President Obama yesterday attempted to assuage voter wrath over high pump prices by unveiling...


President Obama yesterday attempted to assuage voter wrath over high pump prices by unveiling plans to expand oil and gas drilling in Alaska and exploration off the Atlantic coast. The announcement comes after the GOP-led House passed three bills in the last ten days to accelerate oil development in the U.S.

From other sites
Comments (86)
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Interesting pattern with Obama now. Whatever he sees the GOP proposing he quickly jumps on it and says "No, that was MY PLAN all along!" whether its spending cuts(Obama only mentioned it after Ryan's plan) or tag & bagging Osama(all because of GOP policies), now he's a pro-Gitmo 'war hero' to now drilling for oil.

     

    Let's call it the 'me too' leadership.
    15 May 2011, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (615) | Send Message
     
    All the King's media and all the King's men couldn't make obama's election happen again.
    15 May 2011, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • Old Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5732) | Send Message
     
    When I think about Obama and his leadership, "disingenuous" and "opportunistic" are 2 words that spring to mind.
    15 May 2011, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    I think the official spin on this tactic has been "Leading from Behind".
    15 May 2011, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • drekon
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, his policies are as unpopular as they are destructive. He can't be honest about his intent, so he grabs on to the policies Americans want and claims he will follow through. However, I'll take Obama at his word when he says, "I don't mind $4 a gallon gas, if it gets there slowly" and don't expect action. For all the platitudes about caring for the little guy, they sure inflict a lot of pain on us.
    15 May 2011, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16513) | Send Message
     
    kcr:

     

    Speaking as a Republican, myself, I think Obama's election is reassured unless the economy reverses and heads south in some new big way. It won't be nearly enough for the Republicans to mutter that the recovery wasn't "strong enough."

     

    And, frankly, I don' think they have a single candidate who could galvanize a broad enough cross section of the public unless Chris Christie suddenly decides to enter the fray. The same-old collection of worn-out candidates and media-posturers isn't going to cut it.
    15 May 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    I see that he seized the opportunity to leap on the "drill baby drill" bandwagon now. I forget if that is a flip or a flop this time around...
    15 May 2011, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    I also agree with tack.. to say that Obama's election won't happen again is.. well ignorant to put it bluntly.

     

    Mainstream America doesn't really pay attention to the real reasons behind gas prices, so they will believe Obama when he says that he's going to cut gas prices by levying higher taxes on the big oil companies.

     

    In reality it's false, but the large percentage of Americans will be in favor of it.

     

    I can't really blame him for pulling both ends of the string (GOP & Voting base).. it's essentially what is vital for him to win next year's election. He's going to give the GOP a little bit here and there, but is going to keep speaking as if he is still for liberal economy.
    15 May 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Don't try and claim the hunt to kill Bin Laden was a GOP-only initiative. The "GOP" President had 8 years of very explicit "GOP policies" to do it and failed miserably.
    15 May 2011, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • warrejt
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    Substitute "Obama and his leadership" with "politicians"......
    15 May 2011, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Christie is worn out as far as I'm concerned. He's a wind bag.
    15 May 2011, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Disingenuous? Opportunistic? You've just defined every politician on the planet.......why focus on Obama????
    15 May 2011, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Do you really think drilling will bring down oil prices?

     

    Maybe.......in ten years.

     

    If we have high oil prices it's either because of speculation or the failed energy policy of the Bush administration. Obama could have made drilling for oil a national emergency when he walked in the door and we wouldn't be seeing a drop of that oil for another 4 or 5 years.

     

    So you guys are going to have to either blame Bush, speculation, the Gulf Oil Spill, the Arabs.......just about anyone BUT Obama.

     

    Use your freaking heads for something other than a hat rack.
    16 May 2011, 12:02 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    You tell 'em Lightway!!!

     

    I don't think Bush even gave a S#!+
    16 May 2011, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (615) | Send Message
     
    His election isn't assured, but neither is the failure. He will lose a number of black voters as the excitement of having the first black prez. voted in has passed along with the "Obama gon pay my mortgage crowd" has not gotten what they thought they would. The right will be energized and despite what anyone on here says, every single under 100k a year person feels prices are rising, wages are stagnant, keeping your job is the new raise, etc. Whether it's true or not, perception equals reality. SA may feel there is a recovery, but SA does not represent main st and the majority of the voters.
    Sad that it's the repubs election to lose, and they are doing a great job of it.
    16 May 2011, 12:19 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    Bush administration???

