single vote is cast.

I think it will have to be an outright recession for Obama to lose, and I don't think a recession is in the cards. Most likely, growth will continue on in the 2.5+ range, and unemployment will be somewhere around 8.5% Not great, but not a disaster.

Obama's approval is in the low 40's, but Congress's approval is in the single digits. A majority of Americans do not blame Obama for the recession, so I think he will get a slight pass on the weakness of the recovery the last two years.

Self made multi-hundred millionaire...20 years CEO of the most prestigious consulting company in the world Bain...in charge of the 2002 Olympics...

by all accounts a very successful man and many of us here would love to be in his position. In the 80s and 90s, many folks here would have gladly worked for him. Everyone who worked for him seemed to be a leader of a major company or founded their own later on.

How can you go wrong? Romney represents the American dream. Before you say otherwise, think of what it takes to be CEO of a growing company for 20 years. Do you think you could do it? Do you think Obama could do it?

Obama is good for what he is...a smooth talking lawyer. Only a lawyer can convince people that a man should get paid millions of dollars for acting like a spazz and spilling coffee all over themselves, only a lawyer can justify the name "Bugs Bunny" on legal petitions, only a lawyer can convince us all that this is indeed a "recovery"...

Before you give me that Obama jazz...ask yourself if you are really falling for a slick talking lawyer who can convince people of just about anything...

Dipshit is back.

And when did Bain become a consulting company, much less the most prestigious in the world?

NEWS FLASH: Secret Service refuses to protect Romney claiming lack of jurisdiction owing to legal "loophole." Urges Congress to pass a law against Roboticide to remedy situation.

I do wish there was 1 or 2 other people running for President so we have a better choice. The simple fact is Obama didn't deliver on what it said on his original sign "Hope and Change". If he didn't deliver than you can't tell me he deserves to be re-elected.

I'll be honest. If Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, etc. get elected to the Presidency than I dont know what we will get. Im not sure if it will be better or worse, but I know we have to give someone else a shot at this and all of the Republican candidates have extensive experience.

While there might be a few guys here who feel they are "better off", there are quite a few people out there who do not share in that opinion. When there are large groups of people running in the streets, pitching tents and willingly getting arrested than you have to suspect something isnt right. If its not right under Obama than we have to give someone else a shot at this.

Someone like Romney might be good or he might be bad, but its worth a shot.

So, you think the Occupy protests are to support Republican candidates?

The Occupy protests were originally about Citizen's United. Believe it or not, that Supreme Court decision is not popular with either party. However, within a short time, Occupy became about everything they could think to protest. The unions got involved and mixed in.

Occupy is just about a bunch of fed up young people. Most of them voted for Obama, but it didnt work out the way they thought it would.

I dont think the Occupy protests are about anything but being pissed off over the economy.

We dont know what we will get with Mitt Romney, but we can't reward mediocrity with another 4 years.

We gave Obama a shot and he seemed like the better candidate four years ago. However, he hasnt really performed. Most agree his performance has been at least mediocre while some believe its been the worst they have seen out of a President in their lifetime.

Mitt is not a bad man. I dont believe his intentions are bad. He has the education, the business experience and the experience with government. He should not apologize for his experience at Bain. In fact, most here would have probably accepted a job at Bain if offered during the 80s or 90s. There were many employees of Bain who went on to become multi-millionaires.

Obama hasnt performed up to standard so why give him another 4 years? Let someone else step in and see what they can do. Im sure all those out there who have managed or hired anyone in their life know what I mean. Obama is a "bad hire" and he doesnt deserve to keep going in this position. Lets hire someone else. If you disagree with me than provide 3 good reasons as to why we should keep him on board besides your belief that Mitt Romney won't perform. Look, you dont know how he will perform until he is there. Everything he has done in the past seemed to go well. The man is worth hundreds of millions and the people that worked for him are worth that much to. He is doing something right.

(Message edited by Portege on January 13, 2012)

Romney will be more of the same.......Obama or Romney.....doesnt really matter.....Paul is the only true change but no one really wants that....we just want someone to complain about....right now its Obama....before it was W.....status quo politics of DC...

"Obama or Romney.....doesnt really matter . . . "

Yeah, I heard that a lot about Bush and Gore before that election. Didn't seem to stand up.

Romney disqualified himself in that awful speech after winning the New Hampshire primary by a rather small margin. Not only did he disrespect every other republican in the race, he did not offer any constructive ideas, just more Obama bashing and promises to destroy the small gains that the Affordable Care Act makes and a promise of more wreckless military waste. What a joke, the problem in Washington is not Obama, it is republicans pulling every treasonous act they can to prevent our president for solving the problems that Bush and Bush and Reagan left behind.

I think we need a ballot measure that prohibits listing ANY INCUMBANT in the 2014 ballot. I bet that would win by a 80 / 20 margin.

Under Bush, the things to complain about didnt really touch us. There was low unemployment for the majority of the Bush administration. Opportunities were out there during the Bush era. However, the Obama era has been very challenging and has touched a lot of Americans.

This chart really brings the reality home.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UEMPMEAN

If you find yourself unemployed than you might find yourself waiting a year or more to get a new job. Is that comforting for anyone?

In 2009, Obama should have declared war on unemployment. Instead, he focused on healthcare and other issues like gays in the military. He held extravagant parties at the White House and went on luxury vacations.

People chastise Bush for going on vacation so much, but I never saw Bush go to Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard. He setup a second White House down at his ranch which is what a lot of Presidents did in the past. The Crawford ranch was really more like working from home for Bush. Obama isnt setting up a second White House in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard. Those are real luxury vacations while the unemployed eat cake.

So, where should the President vacation? Sit in his house in Chicago with an army of security closing down the neighborhood? Or not take a vacation while in office?

Republicans bitched the same back in the 90s when Clinton was in office. Here's a hint - Clinton and Obama did not come from family money. They didn't have compounds in Kennebunkport, they didn't have giant ranches in California and Texas. They lived in cities, so compute how much the cost would be to shut down a small piece of Chicago vs that week in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard.

Then again, it's Portege, who bangs trannies and writes trip reports about places he's yet to visit or never will. Clearly, a good example of the modern Republican.

@laguy-----good point.....W was the WTF pres...everytime I heard him speak Id say WTF...

If I was President we'd be having the best Presidential vacation scandals ever. Obama or W ain't got nothin' on MY vacation scandals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYg_OdXNc1Q&feature=player_embedded

As CEO of Bain, Romney killed off plenty of companies. Companies, according to him, are people. Therefore, Mitt Romney is a murderer and not fit for public office.

Props to the Stephen Colbert.

I think the President should set the example. If the country is in economic turmoil or there is a problem with unemployment, than a flashy vacation, public golf outings, parties at the White House, etc. are inappropriate to show the public. It sends the wrong message. If Obama must vacation in luxury, than it probably should be kept private and the mass media shooed away. Golf outings should be private. I think that would be a little more appropriate than having the "let them eat cake" attitude.

Actually, the President has Camp David which is a fully functional second White House and Presidential vacation spot. Why cant he go there to get away from the White House?

There was a company I was working for back way a long time ago where they layed off people. During that year, they cancelled the Christmas party, closed the company gym, etc. because it would have looked bad if they kept those things while people were being layed off. If unemployment is climbing, than Obama should do what he can to avoid the appearance of extravagance.

I remember Bain and Company during the 80s and 90s as a well respected firm which many people wanted to work for. I have never heard any negative things about Bain until this election. Bain is regarded in the business community as a prestigious firm. I believe only a small percentage of firms they were involved in were shuttered. How could the firm do well if everything they touched failed BTW?

(Message edited by Portege on January 16, 2012)

I wanted to add that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I supported Bill Clinton and thought he did a great job. By the end of Clinton's Presidency, unemployment was at a low, business seemed to be thriving and who could complain? Everyone was doing well by the end of Clinton's Presidency.

I supported Bush, at first, but then there was Iraq. Afghanistan was needed to unseat the Taliban, however, the war over there seemed to be fought inefficiently. I think what we needed was new leadership at all levels in the military.

Today, the effect of regime change in Middle Eastern nations might be a good net result along with the killing of Al Qaeda leadership, but the cost to America to effect that change has been too great in my opinion.

I did well during the Bush Presidency so my only disagreement with him during that time was the war, how it was fought, Iraq and the military leadership. I was hoping Obama would have kicked out the old leaders and tried to swing in some new ones, but he decided to stick with Bush era generals / Secretary of Defense which was a mistake.

