Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up. The dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to.
ryanb31 wrote:
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no grasp of economics in general nor that of the energy market. You also seem to be lacking in what the real impact of the president is as well as completely ignoring (or lack of knowledge) the impact of congress and the current make up of that body.
-
You claim I do not understand economics with what reasoning? You are the one that posted it is Obama's fault that gas is high. Not I. I pointed out a basic known fact. Supply and demand set the pricing for any commodity. Supply of gas is always getting lower and demand is always getting higher. Logically one can deduce the price will continue to rise. You also claimed Obama did this with his "socialist" ways and yet I pointed out how their are candidates that want to run against him clearly using more socialist ways than he. I am not taking it personally. I am poking and prodding because you start with claims as facts, then when you are proven wrong you say it is opinion. And then when it is shown that you did not claim it as opinion but as fact you go on a uni-vote campaign. It is you who take it too personally
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I pointed out a basic known fact. Supply and demand set the pricing for any commodity.
Supply of gas is always getting lower and demand is always getting higher. Logically one can deduce the price will continue to rise.That of course is incredibly simplistic and has little to do with the short term price fluctuations (noting of course that there is a difference between absolute supply and limited short term perceived problems with supply channels.)
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I do not even watch or read the news, any news.
Just curious how you have arrived at your current political views of the current president then. Or even the last one for that matter. But perhaps your definition of "news" is significantly different than mine.
I watched the debates and visited his website. I do see articles people post from time to time but I do not visit any news site with any regularity. I actually used to visit CNN from time to time but it was so depressing. Nothing but bad articles. People cutting up their parents and putting them in their freezer, those types of stories. And then a few years back when California was voting on Prop 8, a few hours before polls closed CNN was claiming it was going to fail overwhelmingly and so I happened to check FOX news and they said it was a close race based on exit polls. Anyway, later that day after the polls closed and Prop 8 officially passed CNN did not even have the story anywhere. I searched all over the site. FOX reported it accurately. Anyway, news is depressing and very often incorrect and most often incomplete. Why bother? CP is my news site. :) Pity me.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no grasp of economics in general nor that of the energy market. You also seem to be lacking in what the real impact of the president is as well as completely ignoring (or lack of knowledge) the impact of congress and the current make up of that body.
-
Just s SMALL piece of advice. You are not going to find accurate information from people who USED to be Mormons, got offended by something, and now claim to tell the truth. exmormon.org is your source. Just to be fair to you, I actually read almost all of the first 3 paragraphs on that site and there is so much incorrect about it there is no point in continuing. I guess if exmormon.org is your source, I can understand where you come from. I invite you to go to mormon.org instead if you want to know what the Church teaches. And no, the church has not changed.
ryanb31 wrote:
Just s SMALL piece of advice. You are not going to find accurate information from people who USED to be Mormons, got offended by something, and now claim to tell the truth. exmormon.org is your source.
So to be clear... One can't learn anything about communism by talking to someone who used to be a communist? One can't learn anything about Catholicism by talking to an ex-priest? One can't learn anything about heroin addiction by talking to an ex-addict? One can't learn anything about scienctology by talking to ex-members? etc... Or is it just Mormons that have the exalted position that ex-members immediately lose all knowledge of that group when they leave?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
If you do not believe in God you certainly will not be able to understand the answer.
lol. Certainly no solipsism there.
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc? It's the same thing. You can't understand the more concepts if you first do not have an understanding of the basics. You mock what you do not understand. That shows your level of ignorance. Instead of politely disagreeing, you mock.
-
The real issue is Obama is not even (likely) a citizen of the United States which goes against our constitution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded[^] The first clip may be doctored but most of them are not. And, the main point still stands even if Obama did or did not admit it himself. He is not eligible to be the President, yet there he is. That is what is most messed up.
ryanb31 wrote:
The real issue is Obama is not even (likely) a citizen of the United States which goes against our constitution.
Nonsense.
ryanb31 wrote:
And, the main point still stands even if Obama did or did not admit it himself. He is not eligible to be the President, yet there he is. That is what is most messed up.
The good ol' US, where any crackpot can spout any ridiculous theory regardless of how outlandish it might be. How many magic crystals are in your wallet?