     

    How about everyone from the Nixon administration up to and including Obama?

     

    Name one single administration in the last 45 years that has had a viable energy policy. Or any policy that was not just pie in the sky rhetoric.
    16 May 2011, 01:48 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Do you mean the several times Billy Jethro Heefus Corndog McCletus Clinton of Ork-CAN-saw was handed OBL on a platter and explicitly refused to go after him after being advised by his lawyers? The 1993 WTC bombing was traced to OBL and Clinton Skyped him and added him as 'a friend' on Facebook.

     

    Or do you mean the GOP policies Obama used like keeping Gitmo open(after saying he would shut it down) and waterboarding(which Obama condemned) which directly led to finding OBL's courier which led to his doorstep?

     

    Please clarify.
    16 May 2011, 03:46 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    That's interesting, the same GOP crowd criticized Clinton for being too aggressive back then because they said he was starting wars to distract people after he got caught getting a blowjob. Now they want to blame him for not doing enough. You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, it's the GOP, of course you think you can.

     

    That claim of waterboarding torture leading to some information was announced on the O'Reilly Factor by a GOP Senator. Nobody has ever verified this information. This was further publicized by all-stars like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

     

    Basically their motive in going on talk shows is to not looking like idiots for wasting 8 years and never capturing the guy. They had the entire political support of the entire world behind them, and had much more resources at their disposal to get him, but failed miserably.

     

    Bush took his eyes off the ball and went into Iraq because of lies, taking his eye of the ball and diverting precious resources out of Afghanistan. He could have had him earlier if he'd just stuck to the mission and not worrying about personal vendettas against Saddam Hussein.

     

    Regarding the closing of Guantanamo, I am personally disappointed that he reneged on his promise.

     

    However, we have zero hard evidence that waterboarding led "directly" or even indirectly to the capture, as you claim. That is just a political talking point being thrown out by a bunch of incompetents who failed at their job and are now trying to save face and claim credit.

     

    Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Please clarify.
    16 May 2011, 04:05 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Clinton aggressive? He slashed intel, shuttered military bases & closed VAs. The intel was the worst of it. It would take years to rebuild those back up. The only time he manned up was the day before grand jury testimony when he bombed aspirin factories, murdering anons. Not sure about the repeated script you tell yourself in your head, but its misinformed.

     

    The "claim" of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who gave up OBL's courier? LOL. Its universally reported news.

     

    www.google.com/search?...

     

    How about we just let the news be the news? Kay? And the other stuff you tell yourself to make life easier? Yeah. Let's keep that stuff to yourself from now on.

     

    At this point, all your misdirection is not just ill-information. Its hysterics. What's next? An Elvis sighting? I know, you'll want proof that he's actually dead. See you at the Bigfoot convention.
    16 May 2011, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Senator McCain said that you are making stuff up. The claim that waterboarding led to information that led to capture is 100% false.

     

    Check your facts first. Not sure how someone can fail at Google, but apparently you did.

     

    Talk about misdirection. Projection is a better term for your garbage.

     

    So way to go, you just advocated torture when the whole premise supporting your argument was blown out of the water. (pun intended).

     

    -------------------

     

    "WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) wrote Thursday in a op-ed piece in the Washington Post that he opposed torture, and said it just isn’t true that waterboarding lead authorities to the trusted courier of the Osama bin Laden.

     

    “I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.”"

     

    blogs.abcnews.com/then...
    reportergary.com/2011/.../

     

    Donald Rumsfeld -

     

    In an interview Monday, Rumsfeld said that "no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay."

     

    "It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance," he said with respect to the death of bin Laden. "But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

     

    www.cbsnews.com/8301-5...
    16 May 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    So the information wasn't from waterboarding, it was from a full body massage, Bon Bons and a lil' late nite spooning?

     

    Nice try.

     

    We already know McCain's schtick here. He's been on this train for years from his past. Panetta and Rummy are trying to keep us on the UN so-called 'human rights' commission. No one in government lies, right? Is that about it?

     

    You're easy. Spoonfed as a child, you'll believe anything if someone coos first.

