Effect Of Presidential Election Over FFXI....

cited where?

Read the entire article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368043,00.html

Is there anyone left who actually thinks Fox is an unbiased source? I think I said earlier in the thread that no news network is without bias(may have been somewhere else).

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html

Do you care to address the fact they declared shortages and raised prices when there were no such shortages?

People are pushing for new forms of energy because the oil companies are not getting the job done. They're more concerned about profits than research and development. There's no incentive for them to produce cleaner, more efficient energy.

fox isn't the best place to cite a source. that's like going to www.johnmccain.com and listening to what he has to say about obama and vice versa.

americanprogress.org is pretty unbiased. check out this article http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html

Why do people go into business? Record profits or not it is the way of business. You are in business to make money, the market is open for any company to research and market alternative solutions to energy. If you are selling a product that sells well and makes a profit are you going to NOT sell that product because you are making too much money? We live in a free market if you don't like what is available then market your own product and make your own profit and then hope the government doesn't try to take it away.

i have no problem with people making profits, however lying about it (like say you put a sign up that say you are going out of business when you are not) and saying there is a shortage and jacking up prices to get that profit i am NOT for. big oil companies aren't the fair business you are making it out to be. and yes they should be taxed more and fined for lying and hurting their own consumers.

think about it. it's price gouging. are you all about price gouging to get record profits? is that the new way of business? would you still support a company that will do anything for profits, even if it crosses the line of fair and legal business practices?

Cright, how do you feel about the mortgage crisis?

I really just don't understand the tax plan arguments for McCain or against Obama. It's like people want to defend businesses that make ridiculous amounts of money while ignoring their own situations. Oil companies like Chevron have raised costs on general gas prices for no other reason than they can as you can see by their freakish profit margins. People like to think they're paying more so we're paying more, but that's simply not the case.

Obama's tax plan is fiscally responsible by giving tax breaks to all of us by taxing businesses that certainly aren't going to buckle and crash for paying more annually. If you want to provide money to one group of people you need to have a way of secure it from other sources. McCain's plan is give us meager 1-2% cuts and basically reversing the upper tier taxes in Obama's plan. That's providing less money to debt than current with no plan to counter-act it.

If companies don't want to pay these taxes they can use Microsoft's model of record-breaking charitable donations and actually improve their standing instead of looking like greedy ***. =( lol It's your year, AIDS! The other thing to note is that a plan to give companies tax credits for creating jobs here instead of outsourcing them to counter their new tax hikes, in effect nullifying the argument that companies will take their new taxes out on us, or that our taxes will cause them to go elsewhere.

The best non-partisan websites I've seen so far are http://www.factcheck.org and http://www.realclearpolitics.com. Neither of them have an agenda and both are quick to call each candidate on questionable statements.

My Rebuttal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

I use factcheck like mad, and as mentioned earlier snopes.com, too. I do like factcheck better, though, because they cater to political rumors and lies as opposed to snopes which does everything.

The root of the cause of the current sub prime lending crisis lies with the Community Reinvestment Act which was passed in 1977 by Jimmy Carter and drastically strengthened by Bill Clinton in 1995. President bush tried to introduce legislation regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 but it was voted down by democrats who voted along party lines and had no fore site that sub prime mortgages were becoming a problem. See below NY Times article.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...gewanted=print
This problem has been ongoing and the Republicans tried to regulate, but as long as Democrats in congress play games with the American peoples future and use our future as a political pawn we will decline. I wish politicians in general would start looking out for the American people and really work together. Please see the below links if you would like to learn more about the Community Reinvestment act and understand what transpired to almost bankrupt our lending institutions.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/12/199...ubin.text.html
http://www.wachovia.com/inside/page/...%5E306,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008...911.htm?page=0

First off I can't believe something like this is even posted. We're all entitled to an opinion so here is mine.

There is no unbiased media- enough said. An example is the War on Terrorism. All you see is the negative. What you don't see are how many towns like the US there and how many facilities that weren't there (i.e. hospitals, schools, etc.) have been constructed.


--Tax breaks for hiring workers, but for what timeline? If you hire someone for a 3 month period and they quit/get fired you still recieve a tax break per person. Nothing is stated on how long the worker has to be employed. You can hire 30 people and get a tax break then fire them the next month. Where is a fairness in that? As for the Aids comment, good lord, grow the frak up. We know big business are greedy, It's been that way for over a century. Fact is these problems today were created back in Clinton's Administration. It didn't happen overnight, same as the gas prices. The media just plays it that way. Reasearch and don't go for popular opinion.


- Your opinion, you're entitled to it. Last I checked not only middle class plays this game. Spoiled rich kids do. Do you consider a 12 year old with no job middles class? I call him/her unemployed, not by what the parents make.

You can guess where I lean in the election but I won't state it. I can only say this, RESEARCH YOUR FACTS. Don't go with popular opinion. I wonder how people think a person will cut taxes and spending when his record spending on a campaign is 20+ million more than his rival a week. Past elections, those who spent more in the campaign spent more in office.

"Who cares"

Do you know the details of any of this to actually back up what you're saying, or just making accusations? I can't say you're wrong, but I certainly can't say you're right and if that's the case and if you can't concretely say one way or the other then the argument is pretty invalid. Can you explain how Clinton's administration "created these problems" when he recovered the economy and set record-breaking budget surpluses?

On the basis of Obama's campaign spending, this is really just silly. They raise funds to spend them, and frankly he has raised so much more in contrast that you can't say "oh jeez he's spending it all on his campaign, that's nutty". Which past candidates spent more specifically? With the tactics used by the opposition I'm not surprised he has to, either.

There are plenty of important issues to select a candidate on, depending on how conservative or liberal you are, but economy is certainly not an issue any McCain/Palin supporter is likely to win easily. With that said, even if I were a completely conservative voter with a giant jesus tat on my face, I'd pick Obama simply over the fact Palin is even involved in such an important election.

Where do I start with this nonsense. Hey.. let's argue online about who is the better man for the job. First it's McCain is too old, Obama doesn't have enough experience, McCain is like Bush, Obama is a socialist, McCain is a hero, Obama is a terrorist..... do you hear yourselves? You sound like children on a playground. The truly amusing thing here is that you're doing exactly what these *** want you to do... argue about nonsense. Their tactic of distraction is clearly a win/win on both of their parts because they have you all bickering like ... children on a playground. The fact is, it doesn't matter who you elect. NOTHING will change the day after they're elected. If you want decent/honest leaders, then polygraph tests need to be introduced during nominations/debates and such.

About the OP, since it's why I came here in the first place. I am voting for Obama, but when I read Obama supporters write nonsense like this, clearly just to get their own political ideology on the table.. it makes me want to vomit.

hahaahaha that's funny you do realize that polygraph tests are not accurate and can be easily beaten. not to mention it is very much based on the experience/inexperience of a polygraph examiner. seriously, with proper coaching anyone can pass a polygraph.

at least people that are arguing do some research before they start (who wants to lose an argument anyways) and i am all for people doing research because then they become more aware of what is going on. even if it's only for a few months every 4 years.

First off, neither will affect the game, sorry to say but it is stupid to think so.
Next i got to say that the Clinton administration did have a nice amount to do with the current state of the economy. The free trade agreements (that even my man McCain supports >.<) make it profitable for companies to outsource jobs. The prosperity of the 90s had a good bit to do with Reagen's policies during the 80s. One thing about economics is that current policy effects current economy far less than it effects future economy. One reason for this is the system is so vast, it takes many years for policy to effect all levels. But the reason, above all, that the economy is in a mess is because of oil price. Price of oil goes up, price of everything goes up. High inflation = bad economy. The left has always been against drilling our own oil. If we woulda been drilling our own oil 10, 20, even 30 years ago, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in.

Next we talk about how Obama plans. He "says" he will lower the taxes for 95% of the middle class, but will raise the taxes on the people that pay the salaries of the middle class. Big problem. If business is paying more taxes, they dont make as much money. They start losing money, they cut jobs, send jobs to other countries, pay workers less, and raise the cost of their goods and services. So there go all those supposed tax breaks for the middle class. Dont punish people for being successful by raising their taxes to "spread the wealth". Im pretty poor myself, and the idea is disgusting even to me. Im all for tax cuts, but cut them for everyone, instead of invoking class discrimination.

Next Sarah Palin. Sorry to say but she has more executive experience than McCain, Biden, and Obama put together, because they have absolutly NONE! So to say she has no place in the election is pretty dumb.

Last, Fox News is the least biased network of them all. Of course there is some bias, but no where near as much as CNN and the disgusting NBC and MSNBC. Use Hannity & Colmes and O'Reilly Factor as prime examples. Hannity & Colmes you have both sides, and O'Reilly sticks up for anyone, either side, when they are right, and calls out anyone, either side, when they are wrong.

In any case, neither candidate is gonna change very much, and since they would both be one term presidents either way, they wont affect the country too much in the long run.

I say to make it even be a republicrat lol

http://originals.msn.com/republicrats/issues/

Economy
"I will double the value of the dollar overnight," says Sean Masterson. How? "By discontinuing the $1 bill and issuing new $2 bills we'll call the new dollar. Exchange your old, weak $1 bills for the new, superstrong $2 bill today! Two is the new one!"

Iraq
Bring our troops home, but maintain our influence in the region. How? By turning Iraq into an unincorporated territory of the United States with commonwealth status, just like Puerto Rico. We grant tax incentives to our corporate partners to help swiftly establish a vast fast-food presence in Iraq. Soon every Iraq citizen will be a part-time employee of Starbucks, McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Del Taco or 7-Eleven. We've helped deliver democracy. Isn't it time the Iraqi people got a chance to taste it?!

Immigration Reform
We've always welcomed the best and the brightest. Once the 700-mile wall between Mexico and the United States is completed, we establish a 100-mile long "Obstacle Course to Freedom" corridor in the desert, ensuring that only the fittest, most able-bodied immigrants make it into our nation. A fleet of courtesy trams (like those at Universal Studios) will return to Mexico those who don't quite measure up. For illegal aliens already here, we make each one into an undercover INS agent. For every fellow illegal turned in, the agent will earn a $10 card for the GAP and a point toward U.S. citizenship. Eventually the most industrious people end up with both U.S. citizenship and a great assortment of the season's smartest GAP outfits.

Death Penalty
Instead of endless appeals that cost taxpayers millions each year, we suggest a better way: life without parole on a treadmill. Take those guilty of the most heinous crimes and make them generate power for their state's electrical grid by walking 10 hours a day on a specially modified treadmill.
Their lives become an endless march that brightens and illuminates our world. Talk about a win-win situation.

Gay Marriage
Yes. Because everyone knows sex after marriage is nonexistent. So if you oppose gay marriage, you're actually supporting more gay sex.

(eh im bored I wanted to do something dorky :P)

[quote] Littledarc]hahaahaha that's funny you do realize that polygraph tests are not accurate and can be easily beaten. not to mention it is very much based on the experience/inexperience of a polygraph examiner. seriously, with proper coaching anyone can pass a polygraph.[quote]

So out of everytbhing I wrote, that small aspect, which was really only a suggestion to illustrate my point, that is all you really addressed. It is obvious to me that you clearly missed the point.

Alyria I suppose you're not aware of it but there is some fast food in Iraq already on US camps which to be honest was almost better than in the states lol. I know you were joking and meaning it for the Iraqi citizens but just thought I'd point that out.

This is a great way to make sure no one takes you seriously.

Radaghast:

i didn't miss the point at all it's just ludicrous that you would suggest such a thing, and i wanted to point that out. i do agree with you that it is all about making people argue (maybe you missed that in your rush to flame me) but i think when people argue they research before arguing. and sometimes the get smarter in the process.

read what you wrote...you basically said Hey they want you to argue and that is what you are doing. it matters not who is elected because neither is honest or trustworthy since they didn't take polygraphs. and last but not least spewing nonsense to get political ideology out makes you vomit. excuse me if i commented on 2 out of your 3 topics.

Maeglin:

i am all for drilling our own oil, but drilling of the coast of alaska is a BAD BAD idea. i like polar ice caps, bears, seals and all that good stuff. an accident out there can totally ruin that ecosystem. i loved alaska when i visited, it was like a clean fresh area untouched by humans (mostly). i don't want to see that get ruined >.<

Offshore drilling is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Even without the economic issues it wouldn't even help anyone for at least a decade or longer.

"It would take at least a decade for oil companies to obtain permits, procure equipment, and do the exploration necessary to get the oil out of the ground, most industry analysts say. And even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly affect world oil prices." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/

PS: The Associated Press disagrees with Sarah Palin's experience..."She is younger and less experienced than the first-term Illinois senator, and brings an ethical shadow to the ticket." It also says, "Palin's lack of experience undercuts GOP charges that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief."

Well the simple fact is, if we dont start drilling our own oil asap, then we cant fix the problem. We have to continue buying our oil from foreign sources that can manipulate the price at will. There is no way we can break our dependence on oil anytime soon. We need to drill while we can, and in that time focus on alternative energy sources. ANWR is over 19 million acres. There are places in ANWR where they can designate only a few thousand acres for drilling , but tap the oil resivours underneath many times that amount. Of course we dont want to see anything intentionally happen to the wildlife. When the debate to install the current AK pipeline was taking place, they said it would disrupt the wildlife, but for over 30 years the wildlife as peacefully co-exsisted with it.





Great way for no one to take YOU seriously...
Here you are saying Fox is biased, then go and quote 2 sources 100x more biased than Fox >.>
(btw how about when you quote someone you include the whole of what they say, instead of bits and pieces. I also said "Of course there is some bias, but no where near as much as CNN and the disgusting NBC and MSNBC." This is a fact.)

The infrastructure for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is already in place, it is just a matter of putting up a rig, which wouldnt take more than a year. (not to mention create more jobs further helping the economy) Drilling in AK, it may take up to 10 years to get the infrastructure in place, but again, if we woulda been doing this 10, 20, 30 years ago like we could have, then we wouldnt have a problem now. The longer we wait, the longer it takes to correct the problem. Also in your quote it says "And even then, they add, the amount of new oil produced would probably be too small to significantly affect world oil prices." Well for 1, the amount of oil we have in our country, untapped, is significant, and 2, what difference does it make if it affects world price? It would sure as hell affect OUR prices. Might i suggest you look into FACTS, instead of talking points from (LMFAO) boston.com

On Palin, she is only 3 years younger than Obama. She may have less legislative experience than Obama, but she has significantly more EXECUTIVE experience than him. The presidency is an EXECUTIVE branch of government. Most people learn that in first grade. Guess you and that AP writer skipped that day of school >.>
Besides, Sarah Palin isnt even running for president, so her experience has nothing to do with "GOP charges that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief."
Those charges still stand.

Btw, we have been talking about getting new forms of energy for over 10 years now too. Where they at?
It will take much longer than 10 years, to get off of oil dependency. What we just gonna declare that we will use natural gas or electric or hydrogen for auto fuel, and poof! everyone has a vehicle that uses that fuel?
Or how about airplanes, trucks, trains. We gonna do another poof! and there they all are running on an alternative fuel?
Its gonna take many many years to rid our extemely vast energy infrastructure of the dependence on petroleum.
What are we gonna do in the meantime? Continue to pay the high prices? Continue to cripple the economy? $8 a gallon gas, $5 a gallon milk, 4 bucks for a loaf of bread. I could go on...

On Iraq
Around 4,200 American military have died there in about 5½ years. Some people say this is atrocious. Of course we mourn their loss and honor their service, but this is an extremely low number of casualties for an armed conflict. Look at casualties for 1 day of fighting in Vietnam, WWII, WWI, Civil War, any other war in history. Compare those numbers. Not to mention that military service now is a CHOICE, not a draft as before. These people join knowing that there is a chance they may have to give their life for a greater cause.
We have done an excellent job in Iraq, and we have saved thousands, maybe even millions of lives.
Its a shame that the people here, that havent served, cant see what those that have served see.

And the final note, Obama isnt a terrorist. I dont like the guy and i feel that his policy will weaken this country, but he is not intentionally trying to do so. He just lacks the knowledge and experience to see that his policy cannot work.
Saying he is a terrorist isnt right tho.

When Nancy Pelosi (D) became speaker of the House, and Harry Reid (D) took control of the Senate gas was $2.10 a gallon, and in 2 years look what has happened. If Obama (D) gets in the Whitehouse you'll have the trifecta of Dems running the country. Scares me to no end.

lol well that's what he has on his website lol

Fox News is less biased. Granted most of the commentators hold conservative views, but they tell you up front that they are speaking from that point of view and allow the opposing point of view to be heard. CNN and MSNBC spew left-wing stuff all day long and make it seem like fact or absolute truth. There is no balance at all there, only indoctrination.