The ..2012.... Political thread
-
appletart2:
I don't think a oil companies profits are on paper. Oil is pumped into gas tanks every second. There selling a product in high demand. There making a huge profit off oil. there cost to pull it out of the ground is really not much once they have the infrastructure in place.. Yes you right about BP and Alaska. My friend just got hired full time on a new camp by BP. So this must be the camp your talking about. . I don't know if it off shore drilling that is usually done I believe out of the Kenai. She on the north slope so maybe it is considered off shore. All I know as a kid she used to be pretty liberal and man has she turned red neck since she got up there.. She send me all this crap they send out about Obama and its all goofy stuff like he wasn't born in America.. just mental midget stuff.
Any business, no matter what their product is, has money on paper but it gets tied up. What I heard about the new well BP is considering in Alaska, is just in the proposed state nothing firm. It is supposed to go deeper than the 5000 ft that is currently in the Gulf.
-
left wing right wing...ringy dingy ding ding...this one that one...elementary watt son //oo\\
-
in1964johnlennonwashot:
beatlechick:
in1964johnlennonwashot:
appletart2:
First off the media is hardly leftest. Second these people who are self proclaimed tea partier are nothing more than the extremest Rep.. The Rep moderates who want to get some business done in Washington have become so attacked by these nut jobs, because they want to see more moderate middle thinking. . So they filtrated into the tea party who didn't support bank bailouts but the wing nuts pushed there anti HC reform on them and most didn't even understand what they were angry about. It all a conspiracy in my mind to get there real candidates that those who control our politics want in by offering crazy up for the Tea Party and than that old white guy will start looking mighty good. Have you ever asked yourself. Who really controls the majority of media in the US. What if theire agenda was divide our country. If so there doing a pretty good job of it.
How stereotypical can we be here? Because I am SURE that absolutely every single person who has ever even THOUGHT about attending a tea party is a radical, right-wing nutjob. You should realize that when you start talking like that, people interested in having a serious discussion tune out. As long as we're going to chat about people who get angry over things they don't really know about...let us chat about, oh, EVERYONE. To be honest, it's uninformed voters that choose the President every 4 years. Here's an interesting example of being uninformed- ever watch those videos entitled "How Obama got elected"? Did you know that most of the Obama voters surveyed thought that Republicans were in control of Congress when Bush left office? Really, they should've been pissed at their own party...who still can't get anything done. Classic example at people being angry at something that doesn't exist. Do you really not know who controls a majority of the media in this country? Take a look at the man in the White House and the party in control of Congress....and there you have your answer.
To tell you the truth, there are stupid people on all sides of the coin. That being said, no one I know ever thought like what you'r quoting here. We all looked into what we were voting on, and that is NOT a small majority but a rather large one. Yes, of course not all people care to look at a candidate but look along their party lines. There, however, a lot more that are researching their candidate. Either they like what they see or they don't. I know liberals who would not vote for Obama because they did not like what they saw. I know conservatives that could not stomach what they saw in McCain, ie Sarah Palin, so they did not vote on their candidate. I do not watch videos that are slanted in one way or another. None of them paint a very good picture of the opposing side. Yes, I am a Democrat - a lifelong Democrat but I don't go into the voting booth with blinders on. There are perhaps 1 or 2 people that I know that do but out of a group of 200 people that I know, that's a very low ratio.
I agree with you- stupid people are everywhere we look. They aren't just classified to one belief system or political persuasion. That's what I was trying to convey, apparently I didn't do so very well. Not sure what it is that I "quoted" that you find so hard to believe- can you clarify? Up until this election, most people I knew were uninformed politically. But with this past election....many people I knew were only informed (and even then, just partially) about only one candidate....which is unfortunate. In the past, I've honestly heard people say they were voting for the "cutest" candidate....or the candidate who was behind in the polls....just because they were "losing". And they were serious. Maybe it's just where I live....but sheesh. Talk about wasting a vote. You don't watch any slanted videos? You don't have many to pick from, then.
What I bolded in your statement is the quote I was referring to. No I don't watch slanted videos and feel no need to pick. I'm sick of the rhetoric. We just had primary elections for Governor in my State (California), the worst part of this election was right out of the box the 2 Republican candidates were slinging mud at each other. Not one really showed what THEY were for but what THEIR opponent did that was sooooo wrong. The one that garnered the most Republican votes is the one that spent the most money, and the most time slinging mud at her opponent. The person Meg Whitman is now opposing didn't even have campaign ads but she is already trying to sling mud at him. The Democrat opponent didn't sling any mud at his opponents, neither did they. Weird that we have come to expect dirty campaigns and not the other way around.