     

    Fact is, KSM DID CONFIRM Al-Kuwait’s existence from previous 'enhanced interrogation techniques' received from other detainees creating a mosaic/umbrella confirmation. If you want to argue about whether or not a little water was dribbled or not on someone's forehead, that's your problem. And at some point, without dispute, (Rummy can say anything at this point, he just doesn't want to face prosecution), a detainee was indeed waterboarded. The prisons, the sleep deprivation, the endless Brittney Spears mp3s, the water drizzled on the nose, all of it contributed to OBL's ultimate capture.

     

    So now you're just rambling about the periphery. Bottom line, Obama was successful because of Gitmo and because of 'enhanced interrogation', both Bush policies.

     

    Just say it. Its not difficult. These were Bush's policies. Not homeboy's.

     

    Or, continue lying to yourself.
    16 May 2011, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Documentation please.

     

    I don't care what you personally think or what your idealogical stance is, please show me any document or testimony from a government official showing you have proof of waterboarding leading to the information that led to the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

     

    By the way, McCain was just relaying the report from Leon Panetta (CIA Director).

     

    Speaking of government lying, how did those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq work out for ya?
    16 May 2011, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely. BTW, it may help in the future not to read Kos diary entries. They are picked up and repeated by all the bobbleheads instantly and spread throughout the false world Huffpo intrawebs.

     

    Start here. Liberate your mind.

     

    www.nationalreview.com...
    16 May 2011, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Something that's not a right-wing magazine and isn't advertised during Rush Limbaugh broadcasts?

     

    Can I link the Huffington Post to refute your article? (The author doesn't even list any sources, he just says, "here's what we do know...")
    16 May 2011, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    HuffPost is hardly an unbiased source. Not sure there are any, but some are less biased than others. What you need to do is find out what the original source of the Left or Right wing blog article is, and see if has been distorted. Both sides do that, you know...
    16 May 2011, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    "HuffPost is hardly an unbiased source."

     

    That was my whole point, kinda like quoting a Scott Rasmussen opinion poll. ;)
    16 May 2011, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "Something that's not a right-wing magazine and isn't advertised during Rush Limbaugh broadcasts?"

     

    "Can I link the Huffington Post to refute your article"

     

    Yep, don't need either of these when a few facts and some common sense will work just fine.

     

    1. No one is going to tell what really happened. Why, because people will get killed if they do. If it was from detainees, then no-one want's that known as detainees will start showing up dead. If it was Pakistani elected officials, ditto. (common sense)

     

    2. McCain did not say where the information that did get Osama came from. We know he is a politician and will say whatever fits his political need. (facts)

     

    3. No doubt the CIA knowing #2 would be very happy to let him spread disinformation even if was based on their lies. They know how he would respond to that information. And we all know the CIA is about deception, so why believe them this time. (common sense)

     

    4. The political establishment wants very much to be able to sidestep anything that might hurt their future election chances. (fact) So no one in the political elite would admit to the benefit of enhanced interrogation techniques (after thinking about it) no matter how solid the evidence is. (common sense) Anyone that understand how politics works would not think that all of sudden politicians are now telling the truth (about anything) (common sense).

     

    5. If enhanced interrogation techniques were not used then all the initial stories about it being used would have had to have been made up much to quickly and by too many people. You see the truth is most often what you hear first before people realize the benefit of a lie and have time to get their story straight (fact).

     

    All of these taken together leads a reasonable person to seriously question McCains statement. His comments have not been widely supported. Wonder why? Maybe because he is an old fool and everyone else is letting him carry the water (so to speak.)

     

    Nevertheless, there are many facts and a lot of commons sense that says McCains statements are only political self-serving campaign rhetoric that also meets the needs of the CIA and the Democrats. He's been set up this way before and is an easy target.
    16 May 2011, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    McCain said he talked directly to Leon Panetta and said that's where the information came from.

     

    Do you guys even read the articles?
    16 May 2011, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (615) | Send Message
     
    One article you provided claims he spoke to directly to LP and the other claims he got the info from a report provided by LP; did YOU read the articles?
    16 May 2011, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    He can't do both? You never heard of a verbal report either?

     

    Nice try though.

     

    You guys are really reaching.
    16 May 2011, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Read that first paragraph.

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    If that doesn't give you the creeps I don't know what will.

