Obama finally forced to resign!

Obama (his thoughts ongun control is buried in his Urban crime policy)

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

McCain

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

Protecting Second Amendment Rights

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability

John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines

John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks

John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition

John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection

As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Criminal Background Checks

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period

John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The Confiscation of Firearms After an Emergency

John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals Who Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime
 
Bush's faith based beliefs were relevant as they were part of his personality structure that made him immune to contrary evidence. They contributed to him thinking that all folks welcome Western democratic principles and will act accordingly. Didn't come true in Iraq.

Obviously, there are people of faith who maintained their critical faculties. He did not.

There can be atheists who also develop personality structures that are delusional.

Nor are all Texans idiots. I live here and teach intelligent folk. Brooks' point was that he brought a local set of folks of limited ability as they fit his limited world view.

I'm not knocking all faith based folks or Texans. My comments specifically speak to how Bush failed us on major issues - esp. the RKBA - our context here.

I also comment on how all the candidates should learn not to cater to what turns out to be fringe groups.
 
Bush blamed for high price of oil?

You better believe it. Just as all of the oil companies have made RECORD profits...and GWB has been as well and laughing all the way to the bank. What really P#*%es me off about this is no one has stepped up to do something about it...oh yea Congress has called the heads of the oil companies in and spoke to them but until something is done about it they are going to continue to fleece us. I believe we all have the right to make a fair profit but they are taking advantage of us and we have no recourse at this point.

What could Bush do? He could get the Commerce and Justice Depts involved and break up the oil monopolies....so we would have more competition in the market place which would then reduce the price of gas. Instead they use this bogus "Market Economics" bull to justify taking advantage of the American people. The only reason the Market economics works is because we have not busted them up!

Man don't get me started...this really gets me goin!
 
Dastardly Oil Companies...

You must own a lot of stock in one...WHAT I DO NOT THINK IS A FAIR PROFIT IS ONE THAT IS RECORD SETTING EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INFLATION. I also consider all of the mergers within the oil industry our country allowed a few years ago and said there would still be plenty of competition which in effect removed the competition which has contributed to where we are today.

What I believe is that the oil companies are bringing a lot of hardship onto a lot of families which are struggling to make ends meet. This when it has been documented that they are over charging relative to past shortages and high cost of a barrel of oil. Unfortunately I do not have the specifics...I was so disgusted with the report I just put it aside. They have done exactly what they wanted...increased the cost of gas which we have accepted and will pay for...actually we really do not have a lot of choices...

Based on your smart *&^ comment it is obvious that you are not one of these folks. So the idea you would feel compassion for them and look at things from the other side would be asking too much. I know you will spout some crap about changing habits blah blah blah.
 
He could get the Commerce and Justice Depts involved
NO, NO, NO, a thousand times no!!! When will you people realize that government involvement in areas that government has no business in (see Article I, section 8) only opens the door for inefficiencies, incompetence and corruption.
If we must have government, make it self-government.

Also, please realize that part of the current problem has been current government involvement.

Please, please, please, just so no to the drug of government involvement.
 
Just as all of the oil companies have made RECORD profits...and GWB has been as well

GWB's income as reported on tax returns:
744,682 (2000), 711,453 (2001), 771,940 (2002), 727,083 (2003), 672,788 (2004), 618,694 (2005), 642,905 (2006), 719,274 (2007; includes 150,00 book advance for Laura Bush, donated to charity).

What? GWB isn't raking in huge amounts of income from running up the price of oil? Maybe the oil company stock he doesn't own is going up in value.
 
Yes Yes Yes!!!

The government is SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US!!! Allowing these companies to merge and remove competition from the marketplace has taken away the competitve balance...The government approved these saying there would still be a competitive marketplace...now there is not one! SO YES THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GET INVOLVED AND BUST THESE UP!!! Just like they did with the phone industry a few years ago! Competition is what we need and then let the market decide things...but when there is an imbalance in the marketplace it needs to be righted!!!
 
Competition

I am not saying the government should set prices...All I am saying is lets put competition back in the marketplace and the prices will take care of themselves!
 
and I say competition is enhanced when government is removed. Government is not allowing new development, government is not allowing new refineries. Government is forcing bio-fuels, which is not a good thing.
GGO - Get Government Out!
 
Dearhunter61,

I have to ask, do you know what is happening with the oil industry? It is NOT for a lack of competition that prices are going up, it is because of hedging on futures trading on the open market. They are completely different issues. As has been stated before, high prices is not because of competition or lack thereof, supply not meeting demand, or any other "typical" business issues, the problem is the trading of oil on the open market, period.
 
Dearhunter61
WHAT I DO NOT THINK IS A FAIR PROFIT IS ONE THAT IS RECORD SETTING EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INFLATION.

The oil companies as a whole make profits which are in line with most of the S&P 500. In fact, they are not even at the top of the list. So, perhaps you need to start your diatribe against profits with the companies who are at the TOP OF THAT LIST, and work your way down the oil companies.

What I believe is that the oil companies are bringing a lot of hardship onto a lot of families which are struggling to make ends meet. This when it has been documented that they are over charging relative to past shortages and high cost of a barrel of oil. Unfortunately I do not have the specifics...

The oil companies are doing business.......it is called capitalism. If you have documentation that they are "over charging", then let's see it. Somehow, I doubt you'll provide any.
 
As has been stated before, high prices is not because of competition or lack thereof, supply not meeting demand, or any other "typical" business issues, the problem is the trading of oil on the open market, period.

Not exactly. Future world demand for oil is going UP, that is a major factor.

