where is this guy from?

Random Ramblings
41

Christopher W,
You have said it all, and very eloquently.

I have now listened to the Conservative viewpoints not just on the radio, but also from these real people.

No, it really doesn’t make much sense to debate abortion–my biggest concerns–what’s happening to the babies already here?–doesn’t get addressed. Of course I am aware of fetal growth, I don’t need any biology lectures. I am much more concerned with not ruining a woman’s life and not adding to the misery of more unwanted children born to people unequipped to raise them as they deserve. It’s more pragmatic and practical than the “no abortion” viewpoint. Let’s take better care of the kids we’ve got. Let’s put our hearts into that.

sellnbama, I did not mean to insult you about living in the South. Actually I am in the South too, just the Southwest not the Southeast. Travel and living abroad really did change my world view. It’s just an observation that when people are overly afraid of Muslims, other customs or religions that they are untraveled. I used to fret that the world would be overtaken by the billions of Chinese. Then I went to HongKong and decided that I would LIKE being overtaken by those hard-working, entrepreneurial, joking, free-spirited people.

Pos. Outlook, You are splitting so many semantic hairs in some of your responses that I am getting weary. It’s kind of like a dog chasing its tail.

Furnishedowner

42

Furnishedowner…

You STILL haven’t addressed any of it… Let’s just try ONE aspect of it and see if we can get an answer…[i][b]

“I am much more concerned with not ruining a woman’s life and not adding to the misery of more unwanted children born to people unequipped to raise them as they deserve.”[/b][/i]

No, you are only concerned with ruining the woman’s life in the FIRST trimester… why NOT the second and third… what’s the distinction?..

43

“I believe the rich should pay more than the poor” - The rich ALREADY pay more than the poor… Being that you’ve already bought into this line of thinking, let’s get specific, HOW MUCH MORE should they pay? 70, 80, 90%? Then at what point will the GOVERNMENT have to do without rather than the citizens who MAKE the money?

You do realize the “rich” are currently pulling back on their spending in anticipation of being taxed more, right?

Where the blame lies is CONGRESS… It does not matter how much they take in, they will find another “crises” to spend it on INSTEAD of actually paying down the national debt… If they did this, we would ALL benefit… instead, once AGAIN, as predicted, the growth estimates Obama et al put out as a basis for their spending IS ALREADY OFF, and the deficit is now up to $1.8 TRILLION… Now, do you think they will adjust this spending? Of course not, and herein lies the problem…

“you can keep towing the Republican line if that is what helps you sleep at night” - I’m not towing any republican line… All I am interested in is the FACTS… The article you quoted directly from was by Scott Ritter and was an OPINION piece… Both parties share in their ineptness, the democrats just like to spend more and more and more…

“So you just keep listening to Hannity and Limbaugh and telling yourself how great the Bush administration was.”

I’m not saying the Bush administration was “great”, but it is not as “bad” as you are one-sidedly trying to portray… I’m interested in the history of it… and sadly, it is YOU who is being one-sided here… BTW, in addition to Hannity or Limbaugh (whom I listen to once every two weeks) I listen to Alan Colmes, Ed Shultz, Bill Press, Rachel Madow… LIBERALS, so please stop with the pigeon-holing, as it is inaccurate…

Christopher, you obviously didn’t read the Clinton transcript of WHY he bombed Iraq for four days… you are confusing “protecting the no-fly zone” with this one… It was WMD’s…

“Let freaking Exxon Mobil finally pay their share.” - and what you don’t understand is that they are a publcly traded company and ANY increase in taxes WILL be passed along to the consumers, which include the poor, so you fall into the trap of wanting the “rich corporation” to pay more tax, but it will just be passed along to us. So the politicians get what they want, the money, and get you to deflect your anger about paying more from the government to the corporations… So the people you want to protect, the poor, get a back-end tax in the process…

The government, NOT THE PEOPLE, should learn to operate with less…

“the super-wealthy” - I find it interesting you think $1M is “super wealthy”… I’m sure the person making $25K/year thinks the person making $150K is also “super wealthy”…

“It is ridiculous that the super-rich on average pay less of a % than the working poor simply because they can “write-off” more.” -

You must have a misunderstanding of what income group the working poor are in, as this statement makes no sense… what is your specific understanding of the income level of the working poor?

