If Obama were reelected, what...

Post Reply New Topic

If you paid attention to 2008 election, you would know that Obama was preaching that he basically wanted energy prices to skyrocket.


Oh, I see, they are saying it is contigent on a hurricane disrupting oil flow. I can understand the possibility of a big increase considering that factor, but it would likely be temporary. IN other words under "the right" conditions.

Supply and demand at the pump influences the price of oil. If people aren't buying it, the people that supply the oil to us are not making as much money and prices are lowered based on lower demand.

The article itself said prices go up in response to demand in the Summer. If prices go up too much, and demand goes down because people start curtailing their travel in the Summer, of course the price would go down some, but it does depend on factors like hurricanes and issues in oil rich countries.

Government printing money is not going to help small businesses, if people quit spending money at these businesses, because they can't afford gasoline. Hardest hit would be the small convenience stores that sell gas. I doubt they'll get a gas bailout.

There are alot of people concerned about the environment throughout the world that would love to see energy prices skyrocket to reduce carbon emissions. It allows alternate energy initiatives to gain the spotlight.

I remember Obama saying something about electric companies and emissions and insuring they meet requirements regardless of the price of electricity, but can you show me anywhere he said he wanted gasoline prices to skyrocket?

He might hold it as a personal opinion, but I don't think he would make a political opinion, specifically, about wanting gasoline prices to go up. It is a volatile issue.

I would take it a step further considering an exponential increase would be a lot higher than just $6 a gallon.



Also Obama has frozen drilling in the Gulf, in violation of two court orders.



You do realize the US is an oil rich country.



I doubt they'll accept the dollar if this keeps up anyways.



You mean like the scam in Spain where they were supposedly generating more electricity from the solar array while it was nighttime?



It includes Gasoline.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f-Jf_LGi-c[/youtube]

About 50 seconds in, and he tries to rationalize it.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvS92OETHvg[/youtube]

I do realize we are an oil rich nation; but if we do not produce enough oil to meet our needs we can't control the prices. "Drill baby drill", is not having the impact it did since the oil spill.

In a previous topic we discussed Obama's gaffes after the election. He made the comment about getting rid of an SUV, as sounding like an easy solution to higher gas prices. Sometimes his enthuisastic approach doesn't match the somber reality of the issue for the people impacted.

He is pushing alternate energy initiatives, and making some potential political mistakes in this rhetoric, considering how much gas prices affect people. Regardless if the administration has control of gas prices, if they go up to $5 or $6 a gallon, people are going to expect a fast solution to the problem. I don't think he'll get a pass on it from the public; the Bush administration didn't.

I haven't heard about that issue in Spain; it is just a general environmental issue where people concerned about carbon emissions and climate change want to see alternate energy sources, and technology to make vehicles more efficient in gasoline consumption.

If people can't afford gasoline, the demand is for energy alternatives that meet their needs. The private sector responds and the government gets continued funding for research in alternate energy initiatives.

You never did tell me what policies of Obamas seemed to be MEANT to destroy the country. Just because you take issue with his policies, doesn't make them destructive.

We seem, after all, to have survived Bush Jr's highly sincere efforts to get us destroyed by endless war. We have the endless war, but we're still standing.

Just because you don't know people who want to re-elect him, does not mean they don't actually exist.

In my area, even though most voters are disappointed in Obama's presidency so far, I'm hearing pretty strong intention to support the re-election bid. There is some hope a contender will jump in from out of nowhere in the primaries, but few around here will vote Republican over Obama unless Jesus magically appears on the Republican ticket. Seriously, they want someone else to vote for, but there is not a single candidate in either party at this time that most people here feel can do better. My area can be expected to lean 70% Obama in 2012, just as it did in 2008, but minus a lot of the hope it held back then.

Don't misconstrue disappointment as "will not vote for." Most of the people who voted for Obama last time will do so again. No voter fraud required.

I kinda doubt that the people who would vote for Obama would vote for Jesus even if they could.

So unless we elect Ron Paul we're all either fools or being defrauded in our elections? If there is a continuation of agenda regardless of who is elected president, then why wouldn't we take on the argument that at least Obama has now had 4 years to learn the job? Why chuck him so someone new can make the same mistakes?

Do you see how I'm reading your argument?

Why?

Is there some Christian v. Democrat divide I'm not aware of?

Just because aethism overrides on this forum, does not make it true everywhere. Most Americans are liberal. Most Americans are Christian. Statistically, overlap exists. In real life, I KNOW it exists. My church went 70% for Obama just like the rest of the area.

While most atheists are Democrats, it is not the case that most Democrats are atheists. Obama's expanded the Faith-Based Initiatives department and repeatedly touted his belief in the Sadomasochistic God of the New Testament.

Some atheists have the equivalency to conservative morality whether they have a philosophical basis for their morality or not, so this really has nothing to do with where atheists are on a political spectrum. However Democrat stances on moral issues, although just in general terms, would run counter to Christ and Christ would run counter to them.

As a liberal, social justice style Catholic, I disagree with your last sentence. Christ was practically a communist, if you think about it. And he never preached the legislation of morality.

You're assuming Obama has made mistakes instead conscious decisions.

I think it's pretty naive for anybody to think Obama is going to suddenly become the liberal you guys had all hoped for. He is what he is, an interventionist and corporatist to his core. I can't see why anybody could be excited about voting for this guy, he is a terrible president and his 2nd term he'll be dealing with a republican controlled house AND senate so I imagine you will be seeing triangulation to the extreme or complete deadlock.(deadlock isn't such a bad thing ) It'll be interesting to see how Obama runs his reelection campaign seeing as there will be not ambitious 2nd term achievements, what he has accomplished in his first term is it. That's what he got done with the democrat super majority and now the pendulum is swinging back.

I disagree. Christ was and is and will be a Monarch.

Given that the Jesus of the scriptures was a notorious flip-flopper, I'm sure he could "play to the crowd" in a Democratic primary.

I disagree with your assertion about Jesus, but as per the swaying the crowd of Democrats anybody who just issues the proper buzzwords could do that.

Funny, as saying "I love God, Guns and think Obama's Birth Certificate is sketch and that he's a Muslim" is sufficient to win any Republican primary.