     

    As a partisan hack, he is Obama's boy and will say anything as will most lawyers/government lifers who got their political training wheels removed in Clinton's army.
    16 May 2011, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    That's nice.

     

    From your first paragraph also:

     

    "As director of the CIA, Panetta presided over the operations that led to Osama bin Laden's death."

     

    I would think the guy would be the best person to know exactly where that information came from.

     

    You guys can't deny the facts so try and shoot the messenger. Sorry, old game doesn't work. Plus you're projecting about the partisan hack stuff.
    16 May 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    He's an Obama appointee. He's in the best position to cover up any disconcerting details that would cause harm to 'his boss'. Then help him remove all the contradictory foots from his mouth.

     

    So where did you get this idea of Big Government the Saint from? Its naive, sure. But its unhealthy. Get some help.
    16 May 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Pure speculation. You have Senators from both sides of the aisle using his report and vouching for it.

     

    Idealogical issues aside, we're talking about documentation here, and yours fails all reasonable tests.
    16 May 2011, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    Actually Rasmussen over the past 10 years or so has been by far the most accurate prediction polls for elections. It was .1% off in the 2008 elections, and .2% off for the 2010.
    16 May 2011, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    The one thing that tosses water on your whole argument is that McCain is not running for reelection.
    16 May 2011, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    In fact there is a U-Tube video around showing Panetta alluding to that.
    16 May 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Like McCain was the only one who vouched for it. Both Lindsay Graham (GOP) and Sen. Feinstein (head of Senate Intel committee) both said waterboarding had nothing to do with the capture.

     

    Pretty sad corner you guys have backed yourself into. You can't keep stretching for outs because you don't have any.
    16 May 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    You seriously want to toss your credibility onto Graham and Feinstein?

     

    Do you follow politics much, if at all? Do you even know who these people are?

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...

     

    LOL.

     

    Feinstein is a renown tax funnel for Dick Blum's investments. This kind of embezzlement is nothing short of Madoff, except its worse since we don't have a say on how many times our taxes are ripped off in any one calendar year. If we had any justice in this country she would be in the Christina Melton Crain Unit parlaying packs of Kools for tat work in the all women canasta tournament or maybe whipping cord for Double Dutch and later roh sham bo for top bunk.

     

    And Johnny Mac is a confused pub freak with a chip on his shoulder the size of Wasilla. If anything, he should recuse himself since his idea of what constitutes 'torture' has nothing at all to do with an inversion table and a gallon of Alhambra. Every time he talks about waterboarding he does himself a disservice since he really was tortured. A sad, little man who lacks the ability to cohesively compare the gradations of evil in a war. Now its 'his thing' much in the same way Betty Ford's thing was puking her guts out in the Oval Office and flipping that into a career.

     

    Please, no more of your politicians. They're scaring me. The last thing I want from them is 'intel'.
    17 May 2011, 01:26 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Predictable response, try and discredit the messenger (x1000), yet have still failed to refute the message (which is fact you cannot deny).

     

    I could care less about what you think about any of them. They are from across the political spectrum, yet somehow manage to all agree on the exact same documentation.

     

    So you can't deny the message, you posted falsehoods that nobody could confirm, and which were outright refuted in very explicit and very public communications, so you've tried to discredit the people doing the verification, and have failed miserably at that.

     

    By your logic, any leads from the terrorists should have been thrown out because they weren't credible witnesses.

     

    I'm sure if we had testimony from one of the SEALs that disagreed with your viewpoint, you'd find some way to discredit him too.

     

    But hey, whatever makes you feel better in your head.

     

    Next
    17 May 2011, 02:26 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Darkway

     

    If you want to debate politics and push your political views find someplace else. You are boring and predictable. This is a financial site in case you took a wrong turn coming off the Huffington Post site.

     

    You also don't understand that many people look at WDC and our press as so hopelessly corrupt that nothing comes out with spin or a convenient removal of contradictory facts. In the case of the press most of them are too stupid to know how to report on complex issues and gather the facts or really just wanna be politicians looking for facts to support their view. Thus there is no credibility. Name whomever you want most if not all of them are part of the problem. That is a great debate for Huff Po but not here.