44

The distinction is that if a woman is so stupid or irrational or clueless that she doesn’t figure out that she is pregnant until the 2nd or 3rd trimester, well, that is just too bad for her. She needs to go ahead and complete the pregnancy and deliver the baby.

I agree that now the fetus is viable and growing and it has achieved rights that it didn’t have at the first weeks. Second and third trimester abortions are not the way to go. This has been debated before. In other countries that permit abortions they limit it to the early weeks; there are medical and legal decisions that govern abortions.

This issue can not be just black-and-white. The woman has rights. The fetus has rights. It makes sense to me that an abortion can only occur in the early weeks of pregnancy when the fetus is an unviable bunch of cells. That’s when the woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry on is in effect. If she chooses to do nothing, then she has chosen.

Life is messy, ain’t it? It’s not perfect. Much better to have no pregnancy at all. But still better to have a 1st trimester abortion than another sad, unwanted human life. This is what millions of women have chosen. And they have the right to defer their child-bearing until they can handle it.

Furnishedowner

45

FurnishedO,
I kinda understand your abortion point,not agree with 100% since my wife of 11yrs was born when her mother was very young,its hard for me to be all in.I just can’t be all in on the govt making a call either way.However,this infantcide stuff that senator obama supported fully is very disturbing.I have no problem with others religious beliefs,only when they claim to be one direction & their actions tell another story.That was my reason in posting his muslim background.I hope I’m badly misled by what I think is taken place,but everyday it seems that its closer to being right on it.

46

Furnishedowner…

Finally an answer, and a fairly reasoned one at that… now that we have a base-line…

The baby is not “viable” until about 24 weeks (5-6 months in), so that arguement doesn’t carry water. The “viable” argument is lame IMHO because a baby born TODAY is not viable with the assistance of the mother…

“if a woman is so stupid or irrational or clueless that she doesn’t figure out that she is pregnant until the 2nd or 3rd trimester, well, that is just too bad for her.”

So we only want to have the “stupid, irrational and clueless” woman to be forced to deliver… interesting logic…

My wife is a nurse in emergency maternity admissions, and it is common for women to be 12 weeks and not know they are pregnant. Some women have off-cycles, some are still taking their pill and have vaginal bleeding which they think is their period… rather than go on, here’s more info on it…

http://www.babyhopes.com/articles/pregnantperiod.html

“She needs to go ahead and complete the pregnancy and deliver the baby.” - sounds like the opposite of Roe v. Wade… It also sounds like you are not “always” on the woman’s side, but on the baby’s 2/3’s of the time… Life is messy indeed…

"Much better to have no pregnancy at all. " - We agree on this…

CHRISTOPHER…

“Why not go out into your community and volunteer at a planned parenthood clinic and hand out literature or something of that nature that will make your community a better place to live for everyone.”

I don’t support Planned Parenthood (founded by Margaret Sanger - “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”)… There are many ways to make your community better, and I don’t feel the need to list what I do, but believe me, I’m involved…

47

Since were on the topic of abortion…(which I am totally against)… I have something to add.

A few are talking her about giving the woman a right to chose… well, what about the man?

Example. Lets say I get my girlfriend pregnant (who is only 16) and her and her parents want to get a abortion, but I, the male, dont want an abortion. Do I have the right to decline the abortion, and have sole custody of the kid when born? I think if your going to have abortion, this is the only fair way to do it…

Nobody ever talks about the males rights.
I certainly would rather take care of a child thats mine on my own, then have it be aborted.

48

Hoosier,
Could’nt agree with you more,since I have a 4yr old daughter that I’d do anything for.You raise a good point also I’d like to see the number of abortion supporters who don’t or can’t have kids.I also think there’s NO explaination for infantcide(which obama supports)this stuff is sick.

49

Hoosier,
If your pregnant 16-year-old-girlfriend wanted a baby and you didn’t…what would be your rights? You’d be hit with a child-support bill for 18 years.

So these kind of life decisions need a Solomon, or a Supreme Court to sort them out. There are no easy answers. But because of the huge cost and toll on the pregnant woman, I feel her rights are first. Until there is a baby, then its rights are first. So, yes, you might be shut out of the abortion decision and that would be hard. I think there is a court case somewhere where the teen Dad didn’t want his baby adopted out and he won the case. This would all make a great research paper for a debate class.

sellnbama,
Obama supports infanticide?! Where in the world are you getting this garbage? If someone said he also had horns, would you believe that?!