Obama isnt a bad guy, but I dont believe he has the experience for this role. He has never been in an executive leadership position and it shows. I think we need someone a little older and with a resume full of leadership positions. Romney has that resume which is filled with leadership positions whether it be at Bain or as the Governor.

Right now, what we need most is leadership. What we are getting are canned speeches read from teleprompters every other day. We are seeing inappropriate displays of extravagance. We are seeing misplaced priorities. Obviously, unemployment is on everyone's minds, but that hasnt been addressed very much over the last 3 years. The only ones who keep pointing out unemployment is the media, but Obama seems to believe there are more pressing matters. I disagree with Obama. I believe that unemployment is issue #1.

Romney isnt a bad man. I dont think his policies or outlook is so outlandishly liberal or outlandishly conservative. He has lead people for most of his adult life and so I think he would be a good leader here.

I hear you on Ron Paul. He has some good things to say that I agree with. My biggest fear is his age. The man is 75 years old and the Presidency tears people apart. What will Ron Paul look like in 4 years if he was voted to be President?

I am definitely becoming a born-again Republican. These debates have inspired me! Tonight I learned that:

-- Militarizing the Mexican border is good. Keep out the illegals and use Newt's brilliant Unemployment education/workfare to retrain the 10% of the US unemployed to learn that 7 dollars an hour and no benefits is a fucking bargain to cut my lawn.

-- Mitt repeated over and over again how capitalism is the answer and government regulation is bad and that MORE deregulation is the answer to the financial meltdown/bailout that most blamed on... deregulation.

-- That hunting down and killing America's "enemies" overseas is the key to continued US "peace" and prosperity.

-- Abortion is truly evil. Never mind the conventional wisdom that the world would be better with the poor having fewer kids...

-- Super Pacs suck. Really. Mitt washes his hands of them. It would be much better if individuals could dump unlimited amounts of cash directly into the candidate's pocket. You know, to protect the integrity of the American political system...

I'm sure there's more, but I can't process it all so quickly.

BTW, I love Ron Paul the kook. He doesn't have a fucking prayer of being heard.

If corporations are people my friend......

And Romney's job was to raid corporations, carve them up, and get rid of what he couldn't use.....

Is Mitt Romney a serial killer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YLuI0ZWfXE

Xen, the problem with those sick corporations was too many union jobs. Oh, and fucking environmental regs. Viva the 4th world! Unlimited corporate profits and dirt cheap costs. WOOOHOOO!!!

"I love the smell of festering sewage in the morning."

Does the above count as a Trip Report from Jakarta (the land of the unregulated)?

It is important to note that Bain and Company is not a public service organization, but a private company driven by profit. Therefore, they will do what is best to make their company profitable.

We all have a lot in common with Bain because most of us here are driven by profit. In my day to day business dealings I focus on profitability and doing whatever I can. In a former business I owned and ran, I hired people and expanded the busines, but I also fired people, closed shops and shrunk the business when I felt it appropriate. The people who got fired didnt like it and I didnt enjoy firing people, but it was in the name of profitability and survival. My business was not charity or a non-profit and its survival counted on such decisions.

Some of you here are calling corporations "sick" while you sit there and use an Apple device, post a status to Facebook and do a Google search. Obviously, there is a need for corporations and you reinforce that premise by using the devices and services of these corporations. Companies like Apple, Facebook and Google are no corporate saints. They are as profit driven as Bain and will make decisions accordingly which may not be popular with all people.

At the end of the day its all about jobs and the success of the average American. A lot of people right now are just not feeling it under Obama.

At the end of the day, actually, it is the government's job to flog corporations into doing their civic duty, since as Portege points out, the "corporate beings" are programmed to pursue profits no matter what negative effects they might have on society. It's the government's job to get them to a) pay taxes b) not rip people off/screw up everyone else's economic playpen c) not poison the environment, and maybe, just maybe make the place that made THEM rich a decent place to live.

The absence of taxes and regulations give the corporate animal license to fuck over anyone they can in the name of short term paper gains, and scumbags like Romney who profited from sucking the marrow out of "wreckable" businesses are not worthy of listening to as far as what it takes to "create jobs". He'll parrot the same idiotic trickle down crap that Wall Street has tried to shoved down our throats for the last 40 years.

You are wrong on a few points. Bain and Company did not profit from "sucking the marrow" out of businesses. The Obama campaign along with Romney's rivals want you to believe that for obvious reasons. Bain and Company has invested in hundreds of companies since its inception such as AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel,etc. A few of the companies have failed or folded up, but I think those were normal occurrences. In any event, Bain is not a charity or small business administration whose job is to keep a failing business going. If a company was profitable, Im certain they would not simply close it up.

Bain is reguarded as a prestigious company in many business circles and virtually all of its employees have gone on to do great things. How about John Donahue who is CEO of Ebay. There is even a former Bain employee who works in the White House...Jeffrey Zients.

Its not the federal governments job to regulate anything except interstate commerce. No where does it say in the Constitution the government should be your brother's keeper. The Consitution is a document that was written to restrict, not expand, the government's powers. Healthcare is a hot topic nowadays. If the government can regulate something like healthcare than there is no stopping them and the founders of the United States did not want a federal government with unlimited power.

I dont think anyone ever went to work for any corporation with the destruction of society in mind. Corporations make communities and they produce the items you work with everyday. They are responsible for your livelihood. Even the Koch's, who are regarded as Hitler by Democrats, employ 90,000 people and responsible for feeding the mouths of many families from day to day. Why would anyone want to discourage their growth?

The US government has never been successful at regulating or running anything. The US Post Office and Fannie/Freddie come to mind.

Anyone who lived through the Vietnam war knows how the government truely operates. It usually starts with a small event and than it keeps going from there. One dominoe falls and than that pushes another one over. The government will regulate one thing and than gain the confidence to regulate another thing. Pretty soon you have these folks in Washington DC telling us how we should live our lives from day to day...that is some guy we never met in a little room thousands of miles away is telling people how they should live their lives. At least if you are to regulate me than let the state governments do it which are closer to the people.

If you truely enjoy taxes and regulation than there are many other countries in the world you can live under. The people who founded the United States were not ones to enjoy either taxes or regulation and that is why they authored the Constitution. The fact of the matter is there is no country, no country out there which has thrived under intense government control of society. Aren't you old enough to remember the Soviet Union? What about Greece and all of Europe? Does it look like they are thriving right now from policies of taxation and regulation?

So I have to disagree with you that some guy I don't know based in a little room 1000s of miles away who never grew up or experienced my area knows whats good for me and my community and the state I live in. If Democrats like Pelosi or Reid truely had their way, then they would be dictating just about everything what you should and should not be doing from day to day. We would not be free and if we protested than out comes the pepper spray...out comes the sound cannons. No sir, that is not a society I would enjoy living in and could not be proud of.

Obama's solution to anything is another federal government spending program. He just does not understand how America works because he has never held a real job or had the benefit of signing the front side of a payroll check. Obama's experience has nothing to do with the economy.

If Obama wants to live in extravagance, than he can do so on his own time when he is no longer the President. I am certain he will make more on speaking fees than he would as President once out of office. In any event, whatever happens a year from now, Obama will be back out on the golf course bragging about his wealth. He will most certainly not be alongside you working hard, employing anyone or creating anything.

Re: Corporate depravity, read about the cost analysis of the Ford Pinto explosion fiasco in the 70's. Ford reasoned that since damages would likely be capped at 200K per victim, it made sound business sense to keep selling explosive ticking time-bombs instead of ponying up to make safe vehicles.

Please also think of that the next time big business cocksuckers talk about "tort reform".

Unions and government regs are the only reason we currently work 40 hour weeks and have minimum wages and decently safe working conditions. Unfettered capitalism would mean that half of America would still be working in sweatshops and shaving 10 years off our life expectancy.

Fuck big business, tax them till they bleed, and if they don't like it, they can vote with their feet?

re: letting the states do the regulation, state regulations are far more susceptible to being bought off by corporate interests and forum shopping for the laxest regulations is a recipe for disaster that has been exploited by the big boys since time immemorial.

Portege, you bought the farm on capitalism is good for the masses, didn't you?

If it were not for big business, Obama wouldnt have so much campaign cash. Obama has attended nearly 70 campaign fundraisers in the last 12 months and the attendees were all corporate wealthy types. I believe I am an active and energetic guy, but I could not imagine attending 70 fund raisers in a 12 month period flying nearly every other day to a new destination.

Its not me that I bought the farm because I have not contributed to the Obama campaign.