     

    Politician is really a word that describes someone who does what is good for themselves and makes you believe they are looking out for you. Occasionally our mutual interests overlap but most of us are very certain we know who politicians will take care of first. You come off as an eager young college graduate with a lot of time on your hands and a true believer in the people whom you are supporting.

     

    If you really have any depth in IT infrastructure then go replace your motherboard or just reboot.
    17 May 2011, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    I haven't had this much fun since Duck Hunt came out

     

    On the other hand, I'm not the one pushing any political views, I'm just reporting the facts, which are apolitical, as much as you and your comrades desperately attempt to try to deny and spin as political.

     

    This is simple information gathering, management of it, chain of command, and documentation. It just happens to be in the Federal Government (across 2 branches), and so in your minds you look for some out or way to discredit it.

     

    Your summary:

     

    1) I must be your enemy because I disagree with your opinion, and it must be a political bias
    2) I am a bad guy in general (personal attack)

     

    Okay, now please provide a counterpoint on why waterboarding did not have anything whatsover to do with the information that led to Osama Bin Laden. We have several officials at the very highest ranks of the government, and former officials, both Republicans and Democrats, who have independently confirmed the documentation.

     

    You have nothing.
    17 May 2011, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Darkway

     

    You have missed my point. You have nothing but talking points from 3rd parties, no original points of view and you are BORING!

     

    And then you whimper that you are attacked.

     

    Next.
    17 May 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • drekon
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Monngie - Do you think if your Democratic party would get out of the way we would eventually see some more oil? They have rejected drilling bills for over 20 years. Yes, drilling would help today. Yes, lifting a ban in the gulf would help. Yes, granting permits would help. Yes, natural gas credits would help. Yes, selling millions of acres of government seized, oil rich land would help.

     

    2008 called - they want their campaign slogans back. Obama needs to own his mistakes - it's been 2.5 years.
    18 May 2011, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "Do you really think drilling will bring down oil prices? Maybe.......in ten years."

     

    You have no clue how it works. Oil prices are controlled by a cartel in the middle least. The higher the prices the more money is siphoned from us to them. However, that only works if they are united and we have no source of oil. Once we announce real programs to develop our own oil, they will immediately drop the price. They will want to kill those programs because they know the following:

     

    1. If they do not kill our development programs now, they will not be able to kill them as easily in the future.

     

    2. They know that 50% of American are ignorant and will believe anything that the media repeats. All they have to do if fool the major media outlets into supporting their agenda.

     

    3. If they do kill the programs now it means another 20+ years of support from the US by siphoning our funds to support the middle east.

     

    4. Without US oil funds their governments are done for. Their political downfall is assured.

     

    5. They would much rather have lower profits for a short time period than to lose most profits for a long time.

     

    And yes, even non middle east countries support this model because they are in nearly the same situation. They need the oil funds.
    18 May 2011, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    Tomas and Wyatt, it is impossible to have an argument with the illiterate lightway, when he is pinned against the wall, he resorts to name calling or exaggerations.....

     

    An Obama boot licker.......
    20 May 2011, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Okay Joe let's have an argument.

     

    Step up to the plate and let's see what you have to say.

     

    No cheating this time, this isn't Goldman Sachs. :-)
    20 May 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Lightway you'll have to excuse these guys. They refer to "facts" as "talking points" so that they can be easily dismissed. And anything less than an eye witness account won't due. Of course, if you did have an eye witness account they would dismiss that too. According to these guys no one has any credibility but them.
    21 May 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    Well, I must say your point is well taken. The answer to this question is, and I know no one is going to like it, Jimmy Carter. If we listened to him on energy we would probably be independent now with trillions of dollars in the bank.
    21 May 2011, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    i have to say I agree with you, at least to some extent. He's doing the Clinton thing and co-opting the Republicans. Before the end of his first term he'll be the best Republican on the block. Most of what he's done so far is continue the Bush agenda with some of the same personnel.