Pos. Outlook,
Look, you have sort of become like a dog gnawing on a bone. There is no meat there anymore, we have chewed up all the facts but you keep gnawing and gnawing. You have my opinion and I have yours. I am done with this bone.

Furnishedowner

50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA&feature=PlayList&p=6D142912AC29CBFC&index=0&playnext=1
watch this video.

51

positive,

It is blatantly obvious that you are completely brainwashed in your way of thinking and nothing anyone says or does is going to change your mind. You refuse to even acknowledge that we as a country were lied to. You want to use words like “mediaspeak” and “opinion” instead of admitting that evidence was falsified, and you even go so far as to try and point fingers at the previous administration. Basically acting like a 9 yead old that is caught with his hand in the cookie jar. “Well they did it to” is what you are saying.

C’mon man try and think for yourself. Quit walking into the voting booth and just checking the republican button. Listen to EVERYONE! Hear where they stand on all the issues instead of being so blinded by anger towards liberals that you can’t think for yourself. Is there that much difference between a moderate republican and a conservative democrat? I myself am a fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I grew up very poor so I know how important head start programs are, and I know how important school lunch programs are.

I notice you did not answer me on my questions regarding the past 8 years. Are you and your family in a better place than you were 8 years ago? Is this country in a better place than it was 8 years ago? Are you purposely not answering me because you know I already know the answer? Also, still waiting on that list of ONE positive achievement for the Bush administration.

52

furnishedowner,

“dog gnawing on a bone” - You finally JUST took your first bite, addressing the posts with an answer… and NOW I am one who gnawing on the bone? Sink your teeth in… there’s PLENTY of meat IF you have the courage to address it…

You obviously don’t have to participate, but when you avoid the question(s) over and over again, it begs the question… why?

“But because of the huge cost and toll on the pregnant woman, I feel her rights are first. Until there is a baby, then its rights are first.”

You are acting as if the ONLY one bearing cost is the pregnant woman… Men ALSO bear the cost, and I can tell you as a father, they also bear the cost. Do men give birth… obviously not. But they share in all the other aspects…

We already agree that during the 2nd and 3rd trimester, women should bring their baby to term, the question then comes down to the FIRST trimester…

I think it all comes down to LIFE… if a baby is a LIFE when conceived, if it is not LIFE what is it?

CONSIDER…

The babies heart begins to beat at (5) five weeks, fingers and toes are formed by week 8, is MOVING at 9 weeks, babies sex may be apparent at week 10 and the genatlia is recognizable at week 11, and also during week 10, the brain is producing almost 250,000 new neurons every minute…

This is all happened during the FIRST trimester… AND this is also during the period when it is common for women to not even KNOW they are pregnant…

The only thing connecting it to the mother is the umbilical cord/placenta, which feeds and nourishes the baby. It is a separate being/LIFE…

53

Christopher,

“It is blatantly obvious that you are completely brainwashed in your way of thinking and nothing anyone says or does is going to change your mind.”
No, Christopher, that may be your OPINION, but BECAUSE I listen to and consider opposing views, and am interested in the truth, not agenda’s, I’m OPEN to different ideas WHEN they actually challenge WITH FACTS my current position…

“You refuse to even acknowledge that we as a country were lied to” - You ARE kidding me right? You are watching what it going on with Obama right now, and you are concerned about being lied to? EVERY administration has lied to the country about different subjects… I don’t believe that we were lied to about WMD’s BECAUSE of the vast amount of reading (ALL sources) on the subject… Based on the vast amount of material I’ve read on the subject, I believe they (Bush, intelligence agencies, other countried, Dems/Reps, etc.) got it wrong… The ensuing CYA, and constant drumbeat from the press and the Dem’s lead to the misperception that we were lied to… The only “evidence” you’ve provided for your position that we were lied to was an OPINION piece by Scott Ritter… :rolleyes

“C’mon man try and think for yourself.” - I do, that is why it is harder for me to be “brainwashed” BY mediaspeak, who HAVE AN AGENDA… The more you hear something from any source, it’s time to question it…