Obama was the top recipient of Wall Street money in 2008, his #1 contributor was Goldman Sachs, and he got more corporate money in that election cycle than probably anyone ever. If you believed he was above "money corruption", then you should blame yourself for being gullible. No way you get all that dirty money and not have debts to repay. I knew all that I needed to know about Obama after he campaigned in 2004 so hard against the Iraq War only to get to the Senate and vote **FOR** every funding bill that was set before him.

Obama will be whatever he needs to be to get elected, and he can be, because he doesn't have any core political beliefs that he will fight for no matter what. Obama played on the stupidity of voters.

But what difference does the truth make? What you do with your dick matters more in today's America.

That is freaking hilarious!

You call Obama a political opportunist? But love Romney? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is so rich in irony I can barely keep myself off the floor.

Romney has no idea what he stands for. It changes based on what state he is standing in and what office he is running for.

And at least Obama still wants to regulate the big corporations and Wall Street DESPITE whatever he received from them. That sounds like INTEGRITY to me. Your boy Romney would let them run rough shot over everyone. And the Republican House blocks any attempt to regulate Wall Street and corporations. To the point that they kept the Senate in session over the holidays (both have to recess under Congressional rules) to prevent Obama from appointing a head of the consumer protection agency. Obama needed to do a recess appointment because the Republicans won't allow a confirmation vote in the Senate either.


Your next President?





(Message edited by xenono on January 17, 2012)

Portege
"The government will regulate one thing and than gain the confidence to regulate another thing. Pretty soon you have these folks in Washington DC telling us how we should live our lives from day to day...that is some guy we never met in a little room thousands of miles away is telling people how they should live their live"

What are the major republican candidates views on abortion?

And I cut out your further point on states rights, but gimme a break.

I don't pay too much attention to what politicians say from day to day. I dont even pay too much attention to all of the different flip flops and odd behavior of Obama. For example, I think it was in 2008 Obama made an issue for a short time of wearing the American flag lapel pin. One day he said he wouldnt wear it, the next day he was wearing it, etc. That seemed like an odd conversation, but I didnt really pay attention. There were also other notable Obama flip flops like the Healthcare debate being televised on CSPAN. etc.

It doesnt matter what they say from day to day or even if they contradict themselves...what really matters is the end result. Do I really care if the debate on healthcare is televised? What really matters is the bill I get in the mail and that bill only seems to go straight up. Healthcare reform is a failure because it doesnt save us on average $2500 a year (that was a notable Obama campaign promise in 2008).

Obama failed in his mandate. Our situation is not better off than it was 4 years ago. Maybe Bank of America's situation is better off or who knows, the stock price keeps diving, so maybe they might not be better off. The average American is still feeling it. Jobs have been lost, savings have been lost, houses have been lost. Those with a job are nervous about losing it. Thats not "better off".

Regulation is like Vietnam. One day in the 1940s there was a handful of American soldiers or "advisors" in Vietnam. Than over the course of 30 years that turned into a half million soldiers, 58226 dead and 150000 wounded.

The Republicans block these bills for good reason. You have to ask yourself where all this is going with regulation after regulation and where is the end point. Where is the limit of Congressional power? The reason why the Republicans blocked the nomination is because the CFPB has too much power. Do we really need another Bernanke like figure, an unelected official, having way too much power in American society?

The government is only supposed to have limited power to prevent abuse. Many people want the government to have unlimited power. However, I can say with all confidence that that won't work. They tried that with Fannie and Freddie...they tried it with the post office...the government is certainly not the answer to all our problems.

Before you reply to me, ask yourself what is the limit of Congressional and Presidential authority? Should there be a limit? If your agree there should be a limit than lets cut them off right now before we get knee deep.

Obama has failed and so someone else needs to get a shot. He was a "bad hire" and didnt come through. Mitt is not a bad man. He has a wealth of experiences. Why not give him a shot rather than reward mediocrity?

(Message edited by Portege on January 18, 2012)

Portege, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Do you have Alzheimers?

Look, we all have gotten used to the name calling, the elementary school-like behavior and the carnival atmospheres. Its not constructive and doesnt help anyone.

Notwithstanding your cry-babying Portege, it is a serious question why you keep repeating yourself like some sort of retarded idiot.

He never refuted my statement on him banging trannies, so we've cleared up that issue.

The republican nomination will be over in a couple days. Perry has finally realized that he is too stupid to be president and dropped out of the contest. Tommorrow we will see a press conference where Gingrich names Santorum as his choice for Vice President and they will consolidate the loony vote to bury Romney in South Carolina. God help America.

(Message edited by Hot4ass2 on January 19, 2012)

Does Romney have something to hide in his taxes? He keeps on changing his story on when he will release his tax records and how many years he will release.

What would a Gingrich vs Obama race look like, can you imagine that the Democrats could take the high road on marriage fidelity

I really dont care about Gingrich's ex-wife, Cain's adultery, or Romney's taxes. The fact is that everyone here has something in their lives which isnt exactly kosher. No one is a saint or the perfect human.

All I care about is someone who will make my situation, my family's situation, my community's situation and the nation's situation better. If Romney cheated on his taxes or somehow used some loophole to get out of paying taxes, its of no consequence to me. What is of consequence is our own lives. Besides, none of the candidates are truly bad or evil people. Each of the candidates seems to be well intentioned.

In any event, there have been several non-Kosher episodes throughout the Obama administration these last 3 years and if you need specific examples than switch on the news. It hasnt exactly been smooth sailing these last 3 years and if all you got is taxes or some guys messy divorce than your argument is truly weak.

Tim Geithner is not an individual to speak about correct, timely and accurate tax returns!

Portege,

"than" and "then" are not interchangeable.

Romney recently said that the $374,000 a year in speaking fees he makes (more than 7 times what the average American makes in a year) is "not that much."

He sounds like an out of touch billionaire to me.
But if you are a billionaire (or even a multi-millionaire), he will probably be GREAT for you! He will be a disaster for the rest of us.

And by the way. Kind of ironic for the "family values" party to probably have the LEAST amount of family values. At least Democrats don't preach family values and fidelity while at the same time they are cheating and having affairs. They just do it. The Republicans preach and legislate that shit and THEN also cheat. LOL.

There are plenty of reasons to detest Romney. But the one thing about Romney I find most despicable is that he apparently believes it is appropriate to call the one President who in recent history has done the most to take out terrorists, whether Bin Laden or the numerous others, an "appeaser." Along similar lines he has said that if Obama continues as President Iran will go nuclear, whereas if Romney is elected Iran will not go nuclear.

What stupid, simplistic, idiotic, pandering. That Romney thinks he can win an election by making these types of intellectually dishonest statements suggests he considers the American electorate a bunch of fools (which if they vote for him they are, but they won't.) Like so many other chicken Republicans, big talk, limp dick.

Its true, $374000 is not that much in speaking fees. Former President Bush just received $125000 for one speaking event alone. Clinton is the king of speaking events and has made over $100 million on those events alone since leaving the Whtie House. When Obama leaves the White House, he will probably rake in just as much in speaking fees as Clinton. $374000 is chump change on the speaking network.

Romney is not a billionaire, but is probably worth between 100-200 million which is about par for a former CEO of a worldwide and prestigious company. However, Romney does not show his wealth. He flies around on Jetblue flights and I have never seen him in a finely tailored suit. The suits he wears look like off the rack from the Men's Warehouse...the kind you can get for a hundred or two. I can recognize the JC Penney shirts he wears from a mile away. He doesnt have any vacation footage nor do you see him on a golf course. In comparison, Obama loves to show his wealth whether if it be in Hawaii or Martha's Vineyard wearing only the best clothing. Its almost as if Obama is bragging about his situation.

I have to disagree with LAguy. I do not believe there is anyone in this race, to include Obama, who is "despicable", "evil", "stupid", "idiotic", etc. I believe everyone in this race has a wealth of education and experience. How can you call Mitt Romney an "idiot" when he is the wealthiest man in the room and was able to hold down control of a company for 20 years? Who should we let at the White House? Joe Smith who just got fired from his job at the grocery store for ill behavior and doesnt have a dime to his name? I believe everyone in this race has good intentions, however, I believe some will be more effective than others.

Obama has not done an outstanding job and he has generously used taxpayer's resources for his own personal reasons. He flew Air Force One nearly 200 times in 2011 or about every other day. He went to 70 campaign fundraisers, spent 100 days on the golf course, and had three vacations in 2011. You do the math...Air Force one alone is $181,000/hour to operate. I do not believe Obama's performance is deserving of another 4 years. We should let someone like Mitt or Newt have a shot at this. They are not perfect (Obama isnt perfect either), but we should let someone else have a go with this office. Im certain they will not be "horrible" in that role.

