Michele Bachmann Caught Using Taxpayer Money For Rallies

[Bad324]

A competitor to oil is what is needed.

We have more natural gas in America than the middle east has oil. It's cheaper. It's cleaner. That's what we should be investing in. The infrastructure is already in place. There are millions of miles of gas lines throughout the country. The majority of homes have natural gas lines in the homes. You could have filling stations in your garage. When completely burned, only water and carbon monoxide are left over. Make this feasible for automotive fuel in the mainstream, and oil prices will drop like a rock.

Agreed. If this was the case then I'd never be out of a job, our company lays said infrastructure.

Natural gas production is about to boom in Ohio because of the 2 shale plays that cover most of the eastern half. The last 5 years in PA have been absolutely ridiculous growth and now that these producers have experience they are coming to Ohio where the plays are supposed to be 2-3x denser than in PA

[crb]

o·pin·ion Noun 1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Agreed. If this was the case then I'd never be out of a job, our company lays said infrastructure.

Natural gas production is about to boom in Ohio because of the 2 shale plays that cover most of the eastern half. The last 5 years in PA have been absolutely ridiculous growth and now that these producers have experience they are coming to Ohio where the plays are supposed to be 2-3x denser than in PA

I need and in for one of those jobs.

[mello dude]

Moxnews - unfair and biased ---- lol!

[SpeedTriple44444]

Presidential candidate Bachmann promises gas under $2.00/gallon if elected

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/17/presidential-candidate-bachmann-promises-gas-under-2-00-gallon/

She'll wave her GOP fairy wand and gas will magically drop to $2/gallon. Economics be damned.

Yea, she's not crazy.

Sad but true. I can't believe anyone would fall for that.

[SpeedTriple44444]

I don't blindly follow anyone charles from Salem, not even the "communist in chief".

The baseless opinions you spew are middle-schoolish.

Funny... you seem to have that opinion of anybody that disagrees with you.

[SpeedTriple44444]

My opinion is... throw her sorry @ss out. There is just no excuse for misusing funds when the budget is so off balance and everybody is out of work.

Take Obama with her. All the guy does is campaign on our dollar... him and his "Magical Misery Bus Tour". He's great at promising, but he's out campaigning rather than doing anything productive. We need a lot less talk and more action. EDIT: maybe it's better just letting him go on his little trips... less damage done in the long run.

[Disclaimer]

o·pin·ion Noun 1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As long as you acknowledge that. And water tastes like bread.

Though I try to have some validity, fact, expertise (either personal or professional), academic, or scientific backing of my opinions.

Funny... you seem to have that opinion of anybody that disagrees with you.

Not necessarily, I'm more than open-minded when it comes to viewing issues, but "Because I said so" or "because that's what *I* think" without supporting information are ignorant opinions and not worth respecting or listening to in the least, save for the very few issues where you just have to agree to disagree because they don't have solid or credible supporting information either way or are moral/ethical issues.

So, for example, calling Obama or any politician a Marxist, Communist, or whatever without an understanding of those terms in the entirety, just because some traits of their ideology fall inline with some of the philosophies is nothing more than exposing your own ignorance. And using that psychology that because some ideas overlap between ones personal ideology and that of another makes them one, then that would make almost EVERY president a marxist, communist, or whatever ideology you're trying to bias as negative in the Obama example.

It's old, tired, and immature at best because it shows a sore lack of education on the issues.

But of course, that's just my opinion, because I said so.

[Casper]

As long as you acknowledge that. And water tastes like bread.

Though I try to have some validity, fact, expertise (either personal or professional), academic, or scientific backing of my opinions.

Not necessarily, I'm more than open-minded when it comes to viewing issues, but "Because I said so" or "because that's what *I* think" without supporting information are ignorant opinions and not worth respecting or listening to in the least, save for the very few issues where you just have to agree to disagree because they don't have solid or credible supporting information either way or are moral/ethical issues.