-
[quote="beatlechick"][quote="Tallyho"][quote="beatlechick"][quote="patpatpatti"]...you lost me at "prove my point"... ...yours are only opinions; theirs are only opinions...why is it is so very important to be "right?"...those who always need to be right keep us all from moving on... ...just an opinion... And a very well said opinion. Tally, we get it! Time to move on. I said what I said because you wanted it said. The only one ignorant is the one that has to always be right. Subject has changed, move on there's nothing to see here. Oh....I forgot...only Paul McCartney has a right to free speech. (or is it only people who you agree with politically that have that right?) Oh....and thank you for only proving my point about ignorant replies because I wanted you too.......appreciate it. I'm not asking you to move on. Please stay. I love your posts.I am asking you to move on. This subject is old and we have moved on to other discussions, ignorant ones if you like - I know you do you insist upon them, so either join in those discussions or not. It's your choice. Thanks....for giving me a choice. I will choose to talk about what I want to talk about. If thats not OK with you........too bad. Amazing....when other posters were bashing me for merely stating that I was offended.....not a peep from Beatlechick telling the insulters to "move on" But when I defend myself somehow I have no right to post (in her eyes) It's the same hypocrisy that says "move on, its been weeks since Paul made the joke....get over it.....old news" Yet when Paul jumps on the insult Bush bandwagon a YEAR AND A HALF after he is gone it is perfectly acceptable. No "Bush is long gone lets move on" nope instead the hypocrite defends those statements. As I have said before (and Beatlechick keeps proving in her replies" She does NOT believe in free speech. She believes in allowing speech she agrees with. All others can just "move on"
-
Good grief.
-
[quote="femaleanimal"]Good grief. Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
-
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
I agree. Some people just don't want to let an old discussion die down.
-
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
-
femaleanimal:
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
So, how are you today?
-
-
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
-
patpatpatti:
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
I think she was saying given Gore's 'dignitary' status (ironic title ) as well as the hotel owner's insistance that he get the 'royal' treatment. She felt compelled to move forward against her better judgement. It's easy for us to sit here and judge. But I'm not the who'll not be able to put food in my kid's mouth if I opted not to perform these 'favors'
-
patpatpatti:
she's a self-proclaimed professional in her field who apprised the situation as "questionable" from the outset, so, why didn't she leave right away, as she should have? i believe that is what her training would dictate. i'm not excusing al's behavior at all, but she was the professional in that situation, she was not under the influence, and she had the very clear opportunity to make a better decision under the circumstances.
I think she's quite believeable. And need I remind you that the massage profession is used widely by honorable people including Sir Paul when he is on tour It appears that the former V.P. is to be counted among the dishonorable ...
-
beatlechick:
in1964johnlennonwashot:
beatlechick:
in1964johnlennonwashot:
appletart2:
First off the media is hardly leftest. Second these people who are self proclaimed tea partier are nothing more than the extremest Rep.. The Rep moderates who want to get some business done in Washington have become so attacked by these nut jobs, because they want to see more moderate middle thinking. . So they filtrated into the tea party who didn't support bank bailouts but the wing nuts pushed there anti HC reform on them and most didn't even understand what they were angry about. It all a conspiracy in my mind to get there real candidates that those who control our politics want in by offering crazy up for the Tea Party and than that old white guy will start looking mighty good. Have you ever asked yourself. Who really controls the majority of media in the US. What if theire agenda was divide our country. If so there doing a pretty good job of it.
How stereotypical can we be here? Because I am SURE that absolutely every single person who has ever even THOUGHT about attending a tea party is a radical, right-wing nutjob. You should realize that when you start talking like that, people interested in having a serious discussion tune out. As long as we're going to chat about people who get angry over things they don't really know about...let us chat about, oh, EVERYONE. To be honest, it's uninformed voters that choose the President every 4 years. Here's an interesting example of being uninformed- ever watch those videos entitled "How Obama got elected"? Did you know that most of the Obama voters surveyed thought that Republicans were in control of Congress when Bush left office? Really, they should've been pissed at their own party...who still can't get anything done. Classic example at people being angry at something that doesn't exist. Do you really not know who controls a majority of the media in this country? Take a look at the man in the White House and the party in control of Congress....and there you have your answer.
