The Lake St.Clair Network: Is there anything else we can do... - The Lake St.Clair Network

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is there anything else we can do...

#16 User is offline   Snooze Ya looze 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,842
  • Joined: 22-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Harrison Township Mi.

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

View PostAway Point, on 25 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

But hey, my side isn't the one promising utterly fantastic outcomes via government.


Really! Since when? Both sides are always trying to claim they are better than the other side, both sides are considered government! The only difference is that History has proven that the Democrats have shown a much better outcome over the last 85 or so years, proving trickle down economics doesn't work.

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone down under every single Democrat President except one Carter. Carter left office with it being the same, 7.5% as when he entered office which he inherited from the preceding Republican President.

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

http://www.dailykos....ident-and-Party

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

This post has been edited by Snooze Ya looze: 25 February 2012 - 12:02 PM

0

#17 User is offline   Snooze Ya looze 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,842
  • Joined: 22-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Harrison Township Mi.

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.


That really is a piss poor record.... :doh2

What is that equal to on an A to E grading scale, like an E-? :rofl

F for failure comes to mind. :captain:

But who knows, maybe the 1% did very well those years? It makes perfect sense for them to be Republicans! I think the rest of them are just carrying on some sort of family tradition or something like that? :wub:

This post has been edited by Snooze Ya looze: 25 February 2012 - 01:15 PM

0

#18 User is offline   Adios 

  • Calls LSCN Home
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18,814
  • Joined: 24-September 02
  • Home Port: xxxxxxx
  • Boat Type:xxxxxxxx
  • Boat Name: xxxxxxxxx

Posted 25 February 2012 - 12:39 PM

View Posttcg, on 24 February 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 24 February 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

View Postraind2, on 24 February 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 24 February 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Why don't I feel reassured?

How much does GOVERNMENT Profit on oil/gas?
They do nothing to look for it, drill, refine, distribute, THEY MAKE OBSCENE amounts of profit on gasoline, and your not attacking them?

Why should government profit more than the investor, supplier, risk taker?
Why does government do everything to demonize profitable companies now?
A billlion dollor profit isn't sh*t when you look at the volume. And again LOOK AT GOVERNMENTS SHAKE DOWN, PROFIT of the Oil/Gas!
(NO PUT THAT ON IGNORE)

Pathetic......

Is it because we have the likes of Romney, and Santorum/Grinch (really that's the best we have)? I am not thrilled with the Democrats either by the way.

More tax than profit on gas. Isn't that nice. :1eye

Government sure is greedy!

What's nice is that 137 billion dollar profit the oil companies made last year. But let's keep giving them welfare.

And why are you conservatives upset over gas prices? I thought nothing else mattered except corporate profits.

And if Obama is such a socialist anti capitalist how is it corporate profits are at a record high?

Adiós amigos y otras personas que se significan deceptors spirtited mentirosos y agitadores
0

#19 User is offline   Snooze Ya looze 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,842
  • Joined: 22-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Harrison Township Mi.

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:11 PM

View Posttcg, on 24 February 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

And why are you conservatives upset over gas prices? I thought nothing else mattered except corporate profits.


Big butt boats come to mind, apparently none of them own oil companies or gas stations. :lol:
0

#20 User is offline   Adios 

  • Calls LSCN Home
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 18,814
  • Joined: 24-September 02
  • Home Port: xxxxxxx
  • Boat Type:xxxxxxxx
  • Boat Name: xxxxxxxxx

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:33 PM

driving to and from work costs a fortune.

So apparently you guys do not care fo rthe working class, the people struggling?
The people that have to make a decision should I eat, or not, cause I need this money for gas to get to work...

I can use my boat less, and will.

People have to go to work, work has to be done. Work pays bills in real land...


View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

View Posttcg, on 24 February 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

And why are you conservatives upset over gas prices? I thought nothing else mattered except corporate profits.


Big butt boats come to mind, apparently none of them own oil companies or gas stations. :lol:

Adiós amigos y otras personas que se significan deceptors spirtited mentirosos y agitadores
0

#21 User is offline   canaller 

  • LSCN Fan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,814
  • Joined: 05-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Algonac
  • Home Port: Algonac Harbour Club, Driveway, Boathouse
  • Boat Type:Chris Craft 281, Starcraft 18', Gamefisher 14'
  • Boat Name: Leucothea, New Adventure

Posted 25 February 2012 - 06:54 PM




Posted Image
0

#22 User is offline   doubledip 

  • Testing the waters
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Posted 26 February 2012 - 03:33 AM

View Posttcg, on 24 February 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm sure I missed your point but....



