American Politics during the Obama Presidency

BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, increases in working capital required to grow the business, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for the majority of industries. Oil and gas is very capital intensive.

I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a plus for the environment, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 in the USA much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.

I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.

First lets tackle the environmental issue since you seem to have glossed over it by saying it's insignificant. Let me ask you. How much fresh water is used in hydraulic fracturing? 150,000 gallons a day per job sound about right? Of course insignificant. And what happens to that water after the process is completed? And once that water becomes toxic waste, where does all that toxic water go?

I'm from California. I'll tell you where alot of this " insignificant " toxic waste goes.

" California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Aquifers ".

[URL]http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.propublica.org/article/ca-halts-injection-fracking-waste-warning-may-be-contaminating-aquifers[/URL]

[URL]http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/kern-gusher/x634489929/State-poised-to-shut-down-11-local-oil-injection-wells[/URL]

Also please tell me about the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that made the shale boom possible by exempting the new horizontal drilling technology from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act? I mean this isn't " scare mongering " (a quite odious and anti intellectual term if I ever heard one). These are facts and repeating facts to the public when their health and safety is at risk isn't scaremongering. It's one of the reasons we pay taxes (not to fund the shale oil boom). So that we are told when our fresh drinking water is being poisoned by industrial waste.

Now after these companies are done horizontally fracking the hell out of these sites what happens to the land? Is it stable to use for other purposes? Are giant sink holes a side effect of fracking? Higher instances of earthquakes maybe?

I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.

We can go back to the overal economics of fracking. Although I will admit I'm not an expert on the oil industry. I'll defer to T Boone Pickens on that one. I do understand how it works. My question was mainly rhetorical. And I guess your answer is they can show huge deficits on the books for various reasons and still be able to make a profit in real terms. I can understand that. But I also know that these fracking companies, all of them, were barely breaking even. I mean how profitable can you be if you're sinking in debt. Or is that the new normal? And that was with QE3 just giving away money to investors at zero interest rates, these companies selling 600 billion in junk rated bonds and 100 bucks a barrel oil. All these factors and these companies could barely break even on the books. Now tell me how are they going to do that now? How can these companies keep operating without FREE money? Keep giving any industry free money and they can keep operating and paying off the interest on its debts. Let them sell their extracted product at inflated prices and I'm sure the books won't look so bad. Allow them to keep refinancing those debts and let them sell junk bonds in the billions and sure, they will stay afloat. But that doesn't make them profitable and more importantly, what happens when you take those things away? I would like an honest answer.

Now lets be honest. At 45 dollars a barrel, the fracking industry isn't profitable. It simply isn't. Yes I know some wells have lower extraction costs but the reality is those wells are drying up. The cheapest oil is usually the first to be extracted. After that you are looking at anywhere between 70-120 USD in order to be " profitable " with an average of 85 a barrel.

Last question. Do you as an investor believe that oil prices will recover to that level in the next 12-18 months? Do you understand all the economic and geopolitical factors involved in order for that to become a reality? I'm just asking because I sure don't.

Bottom line. At 100 bucks a barrel you could make an argument for the fracking industry (obviously omitting the junk bonds and free QE money in your analysis). But at current prices, it just doesn't make any sense. It cheaper to buy the oil from our " buddies " in the GCC. What good is energy independence if it bankrupts our economy? Or creates a bubble so big that when it bursts it could bring down our entire economy with it? Wasn't 2008 a lesson for anyone?

I think the only hope these industries have left right now is QE4. And we all know who ends up footing the bill for that. But then again what's another 3 trillion among friends.

I guess it's true what someone told me the other day, the market doesn't really care about fundamentals anymore (or technicals or sentiment for that matter). The market only cares about what the FED will do next.

You can't have true capitalism with the Federal Reserve and you can't have a true free market with Quantitative easing. They distort and manipulate everything for the financial benefit of the few. To the detriment of the rest.

End rant.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;443495]BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, changes in working capital, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for most other industries.

I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a strong plus for the environment in the USA, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.

I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443497]
I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.
[/QUOTE]I probably know the science and engineering better than anyone who will read your post. I share your desire not to debate the issue with individuals who aren't knowledgeable.