“blinded by anger towards liberals that you can’t think for yourself” - I am not “angry” with liberals, I DISAGREE with liberals, don’t deflect your anger issues on me…

“I notice you did not answer me on my questions regarding the past 8 years.” & “Are you purposely not answering me because you know I already know the answer?” - Hardly, trying to keep my posts down in length… very guilty of that… but, here you go…

“Are you and your family in a better place than you were 8 years ago?” - Absolutely… and funny thing is, with you being in the mortgage industry, I can’t imagine the past 8 years and up until a year and a half ago, and now with the refinance onslaught have been nothing but GREAT for you financially…

“Is this country in a better place than it was 8 years ago?” - Absolutely NOT… We hadn’t been attacked on 9/11 nor had been in two wars… but if you are saying we are better off because Obama’s in office, you couldn’t be more wrong… we are spending TRILLIONS of dollars on the financial mess we are in… we are BORROWING 50 cents on EVERY dollar we are spending… and before you say it was “bush’s fault”… the Dem’s have been in control of Congress (who WRITE the legislation [even though they don’t read it] and WRITE the checks) since 2006, when BUSH was a LAME DUCK… AND youll note they begain INCREASING spending IMMMEDIATELY and have been since… NOW, they don’t even want to ATTEND the oversight hearings for ALL the spending they are doing… you know, what we are PAYING THEM FOR…

Unemployment for the past 8 years, AVERAGED 5.1% (mostly hovered in the 4.7% range) and that INCLUDES the recession Bush inherited AND the past 6 months of 2008 when it spiked… Interest rates have been historically low during this same period… all this while being attacked, fighting two wars, adding the DHS, guess those TAX CUTS had an effect after all… Oh, BTW that’s TWO from the list you wanted ONE from… never mind removing the wall put in place by the Clinton Administration so that the intelligence communities could COMMINICATE dangers to our country… there’s more… much more… but apparently you are not interested in the TRUTH, just partisanship that supports your position…

I was JUST as critical on spending when the repub’s were doing it… But the FACTS show that the Dem’s have been spending MORE since they took over in 2006… But don’t let FACTS get in the way… It’s ALL Bush’s fault…

"You want to use words like “mediaspeak” - Yes, Christopher, because you are using the media lines… hence the word “mediaspeak”… I would challenge you to QUESTION what you are being told… Just IMAGINE how different things would be…

Now, Christopher, my questions for you that you chose not to answer/address (which was pretty much the whole post)…

  1. Have you read the Clinton transcript of WHY he bombed Iraq?

  2. The rich ALREADY pay more than the poor… Being that you’ve already bought into this line of thinking, let’s get specific, HOW MUCH MORE should they pay? 70, 80, 90%? Then at what point will the GOVERNMENT have to do without rather than the citizens who MAKE the money?

  3. once AGAIN, as predicted, the growth estimates Obama et al put out as a basis for their spending IS ALREADY OFF, and the deficit is now up to $1.8 TRILLION… Now, do you think they will adjust this spending? Of course not, and herein lies the problem…

  4. You must have a misunderstanding of what income group the working poor are in, as this statement makes no sense… what is your specific understanding of the income level of the working poor?

  5. Do you NOT understand that taxing Exxon will ONLY lead to them hiking prices for EVERYONE, thereby, giving the government the money they want, a boogeyman in the form of a business, and a back-end TAX on the EVERYONE… INCLUDING the working poor?

Notice, the government is not asked to do WITHOUT… JUST IT’S CITIZENS and Companies who PRODUCE the money…

Balls in your court…

54

Once again…Blah, Blah, Blah.

Previous administration this, liberals that. Keep drinking the kool-aid man some day you are going to choke on it. As I said arguing with you gets me about as far as arguing with my 9 year old. All you want to do is point fingers and assign blame.

I have no anger issues. I’m not the one on here talking down to people and refusing to listen to other points of view. I think the evidence on the WMD’s in Iraq has spoken for itself. I copied information from two seperate articles into my posting above, but once again instead of acknowledging that information was falsified and doctored to look more damning than it truly was you want to point fingers and say “they did it also” in addition to saying “that is just opinion”. I am sorry man but are you really as blind as you are painting yourself to be?