"How can you call Mitt Romney an 'idiot'."

I didn't Portege. Take a course in reading comprehension and you might understand.

And it is noted well you have no substantive counter to those things I objected to about Romney in my post above. All you have is a recurring ability to argue by misrepresenting what those you disagree with have said.

i think reading comprehension can be 'tested' but not sure it can be 'taught'.

Like I said a few days ago. Romney is toast in South Carolina and it is all down hill for mittster from here. The Gingrich / Santorum union may not happen until Florida is done.

The way Santorum was speaking tonight, I have a feeling he's going to withdraw this week and tell all of his supports to definitely support Gingrich.

Romney is shitting in his pants right now. He was leading by double digits a week ago and ended up losing by double digits. Evangelicals will not vote for him - only 22% did today - and without evangelicals voting heavily, he has no path to victory at all against Obama. I still think Romney will win since the Republican establishment wants him to win, but he will depress evangelical turnout in November to the point that the election will not be close. Obama will win by 5% on the national vote and with 320+ electoral votes.

I still think the economy over the next 10 months will be the ultimate arbitrator. The evangelical vote will be turning out 110% in November to vote 'against' Obama irregardless of the cult status of the Republican nominee. I know allot of those people in the real world. They are un-enthused by any of the candidates but are seriously fired up to vote against Obama. They will turn out.

I actually like Newt allot. If you pay attention to him it's clear he's a smart guy. I'm just not sure he can win so that would be my hesitation

"I'm just not sure he can win so that would be my hesitation"

That is precisely why I may donate to his campaign. It would be like donating to Obama, the Democrats in the Senate, and the Democrats in the House simultaneously. Just don't tell anyone (and I'll be sure to stay under $200 to prevent the embarrassment of being identified as someone who donated to his campaign).

Sancho, the evangelicals hate Obama, but to many of them, voting for a mormon will send them to hell. They will not do it. This election will be a zero-crossover election, as in, no Dems will be voting for the Republican and vice versa. In 2008, it was about 10% of Republicans voting for Obama and a few percent of Dems who voted for McCain. Not this time. So, it's a base race, and the Republican base is fractured in three pieces. The country club Republicans are completely behind Romney, since he's one of them. The evangelicals are behind whoever isn't Romney. The libertarians are squarely behind Paul. They will not be able to get all three of those pieces working strongly together this year.

If Romney had won South Carolina and the campaign was effectively wrapped up, then Romney had a chance to unite them. As is, Gingrich will either win the nomination - very unlikely - or he'll kill himself trying and try to take Romney with him. Any way you cut it, Romney was massively wounded today, and Newt and Paul and Santorum are still completely un-electable. That's the political reality of the situation.

There's a reason that every Republican who has entered the race has shot straight to the top of the polls. Republicans as a whole are disorganized and their own candidates are unliked by a majority of Republicans. They're running on anger and fear, and that will not win them the election. There aren't enough angry whites out there to win, especially when they hate all but one or two of their own candidates.

I Am Sancho is right about the economy and the election.

Everyone wants to keep their job to include Ben Bernanke. So right now Ben is printing as much money as he can possibly get away with to stimulate the economy. Lets say Ron Paul won the election then Ben Bernanke has a greater chance of losing his job. Therefore, Ben is printing as much money as he can.

You have read about QE3, well, QE3 has been happening since last year. Look at this graph:



Lets see if printing money has any positive effect on anything.

Ron Paul's chance of winning a presidential election is less than zero (obviously). So is the chance that Ben Bernanke is worried about it.

No excuses from Portege yet! He must not be able to clear the tears from his eyes in order to read this thread.

I will tell you my opinion. Obama is going to come out on Tuesday with the same old stuff. Im no market wizard, but I believe that will be a natural pivot point for the market and the economy. Obama will talk about how corporations are bad, how the rich are bad and how we need to increase their taxes. It will be the perverbial wet blanket thrown on the markets and the economy.

One of Obama's flaws is that he talks too much and overpromises. Talking can get you out of trouble, but it can also get you into trouble. I believe this next speech will cause trouble for both Obama and the American people. Hehe, Obama won't be in trouble. No matter what happens a year from now he will be back out on the golf course while Joe the Plumber is left holding the bag.

"Im no market wizard"

That's the only comment you've made in this thread that's accurate.

Yahooooo!!! Nate Silver is projecting with 66 percent probability that my man Gingrich is going to win the Florida primary.

Keep up the good work my self-destructing Republican charlatans!

Actually, I dont really care if Newt or Mitt or even Ron Paul makes it to the Presidency. I just want someone else in there to give this a go.

When I look at Obama, I feel like this is a man who just can't seem to get his act together. He isnt uniting us, but it seems more like he is dividing us. The Democrats and Republicans are two different parties with two different philosophies. The President should be working with both parties on an answer, but it seems Obama is serving one party while alienating the other party.

Maybe someone new and different will be able to get this together. I figure Mitt Romney has some business experience so maybe he might be a better choice in these tough economic times. However, Newt might be able to get it together as well. Maybe Ron Paul could get this together. I dont know...but I do know Obama isnt working out and so maybe its time to let someone else have a go at this.

One good thing about Newt is that he seems to be a charasmatic person who knows how to speak and juice up an audience. Part of being President is just that...knowing how to bullshit and make it stick to a wall. Obama knows how to bullshit, but its simply not sticking to the wall.

Nate Silver is also a helluva baseball writer, one of the original staff of baseball prospectus.

Is that graph accurate????roughly 1.6 bil in 3 years???? if it is thats some scary shit....we are just exporting cash......

Left holding the bag??? Are you taking your alzheime's medication? You have forgotten the bag of shit that the Bush administration left us.

I ask again what is Romney hiding in his tax papers, just putting this years and last years taxes out there shows nothing, lets see the last 10 years. Did he make his millions by sucking the life blood out of small companies that his corporation took over? Did he make money by stealing employees pension funds by killing their traditional pension plans?

I didnt forget about Bush, but I would like to forget about 2008. In 2001, we were not doing so well, but it was all forgotten by 2004. I would have liked to forget about 2008 by now and put that in the past, but obviously its still with us. This economy sucks and it would be nice if there would be more done to get it off the ground without printing a bunch of money or putting the nation into debt which is impossible to pay off.

The other graph I didnt post is the one where we went from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in debt in 3 years. So the economy is hanging on based on printing money and deficit spending. There is no real job creation. That is scary shit...

I figured Mitt would go at this in a business-like manner getting rid of the debt. Im not sure what Newt would do. Right now, I think we need a turnaround specialist rather than a liberal or a conservative. Someone who will get in there and tell us what we absolutely need to do rather than what we want to hear.

Well we could have gotten the economy rolling by attacking a couple of other countries out there, and given big government bucks to the defense contractors like Bush did. That is how we pulled out of the slump in 2001 was from the government spending a shitload of money.

I'm not too sure I want Romney to go and get rid of debt in a "business-like manner" on a national scale. This is a guy that killed companies and used chapter 11 bankruptcy laws to his advantage. A lot of people suffered because of him, and only a few people made out like him. I try to think of the "little guy" the worker who's pension was stolen by Romney and his likes, while they got to keep their "golden parachutes."

Ron Paul has it right when he says we should totally exit out of the middle east. I expected there to be an invasion and prolonged intervention in Afghanistan. They attacked us so its in our best interests to respond aggressively. What I did not expect (and did not support) was the invasion of Iraq. I also do not support our prolonged presence in Afghanistan. I have a feeling, though, we will always have some presence in Afghanistan which is grudgingly understandable. I guess we have to have some minimal presence in that country so it doesnt got back to the Taliban.

Every CEO at any company is responsible for a closure of a department, factory or firing employees at some point during their tenure. A private or publicly traded corporation is in business to make a profit. So whatever they do to make that profit is fair as long as they operate under the law. All is fair in business, love and war.

Romney did his job while at Bain and Im sure he will do his job as the President. His job as the President will be much different than the CEO of a private company, however, there will be similarities. In order to save big money, you have to close entire departments or locations. So Romney's biggest downfall is his biggest plus. He will be able to close some of these government agencies without flinching. In order to cut the debt, laying off employees from an entire government agency will have to be done. I dont see any way out of 16 trillion in debt.