To tell you the truth, there are stupid people on all sides of the coin. That being said, no one I know ever thought like what you'r quoting here. We all looked into what we were voting on, and that is NOT a small majority but a rather large one. Yes, of course not all people care to look at a candidate but look along their party lines. There, however, a lot more that are researching their candidate. Either they like what they see or they don't. I know liberals who would not vote for Obama because they did not like what they saw. I know conservatives that could not stomach what they saw in McCain, ie Sarah Palin, so they did not vote on their candidate. I do not watch videos that are slanted in one way or another. None of them paint a very good picture of the opposing side. Yes, I am a Democrat - a lifelong Democrat but I don't go into the voting booth with blinders on. There are perhaps 1 or 2 people that I know that do but out of a group of 200 people that I know, that's a very low ratio.
I agree with you- stupid people are everywhere we look. They aren't just classified to one belief system or political persuasion. That's what I was trying to convey, apparently I didn't do so very well. Not sure what it is that I "quoted" that you find so hard to believe- can you clarify? Up until this election, most people I knew were uninformed politically. But with this past election....many people I knew were only informed (and even then, just partially) about only one candidate....which is unfortunate. In the past, I've honestly heard people say they were voting for the "cutest" candidate....or the candidate who was behind in the polls....just because they were "losing". And they were serious. Maybe it's just where I live....but sheesh. Talk about wasting a vote. You don't watch any slanted videos? You don't have many to pick from, then.
What I bolded in your statement is the quote I was referring to. No I don't watch slanted videos and feel no need to pick. I'm sick of the rhetoric. We just had primary elections for Governor in my State (California), the worst part of this election was right out of the box the 2 Republican candidates were slinging mud at each other. Not one really showed what THEY were for but what THEIR opponent did that was sooooo wrong. The one that garnered the most Republican votes is the one that spent the most money, and the most time slinging mud at her opponent. The person Meg Whitman is now opposing didn't even have campaign ads but she is already trying to sling mud at him. The Democrat opponent didn't sling any mud at his opponents, neither did they. Weird that we have come to expect dirty campaigns and not the other way around.
Thanks for clarifying. You're right- it is a shame that mud-slinging seems to be the only way most politicians know how to go about winning an election these days. Unfortunately, it's gonna take a huge uprising of people sick of the BS to get things to turn around.....and I'm not sure if that will ever happen.
-
[quote="femaleanimal"][quote="Tallyho"][quote="femaleanimal"]Good grief. Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean) Yawn. What a well thought out and intelligent response. but I guess "yawn" and "good grief" are alot easier than having to figure out what I said that wasn't true.
-
beatlechick:
femaleanimal:
Tallyho:
femaleanimal:
Good grief.
Yes "good grief" indeed. I came on the board (that I have been a member of since 2002) I merely stated it was rude and classless to insult ANY (repeat) ANY President (past or present) while being honored at the White House. I did not call ANYONE names or recite ANY political philosophy. I did not say Bush (or any other President) was above being joked about or criticized or even insulted. Yet I was then attacked by fellow members Calling me a "right-wing nut" Calling me a "red neck" Calling me a "racist" Telling me what my political beliefs are (when I never stated them) Accusing me of just becoming a member because I was "ordered" too by some radio host or news station (even though my 2002 membership is clearly displayed) NOT ONE poster came to my defense. NOT ONE poster asked the insulters to "move on" NOT ONE poster said "good grief" Yet when I dare defend myself these same hypocrites suddenly feel I am taking it too far. But in their eyes, seeing my point would mean they have to take their political blinders off. These are the same idiots that applauded when a shoe was thrown at the President. While I would take offense at a shoe being thrown at Obama or Clinton or George Washington for that matter these hypocrites choose to view the political philosophies of the target instead of realizing its an insult to an entire office and nation. (once more folks....time to play the re-interpret my post game and tell the board what I really mean)
Yawn.
So, how are you today?
Really? If you're so sick of the discussion being "dragged on," quit lengthening the discussion by responding to Tallyho's posts. :
-
this conversation has tuned into a bag full of cats with there tails tied together. the election is over move on. We won you lost deal with it. PS I having a cup of tea right now, really tasty spice herb tea, grown I'm sure by some lefty hippie somewhere in Seattle. so we're good for something
-
There should be a separate 'good grief' thread
-
beatlechick:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
That appears to have been just one quarter.
Sorry, no.....those are annual (yearly) figures from oobu24. Glad to see EADG is on the case here.
-
appletart2:
EADG:
I have to correct you on this point. Earnings are not the same thing as revenues. They are the same thing as net income. BP's earnings were not $240+ billion, they were $20.8 billion, if i'm reading the financial figures presented in oobu24's email correctly.
there going to file bankruptcy anyway..after they borrow 50 billion from a US bank..don't want to leave the country without a final... F%$# U.
Didn't know you are a BP insider....you don't know that as an "insider", that providing that type of information is illegal?? In any event, companies don't borrow that amount from just one bank as you indicate. That isn't how banking works.