I am not saying we are better off because of Obama, what I m saying is we are certainly worse off due to the previous administration. Give the guy a chance he has been here for a little over 100 days and already you frothing at the mouth conservatives want to complain about everything. The american people have spoken EN MASSE. You can blame it on voter fraud, you can blame it on ACORN, but the simple fact is people had just had enough.

As to your questions…

Yes I read the transcript about why Clinton bombed Iraq and it makes total sense. The Clinton administration did not create evidence of WMD’s in 1998. Saddam Hussein had shown that he had them and had used them in the past. The Bush administration KNEW that Iraq did not have WMD’s at the time that they declared war on Iraq, so they just CREATED it. How are they even related? They are not, but instead of admitting that you were lied to what do you do? You dig up old transcripts and somehow try to tie the two together.

The rich may pay more than the poor in terms of dollars because they make so much more, but as a % the poor pay more. Trust me 28% of $20,000 is a lot harder to swallow than 12% of 1M to the little guy.

Your saying the term “working poor” makes no sense? Where have you been lately. Oh, I’m sorry you have been to busy listening to Rush Limbaugh and drinking kool-aid. Because you are OBVIOUSLY TOO FREAKING STUPID to read here is the wikipedia definition.

Working Poor-Officially, in the United States, the working poor are defined as individuals who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (working or looking for work), but whose incomes fell below the official poverty level. Often, those defined as “working poor” have negative net worth and lack the ability to escape personal and economic contingencies. Are we clear now what the term working poor means??? Do you need me to do more research for you? Do you need me to research poverty levels and tax rates for you as well? because if so I will be happy to do it although it would be a complte waste of time because as I said above nothing and nobody is going to change your mind or even get you to open it a little bit to see opposing points of view.

As for Exxon Mobil and large corporations that have reaped huge profits at the expense of the little guy do you really think that by them paying more in taxes it will be passed on down to us?? I have news for you. No matter what happens they are passing it down to us. When oil was dropping like a stone did you notice a big drop in gas prices?? No you didn’t because it did not happen. Gas prices are still elevated. Some of these large companies have had multiple quarters of their best years EVER. Is it a coinicidence? I think not.

55

furnishedO,
That would be his voting record as senator,also this subject was avoided smoothly(as usual)during one debate with mccain.There are other networks besides MSNBC,you should tune into to them sometime.Appreciate the childish insult about the horns,me myself I just admit when I’m wrong or don’t agree keeps things on a softer tone instead of insults,blame,are we in second grade again?

56

bama,

Here is Mr. Obama’s voting record on abortion.

1997 Votes
SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.

HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.

So is he guilty of tactical planning for the future? probably so. Did he vote yes to support abortion? based on what I have read that would be a no.

2001 Votes

HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.

SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.

SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.

SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.

SB 1095 Bill defining “born alive” defines “born-alive infant” to include infant “born alive at any stage of development.” Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.

Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.

57

Based on that information it looks like you may have received incorrect information from your “other networks”.

Is he guilty of tactical planning for the future? Probably so.

Does he support infanticide? Based on his voting record or lack thereof I would say that would be a no.

Not to mention the fact that using the term infanticide is ridiculous. Partial birth abortion I believe is the correct term.

58

So let me get this right, present is no,ok.So in hb1900,sb1094,sb1093,sb1095,no being the translate is not supporting these issues?Thats definitely not the impression I got.Infanticide was’nt a term I made,it was the doctors that I seen as he explained how this was done as the lead story was obama’s belief that the mother’s wishes be fulfilled.On softer note I would question why our system allows elected officials to vote present,I’ll sure be happy to take the $180k yr to simply say “I’m here,don’t want the public to see where I stand on this cause I want to put my political stance ahead of representing the people who pay me to do so”.You gotta agree with me atleast on that,this is the problem with trust and our politicians we should hold there feet to the fire.There should’nt be a "present"option,we should always know where they stand.

59

“I’m not the one on here talking down to people and refusing to listen to other points of view.”

I’m not talking down to anyone NOR am I refusing to listen to other POV… I’m engaging them and challenging them…

“Once again…Blah, Blah, Blah.” & "Previous administration this, liberals that. Keep drinking the kool-aid man some day you are going to choke on it. As I said arguing with you gets me about as far as arguing with my 9 year old. All you want to do is point fingers and assign blame. "

Who’s talking down to whom, Christpopher?