Right now, Obama has tinkered with a few cost-cutting ideas. However, cutting back on the office supplies isnt going to save big money. Closing a military base, getting rid of an entire agency, etc. will have to be done for big savings. Laying off 100,000 soldiers will have to be done. That will be the only way to really save cash.

At this point in the game, I think either party or candidate will say just about anything. Obama and the Democrats have contradicted themselves over the years. Hey, Im still waiting for those debates on CSpan or when is Obama going to put on that comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line. Im also still waiting for my $2500 savings on healthcare premiums and for the original stimulus to push unemployment under 6%. Romney and the other candidates have also contradicted themselves in the past. They have had their moments. I dismiss all this as locker room talk. You can't take any of it seriously.

My standpoint is there are two measures of a President and that is unemployment and inflation. Others may have a different opinion on that issue like some feel the environment is important, gays in the military etc. However, my concern is myself, my family, my community and the greater good of the nation. "Structural unemployment" is not what I consider a good thing. Stagnated growth is not what I consider a good thing.

So my belief is Obama does not deserve a second term. In 2004, Bush did deserve a second term because unemployment wasnt an issue, jobs were plentiful and the majority of folks were doing well. In 2008, if there were no term limits and Bush was running again then I would say he wouldnt deserve a second term.

Obama has had 4 years to make a go of things and from Day 1 of his Presidency the majority of Americans have felt the country is on the "wrong track".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Unemployment has been higher and more stubborn then at any other time I can remember. Sure, there were times in the early 80s which seemed rough but a few years later things recovered nicely. I can't say the same for today. It seems like economists have been describing today's situation as "structural" and the "new normal".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx

So the bottomline is I do not believe Obama deserves a second term. He hasnt done a good job. I say to let someone else have a go at this. None of the Republican candidates are "evil" and I believe their policies will be friendlier to businesses. Nearly half of all business owners state they are worried about future government regulation and healthcare costs. They are also worried about the economy. Obviously, Obama doesnt seem to be giving them much confidence. So I think its time for someone else.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/Health-Costs-Gov-Regulations-Curb-Small-Business-Hiring.aspx

I can tell you this much. Getting business to come back from China and other countries is going to take a lot of work. There will have to be Scott Walker esque laws pushed forward which weaken the unions. Regulations will have to be dropped and rolled back. However, even then I think many of these businesses will not be able to trust Obama. If Steve Jobs really believed in the way things were going here then why are Iphones and Ipads made in China? I think we need to have a come to Jesus meeting and figure out what we need to do to bring back business to the home front. However, that meeting will not happen under Obama...


(Message edited by Portege on February 19, 2012)

It must be nice to judge presidents based on such a limited criteria. Luckily most of us don't share such a narrow view of what success is or isn't for a president. And those two issues you cited are much broader and complicated and have tons of outside influence beyond any one person's individual control. So for any one person to affect those by himself is completely unrealistic. But hey, it supports your argument, so why not?

Oh no! Manufacturing from China is already coming back?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43045348/why-companies-are-leaving-china/?tag=bnetdomain

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/14/10156162-made-in-america-trend-against-outsourcing-brings-jobs-back-from-china

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/01/29/u-s--manufacturing-making-comeback.html

http://www.amanet.org/shift/index.php/2012/02/08/3d-printing-could-help-bring-jobs-back-to-america/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203315804577209511105401168.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

At this point in the game, I think the Republicans have completely lost it as they'll just about anything. Obama and the Democrats have done little to stand up to the Republicans over the years. Hey, I'm still waiting for Regan's trickle down economics to provide a trickle. I'm also still waiting for an explanation as to why Bush gave the banks a blank check. Romney and the other candidates have contradicted themselves too many times to count. They have had their moments, and Jon Stewart has made hay with them. I dismiss all this as Republican fear mongering. You can't take any of those people seriously.

My standpoint is there are two measures of a President: the ability to inspire and lead the country. Very few people are single issue voters (e.g. environment, gay rights, abortion, etc.). However, my concern is with myself and my family within the greater community of the nation. "Structural unemployment" is a reality of our modern times and we had better get our people educated to overcome it. Growth for the sake of growth is not what I consider a good thing. There comes a point where you value good living over living with goods.

So, my belief is Obama is the lesser of two evils. In 2004, Bush received a second term because he used fear to manipulate voters, jobs were plentiful if you were part of the military industrial complex and the majority of folks were too afraid of hidden Muslim terrorists to realize that they had their rights eroded. In 2000, if I had a time machine, I'd figure out a way that he wouldn't get elected.

Obama has had 4 years to make a go of things and from Day 1 of his Presidency, Republican fanatics have decried that the country is on the "wrong track." Even Republican ideas were dismissed, simply because Obama tried to implement them.

Unemployment has been higher and more stubborn then at any other time I can remember. Sure, there were times in the early 80s which seemed rough but a few years later things recovered nicely--particularly after a strong Democratic leader took control of the White House. I can't say the same for today because we've not really had much of an opportunity to recover. Republicans, after all, have done nothing but throw roadblocks against any initiative to help the economy.

So the bottom-line is I do not believe Republicans deserves a seat at the Congressional table. I wish I could say they have done a good job, but that would imply that they did any sort of job at all! I say to let them stand down and let progressive leaders have a go at this. None of the Republican candidates are "evil," they're simply beholden to their corporate masters, that's why their policies will be friendlier to businesses. All business owners recognize that they are subject to future government regulation and healthcare costs, but business knows how to deal with uncertainties. They are worried about the economy because they know if their customers don't have money, they will not succeed. Obviously, Obama hasn't been able to able to implement his policies, so I think its time for some progressive Congress members to support him.

I can tell you this much. Getting capital to come back from the Caymans and other countries is going to take some serious regulations. We can't have Scott Walker esque cuts to education if we hope to compete with other nations. Regulations must not be dropped and rolled back lest we see a repeat of the financial crises. However, even then I think many of these businesses will be too big too fail and must be broken up. If Steve Jobs were held accountable to fair and safe manufacturing, Iphones and Ipads would have never been made in China. I think we need to have faith and religion taken completely out of the equation and enact legislation to encourage innovation. However, that meeting will not happen so long as Republicans hold even a modicum of power.

There, fixed that for ya!

"It must be nice to judge presidents based on such a limited criteria."

I will not judge the President on speeches, charisma or likability. None of that really matters to me. What matters is progress.

To say the President has absolutely no control over the broader economy and unemployment is laughable. Nearly 1 in 2 business owners state that regulation and healthcare is holding them back from hiring. So "Obamacare" is being used as a reason not to hire more folks.

Both Jaime Daimon and Steve Wynn, persons who once supported Obama, state that Obama is a big drag on what could otherwise be a magnificent recovery. How could you disagree with two captains of industry? What are your credentials which make you more qualified to doubt their conclusions?

I dont see Mitt Romney as an "evil". Neither do I see the Koch Brothers as an evil. BTW, those two guys donated nearly a billion dollars to cancer research and there are some former members of this board who are no longer present as a result of cancer. Mitt Romney is a good man who was in the business world for 20 years. I dont view him as "Gordon Gecko". He made decisions over time which were beneficial to his business. I have made business decisions like Romney did in my business. I had to fire people and close locations. Its just how things work and thats what Democrats do not understand. You can't just run a factory or a business which is losing money. In the business world, a profit must be made otherwise the business goes bankrupt. Im not sure how many people in this forum have ever run a business and know the realities.

So I guess high unemployment is here to stay under Obama. Obama will sacrifice us for his agenda. He doesnt care if any of us has work just so long as he has his so called healthcare "reform". Mind you, this "reform" has not made healthcare more affordable. In fact, Im not quite sure what it does. I dont feel different after the reform except that my premiums have gone up.

(Message edited by Portege on February 20, 2012)

BTW, I dont regard Obama, Pelosi or Reid as "evil" people. "Evil" is a word best left for the likes of Hitler and such. I see Obama and his crew as folks with an agenda which is not in our best interests. I also do not hold an unfavorable opinion about all Democrats. I enjoyed the Clinton administration as the economy was booming during the 90s.

I don't see conservative or liberal or Democrat or Republican. I just see whats best for myself, my family, my community, etc. If unemployment were lower and the recovery was roaring then Obama would have my support.

I look out there in my community and the words seem to pop up..."this is ridiculous" The people in this community should be coming first and not some sort of agenda on the environment. Man was not born to protect the earth. Sure, man should be a good steward of the earth's resources, but the bottom line is these people come first.