So, for example, calling Obama or any politician a Marxist, Communist, or whatever without an understanding of those terms in the entirety, just because some traits of their ideology fall inline with some of the philosophies is nothing more than exposing your own ignorance. And using that psychology that because some ideas overlap between ones personal ideology and that of another makes them one, then that would make almost EVERY president a marxist, communist, or whatever ideology you're trying to bias as negative in the Obama example.

It's old, tired, and immature at best because it shows a sore lack of education on the issues.

But of course, that's just my opinion, because I said so.

Fact:

Hey' date=' Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.[/quote']

[Disclaimer]

So obviously because one action was taken in one industry for a certain time period to prevent an economic catastrophe in that sector, Obama is a communist.

Got it.

So, explain the Wall Street bailouts initiated by Bush? Is he a communist/marxist too?

[Casper]

So obviously because one action was taken in one industry for a certain time period to prevent an economic catastrophe in that sector, Obama is a communist.

Got it.

So, explain the Wall Street bailouts initiated by Bush? Is he a communist/marxist too?

Although the United States never took ownership of any private business under Bush, I would say the bailouts of any private industry leans towards communism, and certainly is unconstitutional. Capitalism only exists with the risk of failure. Had the large corporations failed (both banks and automakers) due to their poor decisions, smaller businesses would've been there to fill their shoes. Do you really think we avoided any economic catastrophe? No, we padded the pockets of big business, again.

[Disclaimer]

What do you consider "ownership"?

As far as I'm concerned, loans vs. stock offering is a 'potatoe, patatoe' argument when it comes to the gov't. Each were structured to provide the necessary economic benefit intended, and are not intended to be for indefinite periods for payback on the 'investment'.

And since I'm kinda sorta in the industry, I actually do think we avoided a lot of additional economic hardship by allowing GM and Chrysler to pay their tier 1 (which in turn paid tier II and III suppliers), which also benefited a lot of the Japanese and European, and Ford since many of the sub-suppliers are the same. It wasn't about just GM and Chysler, but their thousands of suppliers and the people they employed as well. This also kept the suppliers doors open, production volumes higher, so the MSRP on your BMW, Ford, or Honda didn't jump up $6,000 because the sub-suppliers can't afford to eat the cost of the production volumes they're originally tooled for.

Margins are typically pretty slim in the auto industry, which are only made up through volume, niche vehicles, lean production, or trucks ('Merica!)

That, and the auto industry bailout put GM and Chrysler on equal footing as the other automakers in regards to labor costs. Since those other companies have gov't healthcare, that's an expense they don't have to bear. So, now the American companies don't either -- which sucks for the American blue collar guy because that's going to be an additional expense out of his or her pocket instead of the large corporation's pocket.

Edited August 18, 2011 by JRMMiii

[Casper]

What do you consider "ownership"?

As far as I'm concerned, loans vs. stock offering is a 'potatoe, patatoe' argument when it comes to the gov't. Each were structured to provide the necessary economic benefit intended, and are not intended to be for indefinite periods for payback on the 'investment'.

And since I'm kinda sorta in the industry, I actually do think we avoided a lot of additional economic hardship by allowing GM and Chrysler to pay their tier 1 (which in turn paid tier II and III suppliers), which also benefited a lot of the Japanese and European, and Ford since many of the sub-suppliers are the same. It wasn't about just GM and Chysler, but their thousands of suppliers and the people they employed as well. This also kept the suppliers doors open, production volumes higher, so the MSRP on your BMW, Ford, or Honda didn't jump up $6,000 because the sub-suppliers can't afford to eat the cost of the production volumes they're originally tooled for.

That's your opinion, not backed by facts of course.

[Disclaimer]

That's your opinion, not backed by facts of course.

No, the only opinion was the 'potatoe, patatoe' debate, but we can get dive into the nitty gritty of that if you REALLY want to - which is why I asked you for your relative definition of 'ownership' that you neglected to answer.