There are costs and risks associated with all energy sources. The risks associated with natural gas are less than with the only current, realistic alternative, coal. And there's currently no alternative to oil for transportation fuels that's not outrageously expensive. Do you believe people are willing to pay $1000 a month for their monthly electric bills and to forego travel on airplanes? Because that's what it's going to take to create the world you want. Maybe there are a lot of people in California and Germany willing to make the sacrifice. Most of the rest of the world is not.

I'm assuming here that you're not a hypocrite, who believes it's great if Texans have gas wells in their backyards to produce the natural gas you consume. But you shouldn't have the view outside your kitchen window obscured by a windmill. If that's what you believe, then this isn't going to make much sense to you.

Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443499]Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.[/QUOTE]OK, you got it.

1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.

2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.

3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.

As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.

Your reply is what you call scientific and informed? Really? No links. No stats. No referenced studies. Nothing. Sounds like a standard reply to me. Nothing in depth. I was expecting more. As far as what's happened in California, what do you mean my sources? I picked the first links that came up on google. This news was all over the tv and internet a couple months ago. I guess that means you're not as informed as you think.

And to think this is an isolated event is naive at best. The environmental considerations aren't the same. Too much water and energy being used. Too much land being ruined. Too much polluted water to dispose of. Companies just inject it back in to the ground half the time because its cheaper than disposing of it properly. They got caught in California in the middle of a draught. Other than that I'm sure it would have gone unnoticed.

I notices you glossed over the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and what this deregulation has meant for fracking and the environment. I'm guessing you've never read it.

Fracking does cause sink holes. It's not laughable at all. Unless you can disprove it by scientific method. It's funny you seem to use the appeal to authority method in all your arguments yet you post nothing that can back up your premise. Literally nothing. You've appointed your self some sort of authority on the matter. LOL.

[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/20/are-humans-causing-more-sinkholes[/URL]

[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399929/Incredible-moment-Louisiana-sinkhole-swallows-40ft-high-trees-swamp.html[/URL]

And as far as earthquakes and tremors. Now were parsing and debating semantics. Yes it causes them. Large or small and the frequency is increasing.

As to the economics. You clearly didn't understand anything I posted so you called it ramblings. What conspiracy did I write about? Do tell. That when massive speculative bubbles burst, that will bring down our economy? LOL. That's exactly what happened in 2008. And if oil prices don't start climbing asap that's what's going to happen again. No conspiracy.

[URL]http://internationalbanker.com/comment/fracking-bubble-waiting-burst/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11259411/US-shale-boom-is-same-as-dotcom-bubble-says-Russian-oil-executive.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article48786.html[/URL]

Those darn conspiracy theorists. And just to clarify, these aren't my sources, just the first links that came up in a search. I wouldn't post my sources that would apparently be biased.

Im sure there is alot that you know but I'll stop now because it's clear you know and understand much less than you think you do. And simple science and theory becomes " laughable " and environmental hazards are " miniscule ". Let me guess, you must own stock?

Fsio.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;443500]OK, you got it.

1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.

2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.

3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.

As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.[/QUOTE]

Badman, about your California links, if some factories illegally dump waste into rivers, you don't close all the factories in the USA and move the jobs and production to China. This is not a hydraulic fracturing problem by the way. It's an oilfield waste problem that, in California, has very little to do with frac'ing. While hydraulic fracturing has been around for 60 years, it never took off in California like it has in some places in recent years.

The idea that hydraulic fracturing would cause sinkholes is hilarious. Sorry about the authority thing, but unless you want me to start posting links to textbooks and unless you're going to read them, I don't know exactly how to convince you. Basically sinkholes occur where you have karst. You don't frac karst, you don't need to -- flow rates from karsted reservoirs are among the highest in the world. You frac intervals that have very low permeability. The fracture doesn't result in a giant gaping hole. It results in a small parting of the earth, which is propped open by sand grains included in the frac fluid. And oftentimes the fractures close despite the sand grains. The width of a hydraulic fracture is a fraction of an inch.