"The Bush administration KNEW that Iraq did not have WMD’s at the time that they declared war on Iraq, so they just CREATED it. How are they even related? "

This is utter BS, show me where this is the case… You’re right, the WHOLE military went into Iraq geared up with biological gear and training because BUSH lied and made it all up… I guess France and Germany who were against the war, ALSO made it up… :banghead :banghead

The WMD they were referring to was biological ON HAND, and DEVELOPING nuclear capability.

[b][i]“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to TERRORISTS. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons STOCK, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear PROGRAM. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to TERRORISTS, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep TRYING TO DEVELOP nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” [/i] [/b]

What do you say to that… any thoughts…

“Trust me 28% of $20,000 is a lot harder to swallow than 12% of 1M to the little guy.” - There is NOONE making $20,000 a year paying 28% in income tax… where did you get this gem?..

"Your saying the term “working poor” makes no sense? Where have you been lately. " - Where did you get that from… what I specifically asked you was - “what is your specific understanding of the income level of the working poor?” Again, no answer from YOU…

“The american people have spoken EN MASSE” - 52-46 is hardly a landslide or EN MASSE… you are forgetting the ten’s of millions that did NOT vote for Obama (i.e. - the OTHER 48%)… He won a simple majority, don’t historically try to make it more than it was beyong the election of the first Black American… The last EN MASSE election was Reagans victories of 50.7% - 41% (carrying 44 states) and again 58.8% - 40.6% (carrying 49 states) is an example of EN MASSE

“Because you are OBVIOUSLY TOO FREAKING STUPID to read here is the wikipedia definition.” - Who is speaking down to whom, Christopher? I wasn’t looking for a Wikipedia definition, I was looking for CHRISTOPHER’s definition, which you OBVIOUSLY didn’t have, so you went to Wikipedia… If you had your own, you would have provided it…

" do you really think that by them paying more in taxes it will be passed on down to us?? I have news for you. No matter what happens they are passing it down to us."

Christopher, they are a publicly traded company, and as such absolutely WILL pass it down to EVERYONE… If you don’t believe this… why do you think the Dems are trying to put together subsidies for lower-income families in the cap and trade program, which DEM senators ADMITTED on camera is “a tax… and a very BIG ONE at that”… So you go ahead and give them that TAX HIKE, and watch as the working poor have to pay for your pride…

“When oil was dropping like a stone did you notice a big drop in gas prices?? No you didn’t because it did not happen.” - Yes, it went from over $4/gallon down to $1.34/gal… this just belies even a basic understanding of how gas is priced…

Maybe pictures might help…

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_chart.gif

Looks like a mighty big “drop” to me… BTW, here’s one chart from their “most profitable quarters” last year, and the GOVERNMENT made MORE MONEY from Exxon than Exxon did …

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SJHf4dD8YmI/AAAAAAAAFRw/YKiJ36srIzo/s400/ex.bmp

Correspondingly, Exxon’s fourth-quarter earnings fell 33 percent from a year ago. But the GOVERNMENT got PAID and did NONE of the work… From
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/.element/img/2.0/logos/CNNMoney_LOGO2.0.gif
…

[b][i]“Exxon posts record $11.68 billion profit”

and then buried down in the article…

"In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty TAX bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called “other taxes.”[/i][/b]

so it looks like the “rich” are paying their FAIR share… to put this in perspective, Exxon is paying MORE in taxes (ONE COMPANY) than the bottom 50% COMBINED…

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SJNLurJBy7I/AAAAAAAAFR4/-kjkIZntMqo/s1600/xom.bmp

So, if ANYTHING you should want Exxon to CONTINUE to make money… Otherwise, the less money THEY pay to the government, the more someone else WILL… AND shareholders MAKE money when they make money… as well as employ all those people who ALSO pay taxes…

60

I certainly agree with you hence the reason I suggested he is guilty of tactical planning. I honestly believe that the quality of political leaders we have these days is nowhere near the quality of leaders we have had in the past for the simple reason that the really smart guys stay away nowadays because of the bulls**t games you have to constantly play to keep your job. In the past you had people who really and truly cared about steering this country. Nowadays it is all about preserving your legacy and making sure you get re-elected and don’t even get me started on how politicians cater towards the people who donate to their campaigns. Would Abe Lincoln even waste his time with running fopr President in today’s world? I highly doubt it.