-
He was born on US soil, as I understand it. However, if that does not qualify then of course he should not be able to run as president. I am not a lawyer nor an expert on what qualifies on natural born but I do believe our constitution needs to be upheld, regardless of who it is.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I pointed out a basic known fact. Supply and demand set the pricing for any commodity.
Supply of gas is always getting lower and demand is always getting higher. Logically one can deduce the price will continue to rise.That of course is incredibly simplistic and has little to do with the short term price fluctuations (noting of course that there is a difference between absolute supply and limited short term perceived problems with supply channels.)
Sure is. Is it really much more simplier than blaming the President for price changes though? :-\ I just think people that gripe about gas prices and then blame it on the president have no clue. So 'simplifying' in such a matter atleast gets them off that topic, cause clearly they have no clue and it is pointless banter. Same people that call Obama a socialist and gripe then support Newt's $2.50 plan :wtf:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Just s SMALL piece of advice. You are not going to find accurate information from people who USED to be Mormons, got offended by something, and now claim to tell the truth. exmormon.org is your source.
So to be clear... One can't learn anything about communism by talking to someone who used to be a communist? One can't learn anything about Catholicism by talking to an ex-priest? One can't learn anything about heroin addiction by talking to an ex-addict? One can't learn anything about scienctology by talking to ex-members? etc... Or is it just Mormons that have the exalted position that ex-members immediately lose all knowledge of that group when they leave?
No, that is not clear. You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex? You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow. So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
The real issue is Obama is not even (likely) a citizen of the United States which goes against our constitution.
Nonsense.
ryanb31 wrote:
And, the main point still stands even if Obama did or did not admit it himself. He is not eligible to be the President, yet there he is. That is what is most messed up.
The good ol' US, where any crackpot can spout any ridiculous theory regardless of how outlandish it might be. How many magic crystals are in your wallet?
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not a lawyer nor an expert on what qualifies on natural born...
What a surprise.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not a lawyer nor an expert on what qualifies on natural born...
What a surprise.
-
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc? It's the same thing. You can't understand the more concepts if you first do not have an understanding of the basics. You mock what you do not understand. That shows your level of ignorance. Instead of politely disagreeing, you mock.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then again, if you do not believe in the Bible one would assume you believe everything was created from nothing. Now there is a story to make fun of.
ryanb31 wrote:
You mock what you do not understand. That shows your level of ignorance.
Indeed it does.
ryanb31 wrote:
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc?
Please explain what "believe in the wind" means.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
Quote:
Utter nonsense.
Why? Just your opinion? He has deflated the dollar? Do you dispute that? So, what good has Obama done?
-
Sure is. Is it really much more simplier than blaming the President for price changes though? :-\ I just think people that gripe about gas prices and then blame it on the president have no clue. So 'simplifying' in such a matter atleast gets them off that topic, cause clearly they have no clue and it is pointless banter. Same people that call Obama a socialist and gripe then support Newt's $2.50 plan :wtf:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, what good has Obama done?
I didn't say he has done any good. I am disputing your claim that he by himself has this vast impact on an industry that is so pervasive and wide spread.
-
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc? It's the same thing. You can't understand the more concepts if you first do not have an understanding of the basics. You mock what you do not understand. That shows your level of ignorance. Instead of politely disagreeing, you mock.
ryanb31 wrote:
If you did not believe in the wind how could you understand air currents, weather patterns, etc? It's the same thing.
Nonsense. It isn't the same at all. Neither in the details nor in the general sense. I do NOT need to "believe" in the wind to study and understand the science of meteorology.
ryanb31 wrote:
You mock what you do not understand.
I suggest that you actually read what I have posted. I haven't said whether I believe or don't believe in God in any form. The fact that you assume my disbelief is based solely on your presumption that only your particular slant/view can be the proper one for God. Perhaps you should become a the head of a cult so you can truly control others beliefs.
-
No, that is not clear. You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex? You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow. So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
ryanb31 wrote:
You can learn some things but how much truth are you going to learn from a disgruntled ex?
So you agree that there is some truth there. Then the answer to your question depends how many exes there are.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have millions of active members and the church continues to grow.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, it would be foolish to use a few disgruntled ex's as your ONLY source.
Yes. But you claimed that nothing at all could be learned from them. And it is that point which I was addressing.