Your main complaints aren't against hydraulic fracturing, they're against water injection, which is associated with all oilfield operations, regardless of whether the wells have been frac'ed. You appear to want a world with "0" risk, where no tremor is going to knock a glass off your table or no crooked or incompetent operator will inject oilfield waste into an aquifer. But you're probably not willing to live with the results, by giving up your car powered by gasoline, or air travel. And you'd probably be very unhappy with your electric bills if it were all generated by solar, wind and hydro. The renewables suffer from some of the same shortcomings that you attribute to oil and gas by the way, for example, the footprint on the land. There's no free lunch, and you're not willing to pay the price for what you want.

[QUOTE=Jackson;443389]More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.

First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.[/QUOTE]I understand the jobs and GDP numbers hurt, Jackson, because they provide irrefutable proof that what Fox News and Republicans told Americans about the ACA was a Big Lie. But calling the numbers propaganda isn't going to help your cause. These numbers are established metrics that have been calculated essentially the same way for decades across both Republican and Democratic presidents. They are widely followed in business and financial circles as measures of economic performance. If you said that other metrics like the LFPR are also important then that would be reasonable. But to say the numbers I mentioned don't count is a clearly farcical attempt at deflection. Man, you are going to have a tough time dealing with all the "propaganda" because it isn't just coming from the BLS but from numerous other sources like Gallup.

Mentions of Jobs as Top USA Problem at Six-Year Low
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/181136/mentions-jobs-top-problem-six-year-low.aspx[/URL]

In his further attempt at deflection, Jackson says we should be talking about Obama not attending the march in Paris. The most shallow and superficial story we've seen in years, peddled by serial Obama denigrators, and a handful of entertainers and media desperately competing for ratings. Apparently, the strong economic numbers don't count, but Obama missing a photo-op does. Folks, this is simply laughable. And if Obama had attended, we all know their story would then be that Obama wasted taxpayer money flying overseas for a symbolic photo-op.

With the unemployment rate now down to 5.6%, and 2014 the strongest year of job creation since 1999, it is clear that Americans were lied to by Fox News and Republicans about the ACA impact on jobs.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443491]We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.

My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.

I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.

Here's what a review of our post reveals.

The question was;.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]
What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the [highlight]next election given that their policies will always be liberal[/highlight] and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings?[/QUOTE]The answer:

[QUOTE=Punter127;441596]

The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". [highlight]Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.[/highlight]

1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

Individual freedom or rights, get it?[/QUOTE]The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.

I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.

It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443523]I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.

My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.

I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.

Here's what a review of our post reveals.

The question was;.

The answer:

The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.

I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.

It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.[/QUOTE]The answer is right here for you and my memory is fine. I will not be bothered to go search for a post that is readily available for you and all to see. Slim to none is as close to never as one will get but you are free to camouflage this issue as you like and the only mis-stating here is you but since you have shown that you will readily say one thing but do another as you did on two separate occasions that I pointed out to you, your mis-stating is hardly surprising. The language issue is about courteous posting, why do you have to spit fire and launch attacks when you disagree, that's my point but spin that however you like.

Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition. Bill O'Reilly also claims to be an independent but at every turn he attacks Democrats and look the other way at Republican's failures. No Democrat will try to convince him to vote for them as he is locked in for the right despite his claim, he also is not an undecided voter. Good to see you CAN respond without elevating the temperature of your post, even if it had to be pointed out to you, although you introduced points not in evidence. However, I will offer you your own suggestion of the ignore list as it may do well for your anger issues as you have issues with other posters here as well (beyond the policy disagreements) but I guess they're all wrong too. I take none of this seriously or personally so I have no need to put you or anyone else on any list. Nothing being said here will affect my life to the point where I need to elevate my blood pressure or attack anyone.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;443402]President Obama needs to have a pen with a lot of ink in it because he will be vetoeing a lot of bills from the GOP led House and Senate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter 127;443405]
Yes and that way he can build a legacy of being the President of no, now even the low information voters will be able to see who's really the do nothing obstructionist in Washington.[/QUOTE]

Of course an Independent who ignored his GOP years of being the party of no and obstructionists would now preemptively call out the other side for doing the same his party did for years. Yes, that too is hypocritical.