Your president has no plan or solution… oh wait a minute. Wind and solar? Oh yeah! How's that working out for you Mr. Solyndra? And your right, the people aren't as stupid as you think.


To listen to the president talk, you'd think federal government policy had nothing to do with the high gas prices we face at the pump. Oh, no; Middle Eastern instability or the greed of big oil companies are to blame. Unfortunately for the president, that doesn't square with his energy record, which has — at every turn — created obstacles to American energy production and, in effect, driven gas prices higher. House Speaker John Boehner has released a timeline that captures Obama's deleterious impact on the oil and gas industry — and, consequently, on gas prices. The timeline extends to the beginning of Obama's term in office, but, as a sample, take a look at just the five most recent decisions the administration has made:

  • JANUARY 2, 2011TIME reported that the Obama administration issued the first in a series of regulations on January 2 designed to unilaterally impose a national energy tax. Gas is $3.05 a gallon.
  • JUNE 21, 2011 - The White House opposes the House-passed Jobs & Energy Permitting Act that would unlock an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Gas is $3.65 a gallon.
  • NOVEMBER 8, 2011 – The Obama Administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production, placing "some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits," according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.
Yesterday afternoon, Fox Business Network's Gerri Willis interviewed Gulf Oil CEO Joe Petrowski, who confirmed what Boehner's timeline suggests. The government has an inordinate amount of influence over the energy industry and has repeatedly proved itself adept at picking losers to subsidize and winners to penalize.





It makes no sense, this administration's endless war on energy. It makes even less sense when you consider Candidate Obama's stated promises to achieve energy independence. If that's his goal, he has a funny way of showing it. When he ran for president, he even shilled for the Alaska pipeline — a project that, under his actual administration, has met with significant regulatory hurdles and is not slated to begin construction until 2015.

At some point, the president will have to accept that the American public can see through his rhetoric. He might say he wants a clean and secure source of energy, but his actions repeatedly say otherwise. According to a recent AP/GFK poll, 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of high gas prices. What's up with the other 42 percent?
0

#23 User is offline   tcg 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,910
  • Joined: 08-August 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:21 AM

I think you missed this. I'll ask again. How does Obama control the world oil prices?

Source

Federal forecasters are expected to confirm on Monday what the energy industry already knows: Oil production is surging in the U.S.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration is likely to raise by a substantial amount its existing estimate that U.S. oil production will grow by 550,000 barrels per day by 2020, to just over six million barrels daily.

The forecast will include new production data from developing oil fields, including the Bakken shale area in North Dakota, which could hold as much of 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. North Dakota's output of oil and related liquids topped 500,000 barrels per day in November, meaning that the state pumped more oil than Ecuador. In fact, U.S. oil production grew faster than in any other country over the last three years and will continue to surge as drillers move away from natural gas due to a growing gas glut, experts say. The glut has sent natural-gas prices to a 10-year low.

The combination of techniques that fueled the recent rise in natural-gas production—horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking"—has been expanded to U.S. oil fields.

This rising tide of oil and related liquids such as condensate that also are used as fuel could reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports and help ease the country's trade deficit. But it may have limited impact on U.S. gasoline prices, which increasingly are set by global supply-and-demand trends.

The increased domestic production also isn't enough to help the U.S. achieve the elusive ideal of energy independence—the country is expected to consume more than 19 million barrels of oil and liquids a day by 2020.

From 2008 through 2011, U.S. production of a broader category of oil and related liquids grew by 1.3 million barrels per day, or more than 17 percent, to 8.9 million barrels, according to the research firm IHS-CERA. That outpaced Russia, which saw production grow about 480,000 barrels per day; China, where it grew about 380,000 barrels per day; and Brazil, where output was up by more than 340,000 barrels daily.

IHS-CERA predicts that U.S. production could grow by another 1.3 million barrels per day by 2020, to 10.2 million barrels.

"I don't think it's widely appreciated how dramatic it's been,"
Jim Burkhard, managing director of IHS CERA's Global Oil Group, said of U.S. growth. "Deep-water production has contributed to the growth in recent years, and more biofuels has helped, but the really dramatic improvement has been in onshore oil and liquids—and that is what will continue to drive growth in coming years."