I have some time today.

[Casper]

No, the only opinion was the 'potatoe, patatoe' debate, but we can get dive into the nitty gritty of that if you REALLY want to - which is why I asked you for your relative definition of 'ownership' that you neglected to answer.

I have some time today.

You actually were trying to start a debate between Bush's bailout of the banks vs Obama's bailout of the automakers. There is no real debate, as I clearly stated. So your point is moot. The semantics of ownership of a product versus ownership of a company can be discussed if you'd really like, but you're simply reaching for a shred of anything to argue about.

[Bad324]

I need and in for one of those jobs.

become a welder with a certification for natural gas and you'll have work for decades. There just isn't enough welders to go around for all the work that needs done and these guys make well over six figures a year, its absolutely insane

[Casper]

become a welder with a certification for natural gas and you'll have work for decades. There just isn't enough welders to go around for all the work that needs done and these guys make well over six figures a year, its absolutely insane

Seriously?

[Disclaimer]

You actually were trying to start a debate between Bush's bailout of the banks vs Obama's bailout of the automakers. There is no real debate, as I clearly stated. So your point is mute. The semantics of ownership of a product versus ownership of a company can be discussed if you'd really like, but you're simply reaching for a shred of anything to argue about.

Ummm, you turned this into a debate about bailouts. And speaking of semantics - moot.

The whole genesis prior to your input was about baseless opinions, and how I'm hypocritical. So, if you'd rather return to that and highlight my rampant hypocrisy, I'll gladly continue to take the ribbing on that whilst I pick and choose what positions I care to defend since I need some stimulation today. This IS the interwebz afterall.

[Casper]

Ummm, you turned this into a debate about bailouts.

The whole genesis prior to your input was about baseless opinions, and how I'm hypocritical. So, if you'd rather return to that and highlight my rampant hypocrisy, I'll gladly continue to take the ribbing on that whilst I pick and choose what positions I care to defend since I need some stimulation today. This IS the interwebz afterall.

Fact:

You started the debate about bailouts.

So obviously because one action was taken in one industry for a certain time period to prevent an economic catastrophe in that sector, Obama is a communist.

Got it.

So, explain the Wall Street bailouts initiated by Bush? Is he a communist/marxist too?

[Disclaimer]

Fact:

Hey' date=' Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.

[/i']

So, who broached the subject again?

[Bad324]

Seriously?

yea I'm pretty certain are best welder with most experience makes 150k. The newest guy with like a year of experience if that I want to say is just over 100k mark. The only downfall is good luck finding work if you're not in the union

[Casper]

So, who broached the subject again?

Fact:

Ummm, you turned this into a debate about bailouts. And speaking of semantics - moot.

You said I turned this into a debate. That was a false statement. You started the debate.

de·bate /diˈbāt/

Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

So obviously because one action was taken in one industry for a certain time period to prevent an economic catastrophe in that sector, Obama is a communist.

Got it.

So, explain the Wall Street bailouts initiated by Bush? Is he a communist/marxist too?

You presented the opposing argument, thus you started the debate.

[Disclaimer]

Again, you're wrong. Your Hugo Chavez quote was a rebuttal in a post where you QUOTED me, then presented an additional argument.

[Casper]

Again, you're wrong. Your Hugo Chavez quote was a rebuttal in a post where you QUOTED me, then presented an additional argument.

That was a debate about communism, not the difference between bank and automaker bailouts. You accused me of starting the debate about bailouts. You were wrong. Its been proven. Just face it, you got out-trolled amigo.

[Disclaimer]

Nevaaar!

The bailout (aka nationalization of GM) was the additional argument you presented as a rebuttal to an instance that makes Obama a communist.

And, keeping with the same vein as my original argument (that if one item makes Obama a communist, then other presidents are also communist), plus the additional one you added (the automaker bailout) -- I countered with the bank bailout.