(Message edited by Portege on February 20, 2012)

C'mon, Portege; you see Obama as having an agenda which is not in our best interests, but can you honestly tell me that the Republican agenda is?

So, what, exactly, is the Republican agenda? In a nutshell, it's "More freedom for corporations and less freedom for citizens." They want less taxes for corporations (and their owners) and freedom to take their profits and invest overseas (a.k.a. exporting American jobs). At the same time, they want to make sure these corporations are free to pollute the air, land and water, just so they can make a profit.

There was a time that this country was of the people, by the people, for the people. What steps have the Republicans taken to support the people? Healthcare reform (mediocre as it is), is the first major effort to help citizens this century. What do the Republicans want? To line the pockets of the healthcare industry by privatizing one of the most successful government programs in the history of the country.

See, where I'm different, I actually have an unfavorable opinion of Democrats: they're spineless. They let the Republicans get away with the most outrageous nonsense and won't even call them on it. They are, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils.

"Man was not born to protect the earth." No, but if you don't husband your resources, you will suffer as a species. A sixty-year-old coal executive doesn't give a damn if he pollutes dozens of streams and creeks in the Appalachians. Not so long as he has his comfortable lifestyle in the Hamptons. He'll be long dead before the repercussions of his, and his fellow's, activities come to fruition.

In my world, freedom starts with an income. When I dont have enough to do something then I do not feel free. When I dont have enough money to feed my family, I do not feel free. Not having enough money is not what freedom looks like.

Gallup, a well known and respected neutral polling organization, asked small business owners why they were not hiring.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/Health-Costs-Gov-Regulations-Curb-Small-Business-Hiring.aspx

1 out of 2 stated that healthcare and regulation were big issues.

So the solution is to be as friendly as possible to corporations and other such companies big or small. Obviously, they are a little bit scared right now. If you eliminate those two issues, then maybe they will hire more people. Now I know you want to restrict and limit corporations to the greatest extent possible, but that kind of thinking is not going to encourage anyone to hire. That kind of thinking will put more innocent Americans out of work and on the street. I took an oath to support the people of the United States and being hostile to corporations who ultimately hire people goes against that oath. Its your kind of "attack the corporations" thinking which makes these companies take the ball and go play overseas in China.

Many folks will come on to the internet pretending to be business owners in support of Obama and I can tell they have never run a business in their life. I am a business owner and I have to pay quarterly taxes and file different returns over the course of the year. I get letters from the government all the time. In fact, I got one letter from a franchise tax board the other day and then another one from a completely different tax board. It is tough to own and run a business here and government doesnt make it any easy. What you propose to do is make is so hard for a business to be run that they have no choice but to take it overseas.

What you desire, Wombat88, is socialism or communism. You want the government to come in and take more control of the system. Collect more from the wealthiest segments and somehow hand it down to the poorest. You want Obama to step in and be more of an authoritarian. Obama does aspire to be an authoritarian. He stated on one occasion that he wished he could be the President of China and on another occasion wanted Americans to be more like the military so they could follow his orders.

I do not doubt Obama is a swell character to hang around. I dont think he is an evil man. However, based on his own statements, what I have observed these last few years, opinion polls, etc. I feel his agenda is not effective and would run contrary to American ideals. Obama basically wants everyone, to include Congress and the Supreme Court, to go along with him, but thats not what Democracy looks like.

I have never heard any Republican state that they desire to make the people less free. Actually, I have heard Obama make such statements (see above). Obama is also forcing every American to get health insurance which violates our freedom to choose. I am 100% against any American going to jail because they refuse to insure themselves.

If you enjoy government regulation then there are many other countries which you will enjoy. The reason why you dont want to go to those countries is because they are miserable places. Please do not try to bring their philosophy to this country because its really not in our best interests.

During the Reagan or Bush administration, I did not see EPA regulations rolled back. In fact, Reagan was the one who enacted the strongest pollution control laws in California. I do not see environmental regulations will be rolled back under a future Republican administration. However, we cannot put the earth above human. I think we should do what we can to be a good steward of the earth, but we ultimately need to decide in the interests of man.

Al Gore owns 4 houses and is worth over 100 million dollars. His family will be set for many generations. However, what about your family? Will they be set as well for many generations? I think we need to start thinking about ourselves and our own families rather then focus all our time on climate change and the environment.


(Message edited by Portege on February 20, 2012)

Why anyone still responds to Portege's lunacy is beyond me. After his whining about trip reports - all this after posting pics of trannies he's banged, of make trip reports to places he's never been, of arguing that the guys on the Asia board were "withholding" information and posting incorrect information and prices - I'm pretty much convinced he's just an idiot. Scratch that - a non-entertaining idiot.

He's not worth the effort at this point.

Just one more

Portege, you are so willing to give up freedom for an income, thinking that income is freedom. It's not. Just ask the medieval surfs.

I'm glad you linked tot the Gallup poll. One out of two say healthcare is big issues? Naw, it shows that healthcare regulations are the fifth of eight concerns employers have. Big deal.

"So the solution is to be as friendly as possible to corporations and other such companies big or small." Yeah, you know, like Fascist governments. That worked really well, didn't it! Corporations give money to the government, the government passes laws that protect the interests of the corporations. I'm sure Jefferson and the boys would have something to say about that, don't you think?


"I took an oath to support the people of the United States..." Oh, you're one of thse "Corporations are people, my friend" kind of Republicans. Right. Got it. "Attack the corporations" thinking? No, I'm more about "protect the citizens from soulless profit generating machines."

"What you desire, Wombat88, is socialism or communism." Communism doesn't work outside the family, but socialism sure as hell does. The problem, though, is you have no idea what socialism is.

"You want the government to come in and take more control of the system." Nope, just make sure we have a safe and level playing field. "Collect more from the wealthiest segments and somehow hand it down to the poorest." No, but the Republican strategy has always been "collect more from the middle class and give it to the rich." How's that trickle-down thing working out for ya? "Obama ... stated on one occasion that he wished he could be the President of China and on another occasion wanted Americans to be more like the military so they could follow his orders." Source or it didn't happen.

"I have never heard any Republican state that they desire to make the people less free." Of course not, they just go ahead and enact policies that do exactly that. "Obama is also forcing every American to get health insurance." Yeah, so we don't have to pay for their health care when it's too late to treat them cheaply.

"If you enjoy government regulation then there are many other countries which you will enjoy." Like the happiest countries on Earth? Go ahead and check out the list and come back and tell me what their governments are like. I think you'll see the word "socialist" more than a few times. Now take a look at the countries with the least government. Tell me which ones you'd like to live in.

When 1 out of 2 people in a room feel something is an issue then its probably an issue. Not all of us can live in a tent. I require a car, I require a house and I require clothing. Looking around me, it seems everyone I see has much the same needs. If you have children, then those needs magnify.

Im not sure how you can live off the fruit of the land, but I am one who cannot and I believe the majority of the American people cannot. So money is a big thing. Hey, its not everything, but I would sure like to be able to drive my car around and make the next mortgage payment so I can remain in my house. I will not be joining tent city anytime soon.

At this point, we need moderation. We do not need Obama's radical philosophy. Obama lost a lot of political points with Obamacare and it is now one of the main reasons why businesses are not hiring. ..it is one of the reasons why unemployment remains so high. We dont need that, thats not working and its simply unfair to the American people who have consistently stated in opinion polls that they do not want this legislation.

For those who so passionately defend Obama...you can now defend him at the gas pumps. Gasoline is up nearly 200% and in the morning it will probably be up even more. Oh yeah, Obama has nothing to do with the price of gas...must have been that tsunami or something like that...go ahead and defend the man while you spend nearly a hundred dollars filling up your big ole SUV.

Yes the price of fuel is going up on the west coast, and here is a very good reason why.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/21/refinery-operations-bp-cherrypoint-idINL2E8DL00320120221

"Feb 20 (Reuters) - BP Plc's 225,000 barrel per day (bpd) Cherry Point, Washington, refinery, the third largest on the U.S. West Coast, remained idle for a third full day on Monday after a Friday fire shut the key crude distillation unit.

Potentially, at least, a partial resumption of production could come quickly even if the crude unit, which starts the crude oil refining process, remains shut for lengthy repairs.

The other units at the refinery were placed in warm standby mode, meaning they could restart quickly, if BP officials decide to begin bypassing the crude unit and put feedstocks into those units directly.

Wholesale gasoline prices were expected to spike on Tuesday in West Coast refined products markets by as much as 20 cents a gallon when trading resumes on Tuesday due to the idled plant, analysts have said.