Prices pushed sharply higher Friday after Morgan Stanley analyst Ole Slorer said he expected strong demand in Asia that could drive prices to $150 by July 4. Shipments from the Middle East are mimicking patterns seen in the third quarter last year, when Morgan Stanley based its "oil price spike" predictions on Atlantic Basin draws, he said.

"We made the same call using the same parameters, but now we are starting from much lower inventory levels," Slorer said Friday.

"Asia is taking an unprecedented share" of Middle East exports to build up stocks, Slorer wrote in his report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices
 
You simply do not get it...

If the government had not approved all of these oil monopolies and they were still making the profits I would not have the issues with this...but the government DID get involved then, A few years ago (Connaco, Phillips 66, Shell, Exxon etc), and they are supposed to make sure that a competitive balance is maintained...shortly after all the mergers the cost of fuel went up...and this after it was supposed to make it more cost efficient for the oil companies which would enable them to keep cost down!!! I do not have a problem with markets economics.

All I am saying is bust up the monopolies and if they are still charging the same then fine...this is not different now than it was back in the eary 1900's when Teddy busted them all up because there was no competition!

Please go read about standard oil etc as well as the others that he busted up ....

AGAIN...ONE MORE AND ONE LAST TIME...IT IS ABOUT MONOPOLIES FOR ME!!!! AND THE GOVERNMENTS INVOLVEMENT THERE. I just want them to correct what they got wrong....and there is a precedent for them to break up monopolies! Remember what happened to Microsoft? Not only them being addressed here but also over seas?

We can get into a p*ss(*G contest but rather than that lets just agree that you and I see things differently. I want REAL competition to set the price. Not some BS saying there is when in reality there is not!

And yes we can talk about supply and demand....and yes it impacts the market place as it should, but if you really understand market economics then you should know that when there is healthy competition it keeps prices under control...my take is that there is not healthy competition and therefore we are paying through the nose! Would the cost be higher because of the higher cost of oil? Yes but again if we had real competition then it would not be as high as it is now!

I bet you work for one of these companies!:barf:
 
Dearhunter61

AGAIN...ONE MORE AND ONE LAST TIME...IT IS ABOUT MONOPOLIES FOR ME!!!! AND THE GOVERNMENTS INVOLVEMENT THERE.

Monopolies? Hardly. But you are free to provide evidence of such.

And yes we can talk about supply and demand....and yes it impacts the market place as it should, but if you really understand market economics.....

I pretty much understand economics. I have an undergraduate degree in Economics.


I bet you work for one of these companies!

Don't I wish!!!!
 
Mr Dearhunter, it is clear that you are passionate in your beliefs about the oil industry, and that your intentions are good, but unfortunately you are utterly mistaken in your ideas about why it costs so much to fill up your tank.

He could get the Commerce and Justice Depts involved and break up the oil monopolies.
Why, so that smaller baby-Exxons can pay the arabs/russians/whoever the same price per barrel of oil?

No matter how much Obama and liars like him claim that there is a great petroleum conspiracy in motion, the price of oil is largely driven by supply and demand. The era of cheap oil is over. There is more oil in the ground, but it's not going to come gushing out of a hole, sulfur-free, short-chained, and under its own pressure like in the old days, and more people will be willing to pay more for it.

People/things that you can fairly blame:
- China and India (for competition on the global market.)
- God, for not putting more easy oil in the ground.
- Investors buying oil futures.
- People who have driven gas guzzlers. (This may include you.)
- The decline in the value of the dollar.

PS Wow is this thread OT.
 
Last edited:
You all still do not hear

I never have said that the issues you have brought up are not part of this issue...but it is still my contention that due to oil monopolies we are paying more than we would if the oil industry had not merged becoming a handfull of companies controlling the market place.

I agree that India and China and on and on and on have had an impact on the price of fuel...I agree that we would be paying higher prices at the pump regardless of whether the oil companies merged or not...but I still believe that we would be paying less if there was more competition in the market place than there is today due to the mergers over the last 20 years.

You all should go apply with the oil companies...or perhaps you are part of them now....

All I am saying is bust up the monopolies and let the market be what it is...the only thing it seems we disagree on is I think the monopolies have restricted competition and you seem to think it would not make a difference.
 
What? GWB isn't raking in huge amounts of income from running up the price of oil? Maybe the oil company stock he doesn't own is going up in value.

Excellent site, except for the minor fact it is totally useless. It shows Bush having all kinds of money, yet, if you want actual information (ie links to proof), you can forget it. You click on "Assets" and it says "No Data Available". Same for "Transactions", "Agreements" and "Gifts". For income, it says he doesn't have any (ie zero income). :rolleyes:
 
Quoted by Sasquatch:
Monopolies? Hardly. But you are free to provide evidence of such.

I believe Dearhunter provided an excellent point. Look at the phone companies in years past...

I have an old phone bill of my grandparents calling my dad in Saigon(IIRC) back in the late '60's when he was on leave. I'd have to dig it up to give hard numbers but they only talked for a few minutes (ten?) and the bill was for almost $10.

Fast forward to today. Forty years later. You can call someone in the same city for much less than that. And I haven't even figured in inflation. WHY?.....because of the feds busting up the phone company monopolies. One of several reasons, of course.

I pretty much understand economics. I have an undergraduate degree in Economics.

So then you understand how capitalism works, right? You know the end result of capitalism is monopoly, right? Well, we need some type of referee (enter the govt) to intervene before the end result takes place and break it up. After other companies are established to provide competitive prices and actual choices for the consumer, the govt. needs to back off and let the course of capitalism to move on.

PS Wow is this thread OT.

Yes, it is. I think I need to stop myself from further posting since I'm doing what peeves me greatly....participating in veering a thread OT...
 
Back
Top