     

    Jeez Wyatt, I'm getting as cynical as you!!!!
    22 May 2011, 04:21 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1608) | Send Message
     
    This is called bluffing...Obama would just drag this until the 2012 elections, and then on 2013 he closes the door again....
    15 May 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • IgnisFatuus
    , contributor
    Comments (2828) | Send Message
     
    Obama...He's from Say one thing and do anothers ville...
    15 May 2011, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    Too little, too late, blue lips.
    15 May 2011, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Obama will say whatever it takes to get the cameras back on him. I hope most people realize that now and that he does not have a chance next time. However, the ignorance of the American people never cease to amaze me.
    15 May 2011, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Old Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (5732) | Send Message
     
    Neil459,

     

    I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss Obama's chances in 2012. I know that its still early in the game, but I'm not seeing any solid challengers from the Republican camp.
    15 May 2011, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    I think he gets another term. Our people are definitely dumb enough to elect him again. Just go into any Wal-Mart and look around and you'll see the mindless, tattooed zombies walking to the cash registers with their beer, cigarettes, camouflage shirts, and NASCAR ball caps.
    15 May 2011, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4297) | Send Message
     
    ...except they don't wear NASCAR caps at the looters' Wal-Mart in New Orleans.
    15 May 2011, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I am not sure anyone wants the job. It appears like things are coming to a head in the next 2 to 3 years and it is like being the President of Greece. Maybe it is better to wait until things really fail.

     

    Besides the hatred from the press this time around is probably going to be unbelievable as they take care of Obama.
    15 May 2011, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • rothyman
    , contributor
    Comments (127) | Send Message
     
    Tomcat-

     

    Aren't these the people who aren't voting for Obama?

     

    Either way though, you are right. I'm actually extremely worried about how ignorant our citizens are becoming. The scary thing is that they really believe they are getting smarter because they have on CNN or Fox News all day. In reality, they are simply being dumbed down to take absolute sides, making issues seem more black and white than they really are.

     

    It scares me that these same people know we live in a consumer/material driven society, yet still this is their main focus throughout the day; not the future of our country, but what they can get NOW on credit or with cash.
    19 May 2011, 08:26 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    What bothers me is not just the ignorance, but the fact that in most cases it is so easy to check facts on the internet, yet I am continually amazed at how few bother to do so. On the other hand I am amazed also at how many people can barely figure out how to use Google or Bing.
    19 May 2011, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (973) | Send Message
     
    I think you just discribed "Teabaggers".
    21 May 2011, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • jtk7
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    drilling in the US won't make one bit of difference of any significance. it's pandering to the ignorant "drill here, drill now, pay less" crowd.
    15 May 2011, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (1195) | Send Message
     
    Drilling in the US makes a huge difference every damn day. You people forget that we still produce about a third of the oil we consume, and domestic production is currently INCREASING. (partly as a result of massive drilling activity in North Dakota where I work.) Also, Gulf of Mexico production was on the rise until the Obama admin. decided to cancel all permits for a year.

     

    Those of us in the oil field work our asses off every day to try and satisfy the massive demand for energy in this country, do not tell me our work doesn't "make one bit of difference", it puts gas in your tank and food on your table, so shut the fuck up unless you have some amazing genius idea to solve all our problems. You're welcome.
    15 May 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    "drilling in the US won't make one bit of difference of any significance"

     

    We heard the same mindless pabulum ten years ago. Your recipe is we could'a, should'a, and didn't, so let's repeat it and expect a different result.
    15 May 2011, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    I don't agree with the "one bit" part.

     

    Having our own supply, even if it is not that large helps even things out a bit when the usual turmoil in the middle east flares up. It is mostly psychological, but it is there.
    15 May 2011, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    So a couple margin calls on oil sends the ppbl down from $115 to $98 in a week and you don't think a credible action plan delivered by a US president to radically drill for oil on our own soil would send the spec crowd packing overnight?

     

    LOL.

     

    The price of oil would plummet.
    16 May 2011, 03:50 AM Reply Like
  • Carismar
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Drilling will help with the trade deficit.
    15 May 2011, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Indeed. As well as the jobs deficit.

     

    We need to just face it. Obama doesn't care.
    16 May 2011, 03:51 AM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    Obama is smart enough to know we don't have a gas shortage (the U.S. has been exporting recently). This is purely to make the dumb "drill baby drill" crowd happy.

     

    He knows they are idiots, but they also have votes. And he does not intend to lose in 2012, so he'll do whatever he needs to do to make it happen. The man simply knows how to win.