Consumers on the West Coast were also expected to feel the effects of halted production at the refinery, which can produce 3.5 million gallons of gasoline, 2.5 million gallons of jet fuel and 2.2 million gallons of diesel, according to BP.

How soon higher wholesale prices will filter down to consumers was unclear. Gasoline prices were already increasing due to maintenance at refineries in the region and rising crude oil prices.

West Coast consumers pay some of the highest prices in the nation for fuel due to the relative isolation of the region from refining centers on the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest. Pipelines from those areas don't run to the Pacific.

BP spokesman Scott Dean said the company's supply and logistics staff worked throughout the weekend to find alternate fuel supplies and the refinery was feeding fuel to customers from inventory on hand at the refinery.

At the Vancouver, British Columbia, airport, where BP supplies 60 percent of the fuel, the company made a delivery on Sunday, an airport fuel company spokesman said.

The idled refinery was also expected to affect crude oil markets.

When units are not idled for maintenance, the Cherry Point refinery receives between a third and a half of its monthly supply from Canadian producers. It also draws about a quarter of its crude from Russian suppliers with the remainder coming from South American, Middle Eastern and African oil fields.

Only one minor injury was reported due to the fire and all employees were accounted for shortly after the one-hour blaze on a vacuum section of the crude distillation was extinguished.

Federal and state regulators launched investigations of the blaze on Friday. Those probes could take as much as six months before they are finished, the agencies have said."

Hell if regular gas was $5.00 a gallon it would push more people out of those huge SUV's and into something that gets better mileage. People keep saying we need to stop importing so much crude oil from the middle east. Easy to talk the talk!

I have no idea why gasoline prices are so high. Every day there are more news articles and more talking heads telling us as to why, but I have come to find over the years that even they have no idea. Usually one talking head has the right answer, but there is no telling which one. All I know is that Obama doesnt appear to be helping gas prices and neither is Bernanke with his huge money printing press.

There are many ways Obama could have helped such as approving oil drilling leases 2 or so years ago and approving that pipeline. He could have encouraged the oil industry, however, he wanted to error on the side of caution and the environment. That may seem like a good enough reason, but the industry is already as safe as it could be.

If Obama had encouraged the oil industry starting in 2009 on day 1 then you probably would not be paying 4 dollars per gallon at the pump. The oil industry also creates high quality well paying jobs both in the industry directly and indirectly. Hey, it may even go to 5 or 6 per gallon and thats not helping.

err

In one post Portege blames Obama for high gas prices (really, how stupid is that?). Then he says he has no idea why prices are so high. Then he says it's Obama's fault for not approving oil leases. Obama has approved more offshore drilling than W, but Portege is too stupid to know this. Portege only makes one correct statement: that he has "no idea why gasoline prices are so high."

Portege--you are both stupid and ignorant. On top of that, you are unaware of this. A very dangerous combination.

Is Portege actually Beachman?

I learned a long time ago that its not wise to speculate on the reasons why the price of a commodity, any commodity, is rising. There are reasons, but those reasons are never truly evident. It could be that Bernanke is encouraging inflation, it could be Iran and it could be Obama. I think I know what it might be, but I absolutely cannot say for sure why the price of a commodity keeps rising and will not be married to assumptions.

Obama wasnt friendly to big oil in 2009, 2010 or 2011. There was only one oil lease sale in 2011. The drilling moratorium certainly didnt help matters and neither did the high pitched rhetoric. Remember Obama's rant against BP??? Obama recently stated that he was going to open up more of the Gulf for drilling, but thats too late. You know how long it takes to get an oil rig up and running? Its not like your IPad where you just touch a button. It will take about 2-3 years to get an off-shore rig up and running.

So if Obama went "all in" on oil back in 2009 then there would have been tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs created. By now, we would have started seeing the first drops of oil from the rigs if they were started back in 2009 or 2010. The moratorium caused a lot of oil workers to lose their jobs. It really didnt help.

So while I will not sit here and say certainly this is why oil is going up...I can't help but feel Obama's anti-oil stance from 2009 to the state of the union speech in 2012 helped the price of gasoline or oil go down.

Hehe. I also just noticed they just approved the construction of two reactors. Reactors are not built overnight...takes years. Again, if Obama had approved the construction of reactors back in 2009 then that would have created high quality jobs. However, he chose to sit on his hands. Now does sitting on your hands being anti-oil help the price go down.

The price of gasoline has risen 200% since Obama took office. Its as if Obama is cheering on the price of gasoline.

You liberals will just have to grin and bear it at the gas pumps. Yep, its going to go up further. You are just another casualty of supporting Obama and his anti-oil rhetoric.



(Message edited by Portege on February 21, 2012)

Man, I sure fucked up my predictions. I was sure that Nutty Newty would top the ticket and Insanatorium would be the pick for veep. Not everything is backwards. Insanatorium is winning. Newty had imploded and he has enough mass to form a black hole. Romney is so fucking uninspiring that all the evangelicals will stay home if he tops the ticket. That would be a good thing for America if we route all the republicans and get leaders with the balls to implement a progressive agenda to restore our infrastructure and imprison the new robber barons.

Not sure where your getting your price facts from...200% are you really that dumb???

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Pull up the 6 year time period, 200%??? You fail at basic math.

Here is a gasoline chart from the day Obama started office to the present time in terms of price performance.

Now I will not ignore the fact the markets were severely depressed back when Obama started. However, Obama has not done very much to encourage a lower price for gasoline. If he did go "all in" on oil from day 1 then I am guessing this chart would not look like this and unemployment would be lower. He could have opened up oil drilling in the coast, he could have sold a lot more oil leases then 1 and he didnt have to have a moratorium on drilling. All of this encouraged price to climb. The oil industry could have created hundreds of thousands of high quality well paying jobs if Obama had simply played the cards right. However, he decided to sink billions into solar energy companies like Solyndra which ultimately went bankrupt.

Only now are they considering the building of two reactors. Why couldnt these reactors been approved back in 2009? I guess the priority back then was on healthcare reform. (BTW, after the "reform" healthcare is now more expensive and less accessible.) Oil rigs and reactors take years to build. The building of reactors also could have contributed tens of thousands of well paying jobs to the economy.

Good men should not be fighting in the Middle East over oil and energy security. They should be back here drilling for oil, building reactors and pipelines. The American people should not be put in second place over activist environmentalists and Al Gore. If Al Gore wants us to stop drilling for oil, then he can grab a rifle and fight in the Middle East. Hell, send Obama's daughters too. Obama operates off of his own agenda and has no concern for our lives. Healthcare, the environment and all that jazz is far more important to him then us.

I kind of laugh when I look at the stock market. The stock market looks like it has almost fully recovered, but when I drive around the community its obvious the only recovery has taken place in the stock market...fantasyland...on Main St it cant be worse.



)

(Message edited by Portege on February 22, 2012)

There is a good reason why Romney is uninspiring. Romney's father had a habit of being too plain and outright in regards to his spoken word. It turned people off. Romney is being careful and choosing his words carefully. However, Newt is saying too much and some of the things he says (much like Ron Paul) is turning people away.

Santorum seems like a down to earth guy...the type who you can imagine being your next door neighbor or an old friend from high school. He doesnt say too much, but he doesnt say too little and he always talks with a smile. He tries to spin his speech towards the positive.

Lets say you were working for a company and you had a boss. Could you imagine Newt, Romney or Paul being your boss? Could you imagine Obama being your boss? I couldnt. However, Santorum seems to be that kind of guy who you can imagine being around for a long period of time.

You call the stock market fantasy land, and yet your using a chart straight out of fantasy land. Your also trying to manipulate the figures by starting your chart at a 36 month low.

This chart shows the actual price people are paying for gas on main street USA over a 72 month period. I think it's a little more realistic and less of a fantasy.

My chart is the "spot price" for gasoline. The actual retail price will have taxes, fees and markup added to it. So my chart does not reflect the actual retail price. The actual retail price will be higher, but both the spot and retail price will move up in the same percentages.

So in your chart, the retail price of gas was around 1.65 on the day Obama took office. So the current price on your chart looks to be around 3.55 or a 215% increase. My chart suggests about a 208% increase. So it is a fact that gas price doubled under Obama.

I surely did not expect gasoline to stay at $1.61 after a market bounce, but I think it could have been mitigated by certain actions from Obama to include immediately approving the building of reactors, pipelines, off-shore rigs and sale of oil leases. He could have opened up more land, like the Arctic, to drilling. All of this would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and we would not be so dependent on the Middle East.