The surge is big reversal from just a few years ago. U.S. production of oil and other liquids peaked at 11.3 million barrels a day in 1970 and began to decline. The decline bottomed out at 7.6 million barrels a day in 2008 as the new drilling techniques emerged.
Posted Image
0

#24 User is offline   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,850
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:25 AM

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 25 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

But hey, my side isn't the one promising utterly fantastic outcomes via government.


Really! Since when? Both sides are always trying to claim they are better than the other side, both sides are considered government! The only difference is that History has proven that the Democrats have shown a much better outcome over the last 85 or so years, proving trickle down economics doesn't work.

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone down under every single Democrat President except one Carter. Carter left office with it being the same, 7.5% as when he entered office which he inherited from the preceding Republican President.

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

http://www.dailykos....ident-and-Party

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

Okay Mr. Straight down party line, what is it specifically you like about what the D in the White House has done?

And, we keep hearing how domestic oil production is up in the last 3 years. What has our government done in the last three years to make this increase happen? I certainly don't recall anything that sounded even remotely pro-domestic production in the first couple years. In fact, it was very much anti domestic production, fueled in part, by the Gulf oil spill.

Seems to me any recent increase in domestic production is more a result of diligence by producers, than any recent policy change. If this Administration has in fact done something pro-energy which it deserves credit for, I'd like to know what it. Especially considering how out of character it is for anyone on the left to do anything other than seek to suppress fossil fuel at every turn.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#25 User is offline   tcg 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,910
  • Joined: 08-August 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:32 AM

View PostAway Point, on 26 February 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 25 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

But hey, my side isn't the one promising utterly fantastic outcomes via government.


Really! Since when? Both sides are always trying to claim they are better than the other side, both sides are considered government! The only difference is that History has proven that the Democrats have shown a much better outcome over the last 85 or so years, proving trickle down economics doesn't work.

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone down under every single Democrat President except one Carter. Carter left office with it being the same, 7.5% as when he entered office which he inherited from the preceding Republican President.

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

http://www.dailykos....ident-and-Party

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

Okay Mr. Straight down party line, what is it specifically you like about what the D in the White House has done?




I see this party line thing is now your new tag line.

How is you voting republican no matter who the candidate is not also Mr. straight down the party line?
Posted Image
0

#26 User is offline   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,850
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 07:39 AM

View Postdoubledip, on 26 February 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

...
...
...

It makes no sense, this administration's endless war on energy. It makes even less sense when you consider Candidate Obama's stated promises to achieve energy independence. If that's his goal, he has a funny way of showing it. When he ran for president, he even shilled for the Alaska pipeline — a project that, under his actual administration, has met with significant regulatory hurdles and is not slated to begin construction until 2015.

At some point, the president will have to accept that the American public can see through his rhetoric. He might say he wants a clean and secure source of energy, but his actions repeatedly say otherwise. According to a recent AP/GFK poll, 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of high gas prices. What's up with the other 42 percent?

At quick look at my translation dictionary shows that to the left, "energy independence" means stop using fossil fuels. No matter there are currently no viable alternatives. In the meantime, they are perfectly content to keep throwing hundreds of millions of tax dollars at "green jobs", no matter how colossal the failure each attempt has been.

Oh wait, another look the translation dictionary shows "green jobs" has little to do with energy, and everything to do with favoritism and wealth redistribution.

I do have to hand it to the left on language. They sure are exceptionally proficient at sounding good, while masking intent.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#27 User is offline   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,850
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:04 AM

View Posttcg, on 26 February 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 26 February 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 25 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

But hey, my side isn't the one promising utterly fantastic outcomes via government.


Really! Since when? Both sides are always trying to claim they are better than the other side, both sides are considered government! The only difference is that History has proven that the Democrats have shown a much better outcome over the last 85 or so years, proving trickle down economics doesn't work.

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone down under every single Democrat President except one Carter. Carter left office with it being the same, 7.5% as when he entered office which he inherited from the preceding Republican President.

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

http://www.dailykos....ident-and-Party

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

Okay Mr. Straight down party line, what is it specifically you like about what the D in the White House has done?




I see this party line thing is now your new tag line.

How is you voting republican no matter who the candidate is not also Mr. straight down the party line?

No, my "tag line" is left vs. right, Liberal vs. Conservative. There are both elements in both parties, but there are FAR FAR FAR more Conservatives in the Republican party in the Democrat party.

You find me a D candidate who sounds more interested in limited, Constitutional government, than his R opponent, and that D will get my serious consideration.