     

    The GOP panders to the dumbies too (Palin is proof of that, she is custom-made to get the dumb-vote). Obama has no choice but to do the same, since losing is not an option for him.
    15 May 2011, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3413) | Send Message
     
    "Obama is smart enough to know we don't have a gas shortage (the U.S. has been exporting recently)"

     

    We're exporting natural gas not gasoline. If he had any brain he'd see the US had copious reserves of natural gas and ought to design an energy policy that encompasses our strengths instead of shooting for the "pie in the sky and not ready for prime time" all-electric automobile. We need infrastructure to support ready-access to natural gas as an automobile or truck fuel and not sizable subsidies for a subcompact with a 50 mile all-electric range.
    15 May 2011, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    You might also do some reasearch as to where and why we export gasoline so you don't make any more gross errors. Google is your friend.
    15 May 2011, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    "The man simply knows how to win."

     

    Yes he does. Its all he cares about.

     

    The man simply knows how to win. At all costs. And simultaneously, how to make America lose.
    16 May 2011, 03:53 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (881) | Send Message
     
    President Obama looks unstoppable for reelection in 2012. Americans haven't fore got the terrible years of W. Bush -terrorist killings of Americans, endless wars, recession, massive unemployment, bear stock market, record borrowing, tax cuts for top 5%, etc.
    15 May 2011, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    Obama can also take credit for most of those same things. The bear stock market is coming soon- just be patient. Don't forget to give Obama credit for the $4 gas also. And the tornadoes and floods belong to Obama too. If Bush were still president you'd be blaming him for the weather. You'd certainly be mad as hell about him deliberately flooding thousands of poor people's homes to save New Orleans.
    15 May 2011, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    You're right. Americans haven't fore got.
    16 May 2011, 03:54 AM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    Economy turning to crap again. Hurricanes and an earthquake hitting the east coast.

     

    It's all Obama's fault. Can't wait to hear his speech Thursday. lol.

     

    His speech will consist of one of both of:
    1. Things would be better if not for those stupid Republicans.
    2. It's Bush's fault. I inherited this mess.
    5 Sep 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Well Tomcat, look at it from the other end. Which Republican can actually beat Obama?

     

    This field is extremely weak, unless one of them can pull out a surprise run the way Clinton did in 92, I am not seeing anything from any of them that shows one whiff of confidence.

     

    They're all a bunch of air heads.
    5 Sep 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    What we need is someone who we can have confidence in. I'll take any of the Republican candidates over Obama. I'll take a sack of potatoes over Obama.
    7 Sep 2011, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    And most people have zero confidence in any of the airheads running.

     

    They may have their own confidence and strength in their own convictions, some even show swagger, but the heck the tea party has strength of conviction and people are flat out outraged at them for what happened this summer.
    7 Sep 2011, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Obama is like a lot of politicians that just want to know what they have to say and do to get re-elected. Somebody has finally told him you better look like you are doing something about gas prices or you will take that problem in the teeth in 2012. And look like a deficit hawk for a while so you dilute the impact of the Republicans platform on the deficit and drunken sailor spending.

     

    Bill Clinton was good at this so perhaps it is slick Willy giving him the advice.
    15 May 2011, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4297) | Send Message
     
    I don't think it makes much difference whether Barry is reelected or not. The same forces control the strings of whomever sits in the White House. The political parties only effect change at the margins. The two party system controls the process and the system is two sides of the same coin. If you want to see stuff happen (real change), you would have to change the system and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many people have too much vested in the current system. Invest accordingly.
    15 May 2011, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • BetTheHouse
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Obama sucks, but the fact is you can't beat something with nothing. And so far, Republicans have nothing. Or more properly, nobody. Tim Pawlenty? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    15 May 2011, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • HiSpeed
    , contributor
    Comments (1314) | Send Message
     
    Those who voted for Obama in 2008 to prove they weren't racist will need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove they're not idiots.
    15 May 2011, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4436) | Send Message
     
    In the Rasmussen tracking poll he has dropped 6 points to a -13 in the past 10 days, 4 points short of his all time low.
    16 May 2011, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    "MAD AS HELL: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen"

     

    Oh, that Scott Rasmussen

     

    Next
    16 May 2011, 04:10 AM Reply Like
  • Tomcat101
    , contributor
    Comments (969) | Send Message
     
    I hated to see Trump drop out of the race today. I really wanted to see him call Obama a MF in a debate... Priceless.
    16 May 2011, 07:37 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs