PDA

View Full Version : In defense of the spoon fed ...



LWW
03-05-2011, 02:31 PM
Shame on you for continually allowing the spoon feeding to continue, but shame on them for continually loading the spoon for you.

Only when this symbiotic relationship ends can you find the truth.

As another example of how your spoon loaders lead you around like a hog is led by the ring in it's nose to slaughter, I present to you your worst fear ... the truth:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Connecting Bush, Not Obama to High Prices: <span style='font-size: 11pt'>As gas prices rose in 2008, network reporters mentioned President Bush in 15 times as many stories, than they brought up President Obama in a similar period in 2011.</span>

Gallons of coverage in 2008:<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Comparing a 20 day span of rising gas prices in 2008 to 24 days of rising prices in February 2011, the Business & Media Institute found the networks did more than 2 times as many stories during the Bush years versus Obama.</span> ...

Some 2008 reports including <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the March 6, 2008, "Early Show" exaggerated the already rising prices by emphasizing extremely high prices. That morning CBS showed viewers a California gas pump that was charging $5.19-a-gallon for regular unleaded before mentioning the national average for that day, which was $2.02 lower. Some 2011 reports have reversed that trend by downplaying the impact of currently high gas prices on consumers by using words like "inching" to describe rising prices, or calling U.S. prices "a bargain compared to Europe."</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>In contrast to the 15 reports referencing the Bush administration when gas prices were "through the roof," the only 2011 story to mention the president was NBC "Nightly News" on Feb. 24. Tom Costello's report on the impact of surging gas prices quoted President Obama who was "optimistic."</span>

Obama said, "We actually think that we'll be able to ride out the Libya situation and it will stabilize."<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Costello didn't question the president's statement or mention any of the administration's policies that will constrict the supply of oil and gasoline and could further increase the price of gasoline for consumers.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Not a single one of 2011 stories about rising gas prices BMI examined brought up any of Obama's anti-oil policies despite the impact they could have on supply and prices.</span>

Obama's drilling ban was overturned by a federal court judge in June, but his administration continued to enforce it. On Feb. 3, Bloomberg reported that the administration "acted in contempt" of court by doing so.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled on June 22, 2010, that the ban was "overly broad," according to Bloomberg. The following month Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put a second moratorium into effect, but voluntarily lifted it in October.

Some industry insiders claim there is still an "informal moratorium" on offshore drilling. "President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months," Jim Adams, the Offshore Marine Service Association's president, said in a press release quoted by Bloomberg.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Adams said the consequences have been thousands of lost jobs and higher prices for gasoline and heating oil. At least one company, Seahawk drilling, has filed for bankruptcy blaming Obama administration policies.</span>

On the issue of rising prices, IBD editorialized: <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"It's not just Mideast turmoil that has brought us to this point. It's also a deliberate program of restricting domestic energy to make so-called green energy more attractive and necessary, keeping an Obama campaign promise that energy prices would 'necessarily skyrocket' on his energy agenda."</span> ...</div></div>
TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS (http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2011/Networks_Link_Bush_to_Skyrocketing_Gas_Prices__Tim es_More_Than_Obama.html)


LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 03:25 PM
The denials will be fierce!!!

LWW
03-05-2011, 03:33 PM
Truth cannot be denied.

LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Just because it cant be denied doesn't mean it wont be denied.

LWW
03-05-2011, 03:41 PM
Make it avoided/eluded/slipped/refused/ignored and we have a deal.

LWW

wolfdancer
03-05-2011, 05:13 PM
why so? Who will bother?, as without reading that post, and judging from his past ones, it's just more,mere,carping on his part.
But,I stopped reading his posts, about 2 days, probably 500 posts? ago, and in that relatively short time span, he may had an epiphany; or may have been struck by a bolt of lightning, as John Travolta was in "Phenomenon"
This story is on the 'net: "a man said he believed he had been "abducted" by aliens in October 1998 after seeing an unidentified craft hover over his London home and finding that he had gained an hour of time in the process."
The Ministry of Defense wrote to the man informing him that the object was probably an airship, adding that the time he had gained was probably the result of the clocks being put back one hour on the night of his close encounter."
Maybe larry is an hour or so behind, or possibly just on edge"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44201000/jpg/_44201365_lorry1.jpg
Back to my premise....As Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland, Ca:
...."there's nothing there, there" ....or maybe it is more p.c. to say.. there's nothing new there, re: his posts....(imho)
It's similar to an old article that had all the words used for intercourse, and all the uses for the most common word.
I admit to running them all through my mind when reading the posts of a select few here, searching for the right word to use in reply.....like in the Capote/Ruark conversation, where Robert says he could write an entire paragraph while Truman was writing one word....and Truman replies....but it would be the right word. It's hard to improve on ****
His posts are well read, although he is usually listed as the #1 replier to them.
But, this all remains conjecture on my part, and I must admit to some personal bias when reading his posts, based on his past and continuous, personal attacks against me,...and my very good friend, Gayle...who is, ...paraphrasing the comment Robert Byrne added to his autograph, in my copy of his book: "a student of the game" Her game being politics,....and keeping up on the latest political news. I understand that those that disagree, but "can't keep up", so to speak; have now resorted to intimidation tactics?
I told her not to worry, as everybody can imagine themselves to be a Rambo, on the internet, and unless they get some false courage from a bottle of Glenfiddach....it's just an empty suit talking

Sev
03-05-2011, 05:22 PM
HAHAHHA!!!

Bourbon for me please.

pooltchr
03-05-2011, 09:47 PM
I don't blame you, Wolfie. If I were you, I wouldn't want to read that either....too much truth that goes opposite of what the left believes to be true.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-05-2011, 11:40 PM
Well there is my truth, and your "truth", culled,in my opinion, for the most part, from Fox news, and the clown prince of "news" commentary, Mr. Beck (I believe he may end up in a padded cell some day).
If they would add a female reporter to the Beck/O'Really duo, it could become even bigger then the original Kukla, Fran and Ollie...
I'm comfortable in my own beliefs, and think you are wasting your time when you try to sell me on your beliefs, but I suspect.. you are just "baiting" me, again?

JohnnyD
03-06-2011, 12:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well there is my truth, and your "truth", culled,in my opinion, for the most part, from Fox news, and the clown prince of "news" commentary, Mr. Beck (I believe he may end up in a padded cell some day).
If they would add a female reporter to the Beck/O'Really duo, it could become even bigger then the original Kukla, Fran and Ollie...
I'm comfortable in my own beliefs, and think you are wasting your time when you try to sell me on your beliefs, but I suspect.. you are just "baiting" me, again?

</div></div>One can see that you have many problems in your life.You are afraid of the truth for some reason.A life long retreat from the truth is not good.Your hatred of others stems from not wanting to accept the truth.The truth is there for you to find.The truth has been presented to you any times but you shy away from it.The truth once accepted will set you free.
Jesus loves you.

JohnnyD
03-06-2011, 12:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why so? Who will bother?, as without reading that post, and judging from his past ones, it's just more,mere,carping on his part.
But,I stopped reading his posts, about 2 days, probably 500 posts? ago, and in that relatively short time span, he may had an epiphany; or may have been struck by a bolt of lightning, as John Travolta was in "Phenomenon"
This story is on the 'net: "a man said he believed he had been "abducted" by aliens in October 1998 after seeing an unidentified craft hover over his London home and finding that he had gained an hour of time in the process."
The Ministry of Defense wrote to the man informing him that the object was probably an airship, adding that the time he had gained was probably the result of the clocks being put back one hour on the night of his close encounter."
Maybe larry is an hour or so behind, or possibly just on edge"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44201000/jpg/_44201365_lorry1.jpg
Back to my premise....As Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland, Ca:
...."there's nothing there, there" ....or maybe it is more p.c. to say.. there's nothing new there, re: his posts....(imho)
It's similar to an old article that had all the words used for intercourse, and all the uses for the most common word.
I admit to running them all through my mind when reading the posts of a select few here, searching for the right word to use in reply.....like in the Capote/Ruark conversation, where Robert says he could write an entire paragraph while Truman was writing one word....and Truman replies....but it would be the right word. It's hard to improve on ****
His posts are well read, although he is usually listed as the #1 replier to them.
But, this all remains conjecture on my part, and I must admit to some personal bias when reading his posts, based on his past and continuous, personal attacks against me,...and my very good friend, Gayle...who is, ...paraphrasing the comment Robert Byrne added to his autograph, in my copy of his book: "a student of the game" Her game being politics,....and keeping up on the latest political news. I understand that those that disagree, but "can't keep up", so to speak; have now resorted to intimidation tactics?
I told her not to worry, as everybody can imagine themselves to be a Rambo, on the internet, and unless they get some false courage from a bottle of Glenfiddach....it's just an empty suit talking

</div></div>Do you ever read the ramblings that you write? Terrible hate filled posts all the time in an attempt to boost an ego that you can only dream of.The truth is there if you seek it.Once it is found you must comprehend it.Pastor says you have many problems of evil affecting you.We all pray that you will be healed.The truth will set you free.

LWW
03-06-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't blame you, Wolfie. If I were you, I wouldn't want to read that either....too much truth that goes opposite of what the left believes to be true.

Steve </div></div>

I love how he confesses to his ignorance on these things with glee and claims it as a badge of honor.

LWW

LWW
03-06-2011, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well there is my truth, and your "truth", culled,in my opinion, for the most part, from Fox news, and the clown prince of "news" commentary, Mr. Beck (I believe he may end up in a padded cell some day).
If they would add a female reporter to the Beck/O'Really duo, it could become even bigger then the original Kukla, Fran and Ollie...
I'm comfortable in my own beliefs, and think you are wasting your time when you try to sell me on your beliefs, but I suspect.. you are just "baiting" me, again?

</div></div>One can see that you have many problems in your life.You are afraid of the truth for some reason.A life long retreat from the truth is not good.Your hatred of others stems from not wanting to accept the truth.The truth is there for you to find.The truth has been presented to you any times but you shy away from it.The truth once accepted will set you free.
Jesus loves you. </div></div>

Excellent post.

LWW

pooltchr
03-06-2011, 07:48 AM
By your own admission, you didn't even read the original post. Therefore, you admit you have no knowledge about the subject.

Here's your challenge.

Read the original post.
Do some research on the subject.
Post your findings and explain how the original post is incorrect.

Should be pretty easy for such a smart guy.

Steve

LWW
03-06-2011, 08:35 AM
Too high, much too high.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 01:15 PM
You now recycle your own material? You covered this topical claim a month or more ago here, right?

There are many reasons Bush is blamed and not Obama for rising oil and gasoline prices.

Chief among them was Bush's attacks on Clinton/Gore during the runup to the 2000 election, when their leadership saw gasoline close to $1.50 a gallon. He claimed he had unique skills, insights, and most importantly, contacts in OPEC, with the Saudis, etc., and he could get them to produce more so as to drop the per barrel and per gallon prices.

So he himself set this trap of expectations, pretending he (or any wise, connected president) had such influence over producing countries that of course, he could ensure such horrors as $1.50 at the pump wouldn't occur, or would be quickly reversed lower.

Early in the administration, there were already warning signs that this might not be his plan, even if it were in his capability (that wasn't true, but he's the one who claimed it).

WH Spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about oil prices, and speaking for the administration, he said that 'stable' prices were the goal. Repeatedly pressed to add to that 'low,' he dodged and weaved, and simply repeated 'stable.'

People MAY have remembered (I do, but I'm an older guy) that his father while VP actually jawboned world oil prices UP. Although the then-sub-$10/barrel prices were a great boon to the economy, then-VP Bush said they had to be increased substantially. He actually went to an OPEC meeting in Saudi Arabia and made the same arguments. The problem had been that Iran was refusing to join in the OPEC quota regime, since they needed to pump a lot of oil to pay for their war with Iraq. Easy solution! We gave Iraq the Iranian order of battle, particularly with regard to their lack of parts to fly their US-supplied aircraft, to let Saddam know he didn't need to fear retaliation from their air forces. Saddam launched many murderous rounds of Scud attacks on Iranian cities, and suddenly Iran was very anxious to get some US spare parts for their Phantoms. Now, the solution. We explained that to get those spare parts, they needed to agree to the OPEC quota, which they swiftly did. Oil prices doubled to almost $20/barrel within the next month.

So people could be skeptical about any Bush, given that already existing track record of favoring the oil companies over the American people and economy.

Beyond those historical reasons that Bush got blamed (his own history I mention, and his father's), it was his own actions that created upward pressures on the price of oil. The Iraq war took Saddam's production off market, and caused a large speculative 'crisis' premium. THEN he decided to make large oil purchases in the domestic market to top up the strategic reserve when prices were already at their peak (driving them higher still).

Yet, when Ari Fleischer was asked if the administration advised changes in life style, greater conservation efforts, higher fuel economy choices in automobiles, on behalf of Bush he said absolutely not.

Now as to Obama, where is any of that back history, or his own promises about this matter to throw back into his face? If there is nothing, and that is my view, of course he's going to be considered less to blame. Frankly, as the world economies begin to improve, and China's continues at its near double-digit annual increases, AND world production struggles to go beyond 85 million barrels a day, it is actual supply and demand issues that go beyond any president's control that are dictating these prices.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 01:23 PM
How Bush pushed oil prices so high (http://www.yuricareport.com/Energy/How%20Did%20Oil%20Prices%20Get%20so%20High.htm)

This link discusses the Senate minority report concerning the Bush strategic petroleum reserve purchasing mentioned in the previous post.

Sev
03-06-2011, 01:32 PM
America has a short memory.
If the price of gasoline, fuel oil and consumables spike and remain high nobody is going to remember Bush as being part of the problem.
Just like people not admitting or caring that the Community Reinvestment Act was the root of the housing bubble, people will not care about Bush when the pain truly hits.


The current series of events that are now occurring during Obama's watch is all that is going to matter.

North Africa and Eastern Asia are going up in flames at the moment. Kahdafi is making bombing near is oil facilities.
Chavez is now shipping his oil to China. We still are not increasing our oil production. Drilling licenses have gone from 2 weeks to over 6 months to get approved. Drilling rigs as well as the operators have left the Gulf for other destinations.
The Tax payers are still subsidizing ethanol and the oil companies.
We are still sending foreign to China of all places.

At the end of the day Obama and the democrats will be blamed for the countries problems should our economic difficulties persist through 2012.

LWW
03-06-2011, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You now recycle your own material? You covered this topical claim a month or more ago here, right?

There are many reasons Bush is blamed and not Obama for rising oil and gasoline prices.</div></div>

1 - Bush has (R) following his name.

2 - Obama has (D) following his name.

Next issue.

LWW

LWW
03-06-2011, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How Bush pushed oil prices so high (http://www.yuricareport.com/Energy/How%20Did%20Oil%20Prices%20Get%20so%20High.htm)

This link discusses the Senate minority report concerning the Bush strategic petroleum reserve purchasing mentioned in the previous post. </div></div>

OMG!!!!

You can't be serious?

Now ... according to our resident leftists ... Bush took 0.5% of US oil consumption and replenished the strategic oil reserves in 2002. This was done because oil was a bargain at $20.00 a barrel at the time.

Because of this, we now have $100.00 a barrel oil nine years later.

But wait ... it gets much better.

The same leftists assure us that opening up ANWR and the gulf wouldn't lower prices at all, even though they would dwarf this one time 0.5% hammer blow to oil prices.

Is their no end to the lameness of the left?

Seriously ... those two arguments, singularly or in combination, are so devoid of logic that I can't believe they have even been seriously presented.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-07-2011, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How Bush pushed oil prices so high (http://www.yuricareport.com/Energy/How%20Did%20Oil%20Prices%20Get%20so%20High.htm)

This link discusses the Senate minority report concerning the Bush strategic petroleum reserve purchasing mentioned in the previous post. </div></div>

OMG!!!!

You can't be serious?

Now ... according to our resident leftists ... Bush took 0.5% of US oil consumption and replenished the strategic oil reserves in 2002. This was done because oil was a bargain at $20.00 a barrel at the time.

Because of this, we now have $100.00 a barrel oil nine years later.

But wait ... it gets much better.

The same leftists assure us that opening up ANWR and the gulf wouldn't lower prices at all, even though they would dwarf this one time 0.5% hammer blow to oil prices.

Is their no end to the lameness of the left?

Seriously ... those two arguments, singularly or in combination, are so devoid of logic that I can't believe they have even been seriously presented.

LWW </div></div>

Willfully obtuse, much?

The question was why was Bush blamed for the price increases that occurred during his term, and Obama, not so much.

When Bush promised during the campaign that he had the ability and would take steps to prevent a repeat of the super-high (haha) Clinton gasoline peak price, and failed at that promise, he was correctly blamed. Don't you agree?

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question was why was Bush blamed for the price increases that occurred during his term, and Obama, not so much.</div></div>

And I answered it for you:

1 - Bush has (R) following his name.

2 - Obama has (D) following his name.

Next issue.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-07-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question was why was Bush blamed for the price increases that occurred during his term, and Obama, not so much.</div></div>

And I answered it for you:

1 - Bush has (R) following his name.

2 - Obama has (D) following his name.

Next issue.

LWW </div></div>

So, he wasn't properly blamed when he failed to deliver on his campaign promises, uttered many times including in debates, that he would intervene in the markets and keep prices lower?

You have unusually flexible standards.

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:08 AM
Your attempts to twist things to fit your myopic POV are getting ever weaker.

Any rational observer would agree that had Bush had (D) follow his name, he would be a leftist all star.

I'm not a Bush fan at all ... but the "B-B-B-BBOOOSH!!!! CAUSED MY CAR TO NOT START!!!!" irrational hatred from the left is just sickening.

LWW

Qtec
03-08-2011, 04:20 AM
LMAO. What a hypocrite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Any <u>rational observer</u> would agree that had Bush had (D) follow his name, he would be a leftist all star.</div></div>

So those who voted for him were cheated or just stupid?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not a Bush fan at all ... </div></div>

So you voted for Al Gore and Kerry?


LOL

Q........

Qtec
03-08-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>I'm not a Bush fan at all ..... ..........<u><span style="color: #CC0000">but</span></u></span> </div></div>

LMAO


I might just use that as my new sig....LOL

LWW
03-08-2011, 05:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

LMAO. What a hypocrite.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Any <u>rational observer</u> would agree that had Bush had (D) follow his name, he would be a leftist all star.</div></div>

So those who voted for him were cheated or just stupid?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not a Bush fan at all ... </div></div>

So you voted for Al Gore and Kerry?


LOL

Q........ </div></div>

Actually, I voted against Gore and against Kerry.

Bush was simply the lesser of two evils.

LWW

Qtec
03-08-2011, 05:21 AM
Yes, you copped out.

Q

LWW
03-08-2011, 05:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, you copped out.

Q </div></div>

In a sense I did.

Thanks for finally realizing that our political system is so warped in the direction of statism that no actual small state pro liberty choice has existed for quite some time.

LWW