So I think we would be more secure, have more jobs and the gas price would have been less if Obama went "all in" on energy when he took office. It takes years to build and develop things like pipelines and rigs. Even if Obama went "all in" right now it would take at least 2 years (probably 3-4) to see the first drops of oil come from the rigs he approved and thats assuming no setbacks.

Obama reacted too late. Actually, his opening up of the drilling in the gulf is only in speech form only...no action as of yet. So he endangers young soldiers, makes family pay more then they have to at the pumps (gobbling up that Social Security tax holiday) and puts people out of work. Obama went "all in" on vacation, golf outings and trips on Air Force One, but he certainly did not do the same for oil. While Obama is having a sing-a-long at the White House some guy is filling up his tank at 4 per gallon. That is shameful, disgraceful and unAmerican!

(Message edited by Portege on February 22, 2012)

RG,

Spot on. And if one used inflation-adjusted figures, the recent rise would not seem out of line with what we paid in 2007.

Potage,

If Santorum were my next door neighbor, I'd get out of the neighborhood quickly. He wants to turn the US into a Theocracy, and a conservative Catholic one at that. Of all the candidates that have come (and gone), he may be the wackiest and scariest of all. He has that "True Believer" gleam in his eyes that should scare the shit out of everyone.

Potage,

Correlation is not causation. Please repeat this phrase over and over. Your lapses in scientific (and economic) logic are astounding

Your reading comprehension is astounding. I said from the start that I am not going to come to a conclusion as to why gas prices are on the way up, but I dont think Obama's anti-oil stance the first 3 years helped any. Do you think the oil drilling moratorium helped? Or maybe the fact that he approved of 1 drilling lease?

Well, we heard him open the gulf drilling up, but where is the executive order stating that? All I heard was a speech. I printed out that speech and now will use it to heat my home. Thats what Obama's words are good for. The way heating oil is going up all I will have is his printed out speeches to light the fireplace.

If you really think Obama did not encourage and cheer on oil prices then please state your reasons. Im listening.

We all have certain religious beliefs or maybe some of us here simply dont believe. I welcome Santorums thoughts on religion. I really dont care if he is Catholic or Jewish. We all have certain beliefs and its wrong to look down on someone because you dont subscribe to their religion.

We have a Supreme Court to help seperate religion and country. There will undoubtedly be some laws made motivated by religion which is understandable. I have faith in the Supreme Court to make the ultimate decisions on such issues. That is what they are there for. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution as a soldier. I still believe in the three branch system which will mediate such issues.

If Santorum believes in some type of strong theology then let him believe. This is not Iran. We have a freedom to believe in what we want.

(Message edited by Portege on February 22, 2012)

Here is Obama's stance on oil. These are his own words. Please tell me how you will defend him or is this clearly indefensible. There is some honor in being honest...

http://news.investors.com/article/601827/201202211837/obama-shifting-talk-on-high-gas-prices.htm

Energy: When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.

Already, pump prices are higher than they've been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. So he sent Robert Gibbs — now a top campaign adviser — out to tell the public not to worry.

"Just on Friday, the Department of the Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic," Gibbs said Sunday. "Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we're making progress."

"Progress" isn't exactly how Obama described the country's energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of "Washington's failure to lead on energy," which was "turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans."

"For the well-off in this country," Obama said in May 2008, "high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis."

In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be "one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced" and that gas prices "are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses."

While Gibbs is right that domestic production has climbed in the past three years, Obama's policies had nothing whatsoever to do with it.


Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

Oil coming from offshore wells was in the pipeline, so to speak, during the Clinton and Bush years, when those permits were issued. And the oil pouring out of North Dakota is the result of drilling on private lands.

Obama, in fact, has made it clear for years that he has no real interest in boosting domestic production.

When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying "it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."

"Offshore drilling," he said, "would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now."

In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that "if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world's oil reserves."

And while in office, Obama's done everything he can to limit production — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.

Instead of aggressively expanding oil production, he offered a set of ridiculous alternatives — hugely wasteful "green" energy subsidies, a call for a million electric cars by 2014 and costly fuel economy mandates that won't make a dent in consumption for decades.

With gas prices up 93% since Obama took office, we're seeing just how well this approach works.

Perhaps this article from 2011 will bring light to your sudden concern about the price of gas.

Just a reminder, capitalism is about making money from other people, the oil companies are doing just this...Gas consumption is down is this country so the oil companies are selling the fuel to other buyers where demand is high. Combine this with the annual change from a winter blend fuel to summer blend fuels and you get a rise in prices.

Is that too hard to understand??? Or are you the type of guy that just likes to bitch because he can, or are you wanting big bad government to provide you with artificially low fuel prices?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/05/news/economy/gasoline_export/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.
The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That is about twice the amount at the start of the year, and experts and industry insiders say the trend is here to stay.

The United States began exporting gas in late 2008. For decades prior, starting in 1960, the country used all the gas it produced here plus had to import gas from places in Europe.
But demand for gas has dropped nearly 10% in recent years. It went from a peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.8 million barrels today, according to the EIA.
10 most fuel efficient cars
The drop was caused partially by the recession but also by the advent of more fuel efficient vehicles, higher prices and the greater use of ethanol as an ingredient in gasoline. Demand for other products made from crude oil like diesel and jet fuel has also declined, although not as much.
To be sure, the United States is still importing plenty of oil to make that gasoline -- and is still dependent on foreign countries for well over half the crude it uses. (Read: OPEC: We want clean energy.)
But now the country's massive refining infrastructure is producing more gasoline, diesel and jet fuel than the United States needs, freeing it up to be exported to places like Brazil, Mexico and Chile where demand is still strong.
The Wall Street Journal, which reported on the export trend last week, said the United States is on track this year to be a net exporter of refined products for the first time in 62 years.
"We've got plenty of excess refining capacity," said Jonathan Cogan, a spokesman for EIA. "It's a reminder that this is a global oil market, and it's reflected by the movements of products to where they will get the highest prices."
Oil's up, gas is down. Why?
Mark Williams, global head of refining, trading and marketing for Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA), said exporting diesel and other refined products from the United States used to happen fairly irregularly but is now becoming much more common.
"It's growing as a new business," he said, although he cautioned that the United States would probably not become a huge exporter of fuel.
Still, the ability to export oil is good news for Shell and other oil companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), BP (BP) and Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500). They can use their extensive and modern refineries in the United States to make gasoline for the rest of the world.
But it may be bewildering for American drivers, who could experience record high gas prices next year even though U.S. demand could hit the lowest level in a decade, said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service.
Oil roars back to $100, but does anybody care?
"I can understand it, from a truck driver's perspective," said Kloza. "You're paying $4 or $4.50 a gallon to run your rig, yet we're exporting the crap out of this fuel. I'd be outraged too."
Still, he cautioned against restrictions on exports of diesel or gasoline, a move he expects politicians to at least talk about in 2012.

Like I said, you can't count on the news for reasons. There are lots of news reporters and market pundits. If they knew why, then they would not be reporting the news.

Im comfortable with simply saying "I dont know". I do know that if Obama simply adopted the philosophy "drill baby drill" there would be a lot of people out there with a job. We would have more rigs out there to handle supply reductions.

The main reason why the US bombed Libya is because of oil. The main reason the US does not bomb Syria is because they have no oil. So Obama has adopted a philosophy of sacrificing our troops for oil. I do not agree with that. Good men should be drilling oil right here at home instead of killing people for it.

Here are ways Obama hasnt helped in regards to gas prices. Keep in mind that any new oil drilling project would bring jobs. Drilling projects are shovel-ready unlike the other projects heralded by the original stimulus:

* Keystone Pipeline

* Under Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44 percent, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39 percent, compared to 2007.

* In the wake of the BP oil spill, Obama shut down most Gulf of Mexico drilling; there’s been a 57 percent drop in monthly deepwater permits over the last three years, according to the Greater New Orleans’ Gulf Permit Index.

* The EPA continues to block drilling off the coast of Alaska — where an estimated 27 billion barrels are waiting to be tapped.

Actually, perhaps there is a plan.

In a pre-nomination interview in 2008, now-Energy Secretary Steven Chu told The Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Too bad you can't think on your own, your last post sounded just like a transcript of Newt when he was on CNN with Piers Morgan

Well I think we should all donate to the one campaign that will do the most for moving America forward.

http://store.barackobama.com/?source=fbs

They got some nice stuff there for you Portege, it might help you get laid if you wear it LOL