Punter, a mutual acquaintance told me you hail from the same state as I do. If you still vote there, you might want to consider the Democrat candidates for the Criminal Court of Appeals, especially for the positions where no Libertarian is running. I suspect they're more likely to implement the liberal ideals you and I believe in, although to be honest I've never studied the positions of the individual candidates.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443526] Slim to none is as close to never as one will get [snip][/QUOTE]Absolutely not, as a matter of fact it's a huge stretch when you consider "Slim to none" was a reply to a question about the next election, but of course you knew that before you made your fictitious statement, now didn't you, after all you're the one that wrote the question to begin with.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443526] Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition.[/QUOTE]You seem to be all over the page one post you say we were talking about "party affiliation" now your talking about "mind set." (Apples and oranges.)

What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be. I believe you have the two confused. I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?

Perhaps in the very beginning what you really meant to say or should have said was impartial voters and not Independent voters. If you had said impartial voters this discussion would have never taken place, but to say a person must be impartial before they can be considered an independent is simply laughable. I'll stick with the official definition of an independent such as that listed on wikipedia, which is a much better source than anything you've offered. You can continue to believe in your "accepted logical theory" or any other myth if you like.

This is my last reply to you on this subject because you've offered nothing to support your position, absolutely nothing. I may reply to the last section of your post where you "bothered" yourself to post quotes, if I get time, but only because it's a different topic.

But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.[/QUOTE]This is so rich and again hypocritical, you're lecturing me on honestly when you have a history of being called out by other posters here for your own dishonesty and telling "bold face lies". You've exhibited a pattern of saying one thing while doing another but now you're taking a moral high ground to lecture me, please, look in the mirror sir! A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it. You're in absolutely no position to lecture me about honesty with your track record here. I used your own words against you, I said what you said and came to a conclusion and offered plenty to support my point. You refused to accept them because of your ideology. So good to know that you know you're deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum, you should take note of it.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be.[/QUOTE]We've come full circle on this and you've made my point. Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no independent person could deny it. You chimed in and said you were independent and denied the statement. You made the independent claim presumably to give you credibility with the point you were making because being independent would somehow make you impartial. I said you were not independent because all your post here is about bashing Obama and the Democrats while elevating Republicans I told you that you had made up your mind and therefore not independent.

I did not seek you out and challenge your party affiliation, if I did then you could make the argument you 're making. I responded to you in the context of the original post and said you were an Obama / Democratic Party basher and therefore not independent, but all along it was in the context of this discussion. Now you're trying to spin it to your advantage. Bill O'Reilly does this nightly on his show and most fair minded people knows he is a shill and not independent despite his claim of being one. The fact that you now admit you're not an impartial voter is what the discussion was about all along and you know it because I told you that your bias against the Democrats meant you were not an independent as your mind was made up.

I also told you that if another poster here, claimed to be independent but bashed the GOP at every turn while praising the Democrats at will, you and others would rightly call him out for being a partisan. There's no denying that.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?[/QUOTE]You're so wrong about this! By default and by definition true independents are impartial unlike you. That's why they are independent because they don't vote party lines, they vote for the candidates they want or like not the party because they are true independents.

Fellow Mongers,

In my last post I said I would not reply to RcC on the subject of independent voters and I'm not going to, primarily because I think I've proven my point. But I am going to point out a few discrepancies in RcC's statements and you can judge for yourselves who is and who isn't being deceptive here.

Todays post;.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443623]A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it.[/QUOTE]Now the actual post.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443452]
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic![/QUOTE]Clearly stated as an observation and an opinion not an absolute fact. Note the word "seems".

RcC.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443463]I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.[/QUOTE]I replied with a clarification:

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. [/QUOTE]Apparently he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "seems".

Today he claims his original statement (the one that started all this) was:

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443623]Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no [highlight]independent person could deny it.[/highlight] [/QUOTE]And here is his real original statement:

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441532]Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion [highlight]no independent voter can deny.[/highlight] [/QUOTE]And my reply;.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441551]I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. [/QUOTE]I didn't state or imply impartiality.

RcC seems to have a very convenient memory, but he does make an excellent case for always being "bothered" to use actual quotes.

I'm fairly sure we'll have to endure at least one more unsubstantiated tirade from Mr. RcC. But as far as I'm concerned unless he can substantiate his claims his rants are meaningless.

Time to move on.

Thought some of you guys might like this. Bad Lip Reading of the 2012 Presidential Debates.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgmARwtptoo&sns=fb[/URL]