At least I'm willing to state clearly and definitely that I am a Conservative, and why. Many seem unwilling to commit to a position. Perhaps because that avoids criticism??? Much easier to say "I care" than to actually take a position, and risk being painted with the broad brush I often am.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#28 User is offline   tcg 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,910
  • Joined: 08-August 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:09 AM

View PostAway Point, on 26 February 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

View Posttcg, on 26 February 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 26 February 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

View PostSnooze Ya looze, on 25 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

View PostAway Point, on 25 February 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

But hey, my side isn't the one promising utterly fantastic outcomes via government.


Really! Since when? Both sides are always trying to claim they are better than the other side, both sides are considered government! The only difference is that History has proven that the Democrats have shown a much better outcome over the last 85 or so years, proving trickle down economics doesn't work.

Since 1928 the unemployment rate has gone up under every single Republican President except for one, Reagan.

During the same time period, the unemployment rate has gone down under every single Democrat President except one Carter. Carter left office with it being the same, 7.5% as when he entered office which he inherited from the preceding Republican President.

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

http://www.dailykos....ident-and-Party

http://en.wikipedia....sidential_terms

Okay Mr. Straight down party line, what is it specifically you like about what the D in the White House has done?




I see this party line thing is now your new tag line.

How is you voting republican no matter who the candidate is not also Mr. straight down the party line?

No, my "tag line" is left vs. right, Liberal vs. Conservative. There are both elements in both parties, but there are FAR FAR FAR more Conservatives in the Republican party in the Democrat party.

You find me a D candidate who sounds more interested in limited, Constitutional government, than his R opponent, and that D will get my serious consideration.

At least I'm willing to state clearly and definitely that I am a Conservative, and why. Many seem unwilling to commit to a position. Perhaps because that avoids criticism??? Much easier to say "I care" than to actually take a position, and risk being painted with the broad brush I often am.

And that makes you Mr. party line as well.

Have you looked at any candidates outside the two parties?
Posted Image
0

#29 User is offline   Away Point 

  • LSCN Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • View gallery
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 21,850
  • Joined: 20-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Livonia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:06 AM

View Posttcg, on 26 February 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

...
...
...

And that makes you Mr. party line as well.

Have you looked at any candidates outside the two parties?

No, that makes me committed to the ideas I think make more sense, and have a better track record. I'm perfectly willing to consider other ideas, but honestly, I think there is a pretty big body of evidence to keep me where I am. I can, and have, come up with dozens of questions which would have to be answered for my views to change. Honestly, from time to time I do ponder my views. I wonder sometimes am I wrong, when considering the many institutions and groups which view me as wrong??? But logic brings me back where I am each time.

Realistically, factoring in the significance of the party in majority, an outside candidate would have to be very compelling, and the lessor evil to the other candidates. Fundamentally, I have no party loyalty problem with the idea, but pragmatically, doesn't seem real likely at this time.

As I've said, I think efforts toward directing and affecting existing parties is more effective than creating a new one, as a new one would then have to overcome the challenges of both existing parties. Seems like twice the opposition to me.
There are 2 seasons; Boating season, and Waiting for boating season.
Posted Image
0

#30 User is offline   tcg 

  • LSCN Addict
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,910
  • Joined: 08-August 04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:30 AM

View PostAway Point, on 26 February 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

View Posttcg, on 26 February 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

...
...
...

And that makes you Mr. party line as well.

Have you looked at any candidates outside the two parties?

No, that makes me committed to the ideas I think make more sense, and have a better track record. I'm perfectly willing to consider other ideas, but honestly, I think there is a pretty big body of evidence to keep me where I am. I can, and have, come up with dozens of questions which would have to be answered for my views to change. Honestly, from time to time I do ponder my views. I wonder sometimes am I wrong, when considering the many institutions and groups which view me as wrong??? But logic brings me back where I am each time.

Realistically, factoring in the significance of the party in majority, an outside candidate would have to be very compelling, and the lessor evil to the other candidates. Fundamentally, I have no party loyalty problem with the idea, but pragmatically, doesn't seem real likely at this time.

As I've said, I think efforts toward directing and affecting existing parties is more effective than creating a new one, as a new one would then have to overcome the challenges of both existing parties. Seems like twice the opposition to me.

So you are a party line guy.
Posted Image
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


The Lake St. Clair Network is a local social network for Lake St.Clair and surrounding waterways such as Detroit River, Clinton River, Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.
We are the #1 source for Lake St.Clair Fishing Reports, Ice Fishing, Lake St. Clair News, Lake St.Clair Boating, Michigan Fishing and Michigan Hunting.